California Building Industry Association, Plaintiff and Respondent v. City of San Jose, Defendants And…

Summary

The court upheld San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance against a facial takings challenge. It held that requiring developers of qualifying residential projects to offer a percentage of units at affordable prices regulates the use of property rather than exacting a property interest, so the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine and heightened exactions review do not apply. The ordinance is instead valid if reasonably related to constitutionally permissible public-welfare purposes, including increasing affordable housing and promoting economically integrated development. Justice Werdergar, concurring, would treat the reasonable-relationship standard for legislatively prescribed mitigation fees as a due process standard, while Justice Chin, concurring, emphasized that the result depends on the ordinance not requiring developers to sell units below cost or provide subsidized housing.