In the case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of property owners, James and Marilyn Nollan. The couple had sought to replace a small bungalow on their beachfront lot with a larger house but were denied by the California Coastal Commission unless they allowed public access across their beach - an attempt to combat increasing privatization of beaches in Southern California. The court held that while states have power to regulate land use, there must be an "essential nexus" between any conditions imposed and legitimate state interests; here, requiring public access was not sufficiently related to any impacts caused by rebuilding the house. This decision established important precedent for so-called regulatory takings under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence: when government regulation goes too far it can constitute a taking for which just compensation is due.

In the dissenting opinion for Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to strike down a permit condition requiring public beach access was misguided. He contended that such conditions were common and necessary tools for managing land use and protecting natural resources, particularly in coastal areas where development could harm public interests like beach access or environmental conservation. Brennan also criticized the majority's application of "takings" law, arguing they had misinterpreted precedent by treating this case as a physical invasion rather than a regulation of property use. He believed their approach would create confusion and potentially undermine many legitimate government regulations on private property rights.