California Civil Code (CC) Archives

Keeping Your Association Above Water: Pool Rules and Required Signage

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Keeping Your Association Above Water: Pool Rules and Required Signage

With temperatures warming up, that means pool season is right around the corner. Certainly, community association board members and management staff alike hope residents and guests utilize and enjoy the pool area. It is essential to the safety of a community to implement reasonable rules which comply with the law regarding use of the pool area to ensure the pool area remains a safe and positive environment for all residents and their guests to relax and enjoy the beautiful weather Southern California has to offer.

Required Signage

Today, associations with pools and/or spas are required to post “No Lifeguard” and “Caution” signs pursuant to Sections 3120B.4 and 3120B.7 of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to 2019, Cal. Code Regs. § 3120B.4 required “No Lifeguard on Duty” signs to state “NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY” in addition to “Children under the age of 14 shall not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance.” However, a US District Court in California found that such restrictions (and signage) discriminated against families with children (protected by federal and state fair housing laws), in that it treated families with children differently and less favorably than adult-only households. (See United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates (2003).)

Accordingly, in 2019, Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3120B.4 and 30120B.7 were amended to remove the discriminatory language from the required signage. After the 2019 update, the required verbiage changed to “NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY” followed by “Children should not use pool without adult supervision.” Similarly, the “Caution” sign verbiage for spas changed from “Unsupervised use by children under the age of 14 is prohibited” to “Children should not use spa without adult supervision.” (See Cal. Code Regs. § 3120B.7 for additional required verbiage.)

Although 2019 may feel like a lifetime ago, many community associations may still have signage with the pre-2019 discriminatory language posted within their pool/spa areas. If your association falls into this category, your association should contact its legal counsel and take action to update the expired signage to remove any discriminatory language and comply with the law.

What to Include in Your Pool and Spa Rules

When crafting rules governing use of the pool and spa, the board should be sure to create rules with a behavior-focused lens; meaning that rules should focus on the behavior or conduct of those using the pool/spa area as opposed to the characteristics of those using the pool/spa area. For example, pool/spa rules should focus on conduct which causes safety concerns, such as no running on the pool deck, no alcohol in the pool/spa area, no glass containers in the pool/spa area, no diving, and requiring proper swim attire, etc. Rather than prohibiting more generally the play of young people, for example, “No horseplay.”

It may also be a good idea to clearly identify any applicable hours of operation, access requirements (i.e. key/keycard required for access, sign-in upon entry, etc.), and any guest policies in place (i.e. guests must be accompanied by a resident/owner).

What Not to Include in You Pool and Spa Rules

It is also important to note what not to include within your association’s pool and spa rules. The board should be sure not to adopt rules that cannot be enforced and/or may expose the association to liability.

When creating rules, the board should avoid any reference to specific ages, familial dynamics, or any other potentially discriminatory language. Although restrictive pool and spa rules may be well-intentioned, such discriminatory language may expose an association to potential claims of violation of fair housing laws. Furthermore, such discriminatory language would only be acceptable if the association could successfully argue a compelling business necessity and the language is “the least restrictive means to achieve that end,” (Fair Housing Council v. Ayres, 855 F. Supp. 315, 318-19 (C.D.Cal.1994), which is an uphill and expensive battle.

As mentioned above, the key when creating pool/spa rules is to focus on behavior rather than specific characteristics of pool users. If you have any questions regarding your association’s pool/spa rules, it is recommended the board consult with legal counsel.

ARROYO V. PACIFIC RIDGE Expanding the Reach of “Association Media”

Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID

Share this article:

ARROYO V. PACIFIC RIDGE Expanding the Reach of “Association Media”

*Article originally published in CAI-SD Community Insider Magazine, Summer 2026

Conducting an association election is complex, and the recent California Court of Appeal decision in Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Association reinforces that associations must prioritize fairness even if that means distributing opposing viewpoints.

In Arroyo, a recalled director, plaintiff Rachel Arroyo, challenged her removal from the board, arguing, among other things, that the defendant association failed to provide equal access to association media during the recall election as required by Civil Code section 5105.

After a recall petition to remove Ms. Arroyo was received, the board scheduled an election and invited candidate statements from individuals seeking to fill the potential vacancy. These statements were distributed with the election materials. Ms. Arroyo submitted a statement opposing the recall and requested it be included with the ballot. The Inspector of Elections denied Ms. Arroyo’s request because she was not a candidate. As a result, members received only the statement of a replacement candidate, not Ms. Arroyo’s defense.

