Home Builders Association v. City of Napa
Court of Appeal of California
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 60 (2001)
After extensive study and community input on an affordable housing shortage, Napa (defendant) passed an ordinance requiring developers to make 10% of new units affordable, with options to instead donate land, build affordable units elsewhere, or pay an in-lieu fee (subject to city council discretion for multi-family developments), plus benefits like expedited processing and density bonuses for compliant projects, and the possibility of a full waiver where no relationship existed between a development's impact and the requirement. The Home Builders Association (plaintiff) sued, claiming the ordinance was facially unconstitutional as an uncompensated taking, and the trial court sustained a demurrer dismissing the complaint.
Whether a generally applicable zoning ordinance is facially invalid under the Takings Clause if it substantially advances an important governmental interest.