In 2024, in what was heralded as a big win for developers in California, the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent and held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential...more
Senate Bill 1080 (SB 1080) makes several pro-property rights changes to Florida Statutes that affect local governments’ ability to regulate land use. The bill amends the application and approval process for development...more
In the last legislative session, the Philadelphia City Council passed several significant bills affecting real estate development and zoning, which are important for property owners and developers to understand....more
The 2025 Texas Legislative Regular Session has wrapped up, introducing new laws that will directly affect real estate investors and developers starting September 1, 2025. Winstead continued its long-standing commitment to...more
On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the California Court of Appeal heard argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. You may recall that the California Court of Appeal previously held that legislatively enacted development impact fees...more
California stands at a pivotal juncture in 2025, confronting an array of environmental and housing challenges. As usual, the California State Legislature is considering numerous strategies to address these issues. This year’s...more
Senate Bill (SB) 937 (Wiener) went into effect on January 1, 2025. SB 937 eases the financial burden on residential developers by prohibiting local agencies from imposing fees on specified residential development projects...more
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 102 Moves Forward- On May 12, 2025, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 102 was referred to the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee. The draft legislation had originally been referred to the...more
The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more
On September 9, 2024, the Osceola Board of County Commissioners voted to approve an increase to County mobility impact fees, which will substantially increase the cost of development in the County. Impact fees are a one-time...more
On June 10, 2024, Associate Justice Jeffrey Karp, of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex (the “Court”), issued an important—and, to many licensed cannabis businesses in Massachusetts, surprising—ruling in the case of...more
The Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform held its first hearing on June 18, 2024, commencing its efforts to address California’s housing and climate crises by reforming the state’s land use permitting regime....more
Osceola County and St. Cloud have proposed increases to some of their impact fees as further discussed in “Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora Propose Massive Increases to Impact Fees”. After hosting required public...more
Osceola County, City of St. Cloud, and City of Mt. Dora are all set to vote on proposed increases to impact fees that, if approved, will substantially increase the cost of development in these jurisdictions. Below is...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024 issued a unanimous decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (144 S. Ct. 893), concluding that the "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more
In April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more
Recent developments in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, significant legislative changes, and legal actions have spotlighted the contentious issue of so-called community impact fees. These fees, which are intended to...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more