Ms. Arroyo argued this violated the equal-access requirement under Civil Code section 5105(a)(1), which mandates that if any member is given access to association media to advocate a position related to an election, equal access must be provided to all members advocating a viewpoint.

The appellate court agreed. It held that the distributed candidate statement qualified as “association media” because it was a communication sent by the association during a campaign to influence voting. Therefore, the association was required to provide Ms. Arroyo equal opportunity to present her perspective. The court concluded that the association should have allowed Ms. Arroyo to include a statement defending herself against the recall with the election materials.

This decision offers important guidance for boards navigating election communications, particularly for those seeking to limit the association’s role in distributing member viewpoints during elections. Arroyo provides the following major takeaways that boards should carefully consider when holding elections:

1. “Association media” is interpreted broadly
Any communication an association sends to members during an election that can influence voting may trigger equal-access obligations. In Arroyo, even a candidate statement distributed with election materials qualified. Boards should take care to limit election-related communications distributed by the association to strictly informational, unless they are prepared to provide equal access to all members who wish to express their point of view.
Ultimately, associations may want to reconsider whether to include advocacy materials (like candidate statements) in official election mailings at all, or adopt clear, neutral policies that provide equal opportunity for all viewpoints if they do.

2. The impact likely extends beyond recall elections
While Arroyo involved a recall, the reasoning is based on the language of Civil Code section 5105(a)(1), which applies to all association elections. This means the same equal-access principles could apply in director elections, special assessment measures, or other membership votes. Boards should review election procedures across the board, not just recall protocols, to ensure compliance.

When “No” is not an Option A short Tutorial on Levying Emergency Assessments

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Shareholder
Co-Chair of the Transactional Department

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

When “No” is not an Option A short Tutorial on Levying Emegency Assessments

Civil Code section 5610, which was amended as of January 1, 2025, identifies certain circumstances under which a board can impose a special assessment without the approval of the members even if that special assessment, on its own, or when combined with any other special assessments levied during the same fiscal year, will exceed five percent (5%) of the association’s budgeted gross expenses for that fiscal year.

What Qualifies as an Emegency

The three (3) categories of expenses that qualify for an emergency assessment are:

An extraordinary expense required by an order of a court.
An extraordinary expense necessary to operate, repair, or maintain the common interest development or any part of it for which the association is responsible where a threat to personal health or safety or another hazardous condition or circumstance on the property is discovered.
An extraordinary expense necessary to repair or maintain the common interest development or any part of it for which the association is responsible that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the board in preparing and distributing the last annual budget report.

Requirements for Levying an Emegency Assessment

The board must pass a written resolution approving the emergency assessment at a duly noticed open session board meeting, and the board vote to impose the emergency assessment must be on the agenda. Additionally, the membership must be given written notice of the emergency assessment via individual delivery no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days before the emergency assessment becomes due.

If the emergency assessment is being imposed to cover an extraordinary repair or maintenance expense that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the board at the time the most recent budget was prepared and distributed, the board resolution approving the assessment must contain the findings as to the necessity of the extraordinary expense and why the expense was not or could not have been reasonably foreseen in the budgeting process. A copy of this resolution must be included with the notice of the emergency assessment that must be given to the membership between 30 and 60 days prior to the due date for that emergency assessment.

PRACTICE TIP: If there is any doubt whether an expense qualifies for an emergency assessment under Civil Code section 5610, check with the association’s legal counsel. Better to know up front that an emergency assessment is not appropriate than take the chance of a member successfully challenging the legality of the assessment later on.

Woodbridge and Bird Rock: Two 2025 Cases with Major Association Implications

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Shareholder
Transactional Department Co-Chair

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Woodbridge and Bird Rock: Two 2025 Cases with Major Association Implications

*Article originally published in CACM The Law Journal, Spring 2026

A number of California court cases were decided in 2025 that managers and their boards should be aware of. Among these cases are 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Assn. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (“Woodbridge”) and Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Breaking Ground, LP (“Bird Rock”).

Woodbridge

In Woodbridge, the association hired a contractor to replace the complex’s roof. While approximately 80% of the roof membrane was removed, a rainstorm hit, damaging the exposed insulation and plywood, and allowing water to enter some of the units. The roofer subsequently removed and replaced the damaged insulation and plywood, added a layer of base paper and base felt, and hot-mopped and tarred most of the roof. The roofer also covered the roof with tarps in anticipation of another rainstorm. The second rainstorm dislodged the tarps, and rainwater penetrated the exposed felt layer and entered all of the units.

