In 2013, the Supreme Court concluded that monetary exactions must be considered with the same judicial scrutiny as land exactions. Land exactions are required contributions from an individual to a government entity in exchange for approval to develop real property. Land exactions proposed by regulatory bodies must be roughly proportional and bear a nexus to the development permit requested, otherwise the exaction constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, the Supreme Court extended the nexus/rough proportionality test to instances in which government bodies impose monetary conditions on land development. This Comment argues that it was unwise for the Court to apply this strict test to monetary exactions. The Court’s holding might create a chilling effect on land use permitting by incentivizing officials to deny development applications to avoid legal risk, rather than attempt to impose appropriate mitigation conditions.