Zoning & Land Use  ·  October 3, 2026

The California Builder's Remedy After AB 1893: What Neighbors and Owners Can Litigate in Los Angeles

A project far larger than the zoning allows has been proposed next door, and the city says its hands may be tied. Or you own a lot in a California city whose housing element has lost compliance, and you want to know whether you can build more than the zoning allows. Both questions lead to the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, and the part of it known as the "builder's remedy."

When a city or county does not have a housing element in "substantial compliance" with state law on the date a qualifying project's application is "deemed complete," Section 65589.5 takes away the city's power to deny that project because it conflicts with local zoning and the general plan. AB 1893 (Chapter 268, Statutes of 2024), effective January 1, 2025, rewrote the remedy with specific affordability, density and procedural rules. It is not a blank check: health and safety, other state and federal law, objective standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Coastal Act and short deadlines still apply, and each can become a lawsuit.

What is the builder's remedy, and when does a California city lose the power to deny on zoning grounds?

The builder's remedy is the rule in Government Code Section 65589.5 that a city without a substantially compliant housing element on the date a qualifying application is deemed complete cannot deny a "builder's remedy project" for inconsistency with its zoning ordinance and general plan. The city keeps only the other, narrower denial grounds in subdivision (d), each requiring written findings.

Subdivision (d) says a local agency "shall not disapprove" a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or condition it in a way that makes it infeasible, "unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record," as to one of six grounds. Two turn on the housing element:

• Paragraph (5): the jurisdiction had a substantially compliant housing element on the deemed-complete date, and the project was inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the general plan land use designation (with an exception for housing element sites, at the density the element specifies).
• Paragraph (6): on the deemed-complete date, the jurisdiction "did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder's remedy project."

Who decides whether a housing element is "in substantial compliance"?

Under Government Code Section 65585.03, added by AB 1886 (2024), an adopted housing element is in substantial compliance when either the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) finds it compliant and that finding has not been superseded, or a court determines that it complies. A city's own declaration is not one of the two routes. HCD's finding can itself be superseded by a court decision.

Is Los Angeles in compliance right now?

We have not confirmed the status of the City of Los Angeles or other Los Angeles County cities from an HCD source as of October 3, 2026. Check HCD's Housing Element Review and Compliance Report (hcd.ca.gov, Housing Open Data Tools). Because the legal question is status on the deemed-complete date, check the HCD findings in effect on that date, not just today's.

What can a neighbor or HOA still challenge on a builder's remedy project in Los Angeles?

A neighbor or HOA in Los Angeles cannot defeat a builder's remedy project merely because it exceeds the zoning or general plan. Under Government Code Section 65589.5, what survives are challenges to eligibility, specific health and safety impacts, other state or federal law, objective standards, and CEQA and Coastal Act compliance, all subject to short filing deadlines.

Objections the Housing Accountability Act still allows

1. Eligibility. The project must actually meet subdivision (h)(11): the required affordability, density between the statutory minimum and maximum, a jurisdiction that lacked a substantially compliant housing element on or after the date the application was deemed complete (subdivision (h)(11)(B)), and a site that does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use or a Title V industrial use (as defined in Section 65913.16). Qualification fights under state housing laws often turn on specific statutory facts, as our article on the first SB 79 lawsuits illustrates for a different statute.
2. Health and safety, or other law. Under subdivision (d)(2), the city may deny if the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The statute defines that impact as a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." Zoning inconsistency is not such an impact, and general objections to traffic, parking or neighborhood character rarely fit. Subdivision (d)(3) separately allows denial where specific state or federal law requires it and there is no feasible way to comply without making the project unaffordable or financially infeasible. Subdivision (d)(4) also covers a project proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land in those uses, "or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project."
3. Objective standards that still apply. Under subdivision (f)(6)(A), the city may only apply the objective standards that would have applied under a general plan designation and zoning that allow the proposed density and unit type. Under subdivision (f)(6)(B), the city may not apply standards that render the project infeasible or preclude construction as proposed after density bonus law, and the city bears the burden of proof.
4. CEQA and the Coastal Act. Subdivision (e) states that Section 65589.5 does not relieve the local agency from complying with CEQA or the California Coastal Act of 1976. A separate exemption may apply, such as the infill housing exemption in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (added in 2025), whose text includes specific conditions for builder's remedy projects; whether a project fits is project-specific. In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (July 30, 2026, B337897), a published decision applying the current statute (a petition for review, S298473, was filed in the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2026 and was pending as of October 3, 2026), the Court of Appeal upheld denial of a builder's remedy project under subdivision (d)(3) where the city's certified Local Coastal Program designated the site for non-residential uses and the developer had not pursued an amendment to that program.