The Association had an “all risks” policy with Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”). The association tendered a claim to Farmers for both the water damage to the units and the roofing work after the first storm and again after the second storm.

Farmers hired an expert to inspect the roof. The expert opined that the tarps that had been used were too small and that the roofer had violated industry standards by removing 80% of the roof at the same time.

Farmers denied the associations’ claims, citing the “water damage” and “faulty workmanship” exclusions contained in the policy.

The association sued Farmers for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (i.e., for the bad faith denial of the claim). The association also sued the contractor.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers (i.e., the court ruled in favor of Farmers based on motion papers, before the trial), concluding that the association’s losses were not covered under the policy because of the water damage and faulty workmanship exclusions contained therein. The association appealed the court’s decision.

The California Court of Appeal (“Court”) reviewed the case and reversed the ruling on the summary judgment motion.

The Court held that there was always a roof on the building because “roof” was not a defined term in the policy, and only certain layers of roofing material had been removed when the damage occurred; so the rain damage was covered. Accordingly, the water exclusion did not bar coverage.

As to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion, the Court found the term to be ambiguous because it could refer to faulty or negligent work and/or a faulty or negligent process. Accordingly, the Court found that coverage was not unambiguously excluded and, therefore, there were triable issues of material fact.

Because the Court found that there was a reasonable interpretation of the policy language under which the association had coverage, the Court reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the original trial judge so that a full trial could be conducted.

Prior to Woodbridge, there has only been one “all-risk” insurance case decided in California arising out of damage during roof repairs (Diep v. California Fair Plan Assn.). In the Diep case, the insurance company prevailed on summary judgment. The Court looked at the Diep case, but also looked to other states’ decisions on all-risk insurance coverage. Ultimately, the Court decided to follow the cases from New York, New Jersey, and Oregon.

This case is under review by the California Supreme Court, so the outcome of this case could change.

What are the key takeaways from this case? You should tender insurance claims early and often, as it is not always easy to tell whether there might be coverage. Your boards should also hire qualified experts to advise them on matters that are of great importance to their associations, including experts on evaluating denied insurance claims.

Bird Rock

In Bird Rock, homeowners defaulted on the payment of their assessments, leading the association’s trustee to record a lien and initiate a foreclosure sale under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and the association’s CC&Rs. At the initial trustee’s sale, Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC (“BRHM”) submitted the highest bid and tendered payment. However, the trustee kept the bidding open after the sale pursuant to Civil Code § 2924m, which extends the bidding period for up to 45 days for certain residential foreclosure sales to allow “eligible bidders” to match or exceed the highest bid. During this extended period, Breaking Ground, LP (“BGLP”) (an eligible bidder through its nonprofit partner) submitted a larger bid and received the trustee’s deed.

BRHM sued, arguing that Civil Code § 2924m does not apply to association lien foreclosures because such liens are not “mortgages” or “deeds of trust” under the statute.

The trial court ruled against BRHM, and BRHM appealed.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding, finding that the association’s CC&Rs, which created a contractual lien for unpaid assessments enforceable via nonjudicial foreclosure under Civil Code § 2924 et seq., met the statutory definition of a “mortgage” as a security interest in property for performance of an obligation (e.g., the payment of assessments), regardless of whether such liens constitute traditional home loans.

What are the key takeaways from this case? Assessment liens can be treated as mortgages for foreclosure purposes if the CC&Rs grant the association the power to lien for unpaid assessments and the power to sell the separate interest to enforce the lien. Winning bids at association foreclosure sales may not be final for up to 45 days. The commencement of the 90-day redemption period will be delayed if the bidding period is extended. The initial high bid may not determine the final sale proceeds if the bidding period is extended.

Practice Tips:

Obtain and keep a complete copy of your associations’ insurance policies, including any exclusions and riders so they are readily available for review.
When tendering a claim, be sure you are complying with all requirements imposed under the policy for tendering claims. Tender the claim in writing and retain a copy for the association’s records.
Because the laws pertaining to assessment collection are continually evolving and the potential liability for violating these laws can be significant, your boards should not attempt to perform any assessment collection activities themselves beyond conducting the votes needed to lien and foreclose against delinquent properties.

Automated License Plate Reader Cameras and Mandatory Policies

Emily A. Long, Esq.

