The U.S. Supreme Court won't weigh in on a California dispute over the payments some municipalities require developers to make to support low-income housing.

The justices on Monday denied review in 616 Croft Ave. v. West Hollywood, a challenge to that city's “inclusionary zoning” policy that required builders of an 11-unit condominium in 2011 to pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to help subsidize construction of low-income housing elsewhere in the city. In some instances, builders instead are required to sell 20 percent of their units at below-market prices.

Owners Shelah and Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer paid the fee in protest and went to court. But they ran up against state court precedents allowing such “exactions.” The California Court of Appeal in the West Hollywood case ruled that the housing fee was a valid way to “enhance the public welfare,” and did not have to be “reasonably related” to the impact of the development itself on the city's affordable housing needs. The California Supreme Court did not review the decision.

The owners completed the condominium project in 2015. One of the units is for sale at the price of $2,060,000, according to Zillow.

Similar fee-for-permit policies are “increasingly prevalent” in more than 500 municipalities in California and across the nation, according to a brief filed by scholars of land use regulation. Andrew Grossman of Baker & Hostetler is counsel of record on the brief.

The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition asking the high court to reverse the California court, calling the fee online a “state license to steal.”

Foundation lawyer Brian Hodges, counsel of record on the petition, asserted that the California decision ran contrary to a line of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on “unconstitutional conditions,” culminating with the 1987 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission ruling. Those precedents, the foundation argues, require that fees like those imposed by West Hollywood have to bear “rough proportionality” to the impact the development could have.

Representing West Hollywood, Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken urged the justices not to review the case, claiming the California court resolved the case in a way that would not be affected by a Supreme Court decision. Lamken argued that the case was decided on state, not federal grounds, and “does not even appear to rest on an issue of federal law at all.”

The U.S. Supreme Court won't weigh in on a California dispute over the payments some municipalities require developers to make to support low-income housing.

The justices on Monday denied review in 616 Croft Ave. v. West Hollywood, a challenge to that city's “inclusionary zoning” policy that required builders of an 11-unit condominium in 2011 to pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to help subsidize construction of low-income housing elsewhere in the city. In some instances, builders instead are required to sell 20 percent of their units at below-market prices.

Owners Shelah and Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer paid the fee in protest and went to court. But they ran up against state court precedents allowing such “exactions.” The California Court of Appeal in the West Hollywood case ruled that the housing fee was a valid way to “enhance the public welfare,” and did not have to be “reasonably related” to the impact of the development itself on the city's affordable housing needs. The California Supreme Court did not review the decision.

The owners completed the condominium project in 2015. One of the units is for sale at the price of $2,060,000, according to Zillow.

Similar fee-for-permit policies are “increasingly prevalent” in more than 500 municipalities in California and across the nation, according to a brief filed by scholars of land use regulation. Andrew Grossman of Baker & Hostetler is counsel of record on the brief.

The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition asking the high court to reverse the California court, calling the fee online a “state license to steal.”

Foundation lawyer Brian Hodges, counsel of record on the petition, asserted that the California decision ran contrary to a line of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on “unconstitutional conditions,” culminating with the 1987 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission ruling. Those precedents, the foundation argues, require that fees like those imposed by West Hollywood have to bear “rough proportionality” to the impact the development could have.

Representing West Hollywood, Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken urged the justices not to review the case, claiming the California court resolved the case in a way that would not be affected by a Supreme Court decision. Lamken argued that the case was decided on state, not federal grounds, and “does not even appear to rest on an issue of federal law at all.”