Abstract: The unconstitutional conditions doctrine dictates what a government can and cannot do when exercising its police powers to promote community interests. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence highlights a special application of the doctrine in the land use context, with Sheetz v. County of El Dorado recognizing constitutional scrutiny of legislative decisions. After decades of using its own analysis, Washington courts now use the federal approach in these cases. Land use exists at the forefront of Washington policies and the state maintains a sharp focus on the affordable housing crisis. One approach enacted at the local and state level is mandatory inclusionary zoning, which is ripe for constitutional scrutiny. This Comment forecasts the legal challenges Washington legislators will face after Sheetz and recommends that jurisdictions exercise caution accordingly. This Comment first provides an overview of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as it evolved over the course of a century before isolating land-use decisions. Then, this Comment discusses Washington’s approach to deciding unconstitutional conditions disputes and the state’s most prominent inclusionary zoning policy. The shortcomings of previous mandatory inclusionary zoning programs combined with renewed constitutional scrutiny of those measures demand a more flexible approach to housing. However, the course of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine also illustrates a shift from trust in governments’ protection of their citizens to an emphasis on individual property rights.
This Comment concludes with two arguments: (1) courts should afford local governments more deference in their land-use decisions, and (2) inclusionary zoning policies should account for alternatives and previous shortcomings.