Coachella Valley Office Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Flock cameras and other Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) cameras have been used for 10 years or more by cities and law enforcement. More recently, ALPR cameras have become popular in community associations due to the cameras becoming more affordable, smaller, and easier to install. As to community associations, ALPRs allow for easy entry into gated communities by capturing still images of a vehicle’s license plate, not video, that are extracted by artificial intelligence for cataloging and retrieval purposes and allow access to residents if on an approved list. Pictures also may include the make, year, model, and color of a vehicle. Depending on the angle of the camera, the vehicle’s occupants also may be discernible.

In California, the use of ALPRs is governed by Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.55, which require that all persons operating an ALPR system maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. “Persons” include an “association” or “corporation” under the statute, meaning that community associations are required to maintain these security procedures required under law.

Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2) also requires community associations and other ALPR operators to implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. This policy must address various enumerated subjects, including the authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information; a description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws; the purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons; and the length of time ALPR information will be retained. The policy must be made available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has a website, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on the community association’s or other operator’s website.

In the 1st District Court of Appeal case, Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., 118 Cal. App. 5th 438, Brendan Bartholomew sued Parking Concepts, Inc. alleging that it automatically collected his license plate information when Bartholomew parked his vehicle in its parking garage without implementing and making publicly available a policy regarding the collection and use of the data collected in violation of Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5-1798.90.55.

The Court agreed that the collection and use of Bartholomew’s license plate data without implementing a statutorily required privacy policy, constituted harm in and of itself. There was no need for Bartholomew to prove damages in that Parking Concepts illegally shared Bartholomew’s license plate data or used it for any particular purpose.As a result, if your community uses ALPR cameras and does not have a privacy policy that is accessible to community residents on your website, the association should work with its ALPR vendor and/or community association legal counsel to prepare and adopt such a privacy policy.

From Proposal to Policy: Navigating the Twenty-Eight-Day Review and Comment Period

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Regularly reviewing and updating community rules and policies is one of the most effective ways a community association can promote clarity, consistency, and harmony within the association. Over time, laws evolve, community needs shift, and previously well-intended rules may become outdated or impractical. By proactively evaluating their operating procedures, boards can ensure their associations’ rules and policies remain legally compliant, reflect current best practices, and continue to support their communities’ long-term goals.

With that in mind, understanding the statutory process for adopting or amending common interest development association rules and policies is critical for boards to ensure effective and compliant governance.

California Civil Code section 4360 grants members of an association a twenty-eight (28) day period to review and comment on most rules and rule amendments prior to their adoption. This means, before a board can formally vote to adopt a proposed operating rule or proposed policy, the board must first allow the members to review the proposed rule or policy and provide their questions and/or comments to the board.

To begin this process, the board must provide written notice of the proposed rule change to all members at least twenty-eight (28) days before the date of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule or policy. This notice must include the text of the proposed rule/policy, an explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rule/policy and the date, time, and location of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule/policy. During this twenty-eight (28) day period, the members may review the proposed rule/policy and submit their comments on the proposed rule/policy to the board for its consideration.

When considering comments received from the members, the board should keep in mind that while it must review and consider all comments received, it is not required by law to revise the proposed rule or policy in direct response to comments received. Unless, of course, the comments identify aspects of the rule that would make the proposed rule/policy invalid or unenforceable, as further detailed in Civil Code section 4350. For example, if the board receives a comment from a member identifying some aspect of the rule/policy that would conflict with governing law or the association’s governing documents, the board must revise the rule/policy to address this conflict. Otherwise, after considering all comments received from the membership at an open board meeting, a board may choose to move forward with the proposed rule or policy as originally drafted.

After the twenty-eight (28) day comment period comes to a close, the board may vote to formally adopt the rule at an open board meeting. Once the board has formally adopted a rule/policy, the board must provide the members with general notice of the rule change within fifteen (15) days after making the rule change.

Keep in mind that if your association’s governing documents require a longer than twenty-eight (28) day comment period, that longer period of time may apply despite the twenty-eight (28) day time period stated in Civil Code section 4360(a). When considering adopting or amending a new rule or policy, it is recommended the board consult with the association’s legal counsel to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned statutory requirements and the association’s governing documents.

Civil Code § 799.13. Mobilehomes; Covenants Restricting Use of Cooling Systems Are Void

California Civil Code > Civil Code § 799.13. Mobilehomes; Covenants Restricting Use of Cooling Systems Are Void

(a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any rental agreement or other instrument affecting the tenancy of a homeowner or resident in a subdivision, cooperative, or condominium for mobilehomes, or resident-owned mobilehome park that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system in a mobilehome is void and unenforceable.

