Colorado § 29-20-203 - Conditions on land-use approvals.

§ 29-20-203. Conditions on land-use approvals.

(1) In imposing conditions upon the granting of land-use approvals, no local government shall require an owner of private property to dedicate real property to the public, or pay money or provide services to a public entity in an amount that is determined on an individual and discretionary basis, unless there is an essential nexus between the dedication or payment and a legitimate local government interest, and the dedication or payment is roughly proportional both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed use or development of such property. This section shall not apply to any legislatively formulated assessment, fee, or charge that is imposed on a broad class of property owners by a local government.

(1.5) When requiring an owner of private property to dedicate real property to the public, if the subject property does not meet local government standards for dedication as determined by the local government, including dedication to the parks, trails, or open space systems, a local government shall provide the private property owner the option of paying a fee in lieu of dedication.

(2) No local government shall impose any discretionary condition upon a land-use approval unless the condition is based upon duly adopted standards that are sufficiently specific to ensure that the condition is imposed in a rational and consistent manner.

(3) Notwithstanding any other law, at any time before an election is ordered pursuant to section 31-11-104, a municipality may seek a judicial determination as to the legality of a proposed land use ordinance that restricts or limits the development or use of land submitted to the legislative body pursuant to section 31-11-104 with regard to any provision of the United States constitution or the state constitution, this section, article 68 of title 24, or section 29-20-104.2. The owners of property specifically subject to the proposed ordinance and persons designated as representing the petition proponents pursuant to section 31-11-106 (2) shall be entitled to intervene in the proceeding. The time period to adopt an initiated ordinance or call an election pursuant to section 31-11-104 (1) shall be tolled during the pendency of any action filed pursuant to this subsection (3) including any appeal.

Source: L. 99: Entire part added, p. 587, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2001, 2nd Ex. Sess.: (1) amended, p. 30, § 6, effective November 6. L. 2024: (1.5) added, (HB 24-1313), ch. 168, p. 868, § 3, effective May 13. L. 2025: (3) added, (HB 25-1093), ch. 48, p. 217, § 2, effective August 6.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings", see 28 Colo. Law. 83 (Nov. 1999).

Practical effects of this part 2 was to codify the test for regulatory takings announced by the United States supreme court in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). These opinions established the presumption that a local government that conditions approval of a proposed development on an exaction of property effects a compensable taking. This presumption can be overcome only if the local government proves that (1) there is an "essential nexus" between the dedication or payment and a legitimate government interest; and (2) the dedication or payment is "roughly proportional" both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed use or development of such property. Consequently, under this section, a local government that requires a landowner to "dedicate real property to the public or pay money or provide services to a public entity in an amount that is determined on an individualized and discretionary basis" must first satisfy each prong of the Nollan/Dolan test. Wolf Ranch, LLC v. City of Colo. Springs, 220 P.3d 559 (Colo. 2009).

City's decision to condition landowner's land-use permit on the payment of drainage fees falls outside of ambit of this part 2. Drainage fee assessed upon landowner by city falls under the exception of subsection (1) for legislatively formulated fees that are imposed upon a broad class of property owners. Wolf Ranch, LLC v. City of Colo. Springs, 220 P.3d 559 (Colo. 2009).