(b) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), ownership or management shall not prohibit or restrict a homeowner or resident from installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a cooling system in their mobilehome. Management shall not do any of the following:

(A) Charge any fee to a homeowner or resident in connection with the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system.

(B) Require a homeowner or resident to use a specific cooling system, type of cooling system, or cooling system contractor or product.

(C) Claim or receive any rebate, credit, or commission in connection with a homeowner’s or resident’s installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system.

(D) Require homeowners or residents to remove cooling systems or prevent replacements or upgrades to existing cooling systems.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if ownership or management establishes any of the following:

(A) The installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of the cooling system would violate federal, state, or local law.

(B) A permit from a designated permitting authority is required for the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of the cooling system, and that permit is not granted.

(C) The amperage required to power any individual cooling system cannot be accommodated by the power service to the lot, as demonstrated in writing by a federal, state, or local governmental enforcement authority.

(c) For purposes of this section, “cooling system” can include, but is not limited to, a portable air-conditioning unit, a window air-conditioning unit, a swamp cooler or any evaporative cooler, a cooling fan system, a heat pump, or any other technology that reasonably creates an internal temperature cooling benefit. A cooling system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by law.

(d) The tenancy of a homeowner or resident shall not be terminated for the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system as permitted under this section.

(e) Any entity that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the homeowner, resident, or other party for actual damages occasioned thereby, and shall pay a civil penalty to the homeowner, resident, or other party in an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(f) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. [2025]

Effective as of January 1, 2026

Civil Code §1940.45. Display of Religious Items on Entry Door or Entry Door Frame

California Civil Code > Civil Code §1940.45. Display of Religious Items on Entry Door or Entry Door Frame

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, a property owner shall not enforce or adopt a restrictive covenant or any other restriction that prohibits one or more religious items from being displayed or affixed on any entry door or entry door frame of a dwelling.

(b) To the extent permitted by Article 1, Section 4, of the California Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, this section does not prohibit the enforcement or adoption of a restrictive covenant or other restriction prohibiting the display or affixing of a religious item on any entry door or entry door frame to a dwelling that:

(1) Threatens the public health or safety.

(2) Hinders the opening or closing of any entry door.

(3) Violates any federal, state, or local law.

(4) Contains graphics, language or any display that is obscene or otherwise illegal.

(5) Individually or in combination with any other religious item displayed or affixed on any entry door or door frame that has a total size greater than 36 by 12 square inches, provided it does not exceed the size of the door.

(c) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Property owner” means all of the following:

(A) An association, as that term is defined in Section 4080.

(B) A board, as that term is defined in Section 4085.

(C) A member, as that term is defined in Section 4160.

(D) A landlord, as that term is defined in Section 1940.8.5.

(E) A sublessor.

(2) “Religious item” means an item displayed because of sincerely held religious beliefs. [2019]

Civil Code § 798.3. Mobilehome Defined

California Civil Code > Civil Code §798.3. Mobilehome Defined

(a) “Mobilehome” is a structure designed for human habitation and for being moved on a street or highway under permit pursuant to Section 35790 of the Vehicle Code. Mobilehome includes a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, and a mobilehome, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, but, except as provided in subdivision (b), does not include a recreational vehicle, as defined in Section 799.29 of this code and Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code or a commercial coach as defined in Section 18001.8 of the Health and Safety Code.

(b) “Mobilehome,” for purposes of this chapter, other than Section 798.73, also includes trailers and other recreational vehicles of all types defined in Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, other than motor homes, truck campers, and camping trailers, which are used for human habitation if the occupancy criteria of either paragraph (1) or (2), as follows, are met:

(1) The trailer or other recreational vehicle occupies a mobilehome site in the park, on November 15, 1992, under a rental agreement with a term of one month or longer, and the trailer or other recreational vehicle occupied a mobilehome site in the park prior to January 1, 1991.

(2) The trailer or other recreational vehicle occupies a mobilehome site in the park for nine or more continuous months commencing on or after November 15, 1992.

“Mobilehome” does not include a trailer or other recreational vehicle located in a recreational vehicle park subject to Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20). [2005]

Civil Code § 714.3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units

California Civil Code > Civil Code §714.3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units

(a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) of Chapter 13 or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division of Title 7 of the Government Code is void and unenforceable.

(b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units. For purposes of this subdivision, “reasonable restrictions” means restrictions that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. “Reasonable restrictions” shall not include any fees or other financial requirements. [2025].

Effective as of January 1, 2026