Objections that generally do not survive

Under subdivision (f)(6)(D), a builder's remedy project needs no general plan amendment, rezoning or other legislative approval. Under subdivision (f)(5), a zoning change after the deemed-complete date is not a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval. Subdivision (f)(6)(E) bars fees or requirements imposed solely or partially because a project is a builder's remedy project.

Deadlines for a neighbor's challenge

Standing under the Housing Accountability Act belongs to applicants, eligible residents and qualifying housing organizations, so a neighbor's challenge usually proceeds under CEQA or the Planning and Zoning Law. The clock depends on the approval type and the notice filed; count from the actual decision or filed notice.

These statutes state their periods in days, not business days. Under Government Code Section 65009(e), after the time limits expire "all persons are barred from any further action or proceeding." Under Section 65009(b), if the agency's hearing notice included the statutory warning, a Planning and Zoning Law challenge to a decision made at a noticed public hearing is generally limited to issues "raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence" delivered at or before the hearing, subject to the statute's exceptions; CEQA claims carry their own exhaustion requirement under Public Resources Code Section 21177. Raise every eligibility, health and safety, and CEQA point in writing before the decision.

Fee and cost exposure for neighbors

The fee provision in Section 65589.5, subdivision (k), runs to a successful petitioner enforcing the Act against a local agency; its text does not authorize fees against a neighbor who challenges an approval. A challenge is still not free. Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 lets a defendant seek a bond in an action challenging a project that meets the low- or moderate-income requirements of the density bonus law (Gov. Code Sec. 65915), if the court finds the action without merit and brought for an improper purpose such as delay. Whether a given builder's remedy project meets those requirements is a separate question. The cap on a plaintiff's liability under Section 529.2 is $500,000, rising to $1,000,000 on January 1, 2027 under SB 1344 (Chapter 811, Statutes of 2026).

What qualifies as a builder's remedy project after AB 1893, and how does an owner lock it in?

Under Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(11), a builder's remedy project must meet the affordability levels in subdivision (h)(3), stay within statutory minimum and maximum density limits, avoid excluded industrial-adjacent sites, and be in a jurisdiction lacking a substantially compliant housing element on or after the deemed-complete date. Subdivision (d)'s zoning protection turns on status on that date itself, which a complete Section 65941.1 preliminary application generally fixes.

Affordability

Subdivision (h)(11)(A) incorporates the definitions in subdivision (h)(3):

• Lower income housing: 100 percent of the units, excluding managers' units, dedicated to lower income households.
• Mixed-income housing: at least 7 percent of the total units for extremely low income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 13 percent for lower income households. The statute also lists a project of 10 or fewer units on a site smaller than one acre with a density of at least 10 units per acre.
• Moderate-income housing: 100 percent of the units dedicated to moderate-income households.

Affordable units must remain affordable for 55 years for rentals and 45 years for owner-occupied units; for 100 percent lower income and moderate-income projects, the statute requires a recorded deed restriction. Under subdivision (f)(6)(G), for a mixed-income project, a stricter local affordable housing percentage or affordability level in effect on January 1, 2024 may apply, but not above 20 percent affordable units, and only if the city first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance would not render the project infeasible.

Density and height

Under subdivision (h)(11)(C), before any density bonus, density may not exceed the greatest of the listed measures, including 50 percent more than the minimum density deemed appropriate under Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), or three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance or state law. The maximum rises by 35 units per acre if any part of the site is within one-half mile of a major transit stop (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3), in a very low vehicle travel area, or in a high or highest resource census tract on the CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.

The builder's remedy provisions state no separate height number. Height and similar limits come in through subdivision (f)(6)(A): the standards of a zone allowing the proposed density and unit type, or, if none exists, objective standards the applicant identifies from another designation in the jurisdiction. Under subdivision (f)(6)(C), a project that qualifies for a density bonus receives two incentives or concessions beyond those in Section 65915(d)(2), with the bonus calculated from the builder's remedy density.

Timing: the preliminary application controls

Subdivision (h)(5) defines "deemed complete" by reference to a preliminary application under Section 65941.1, or, if none was submitted, a complete application under Section 65943. Three rules in Section 65941.1 keep that date alive:

• 180 calendar days. Under subdivision (e)(1), the applicant must submit a full application within 180 calendar days after submitting the preliminary application.
• 90 days to cure. Under subdivision (e)(2), if the agency identifies missing information in writing, the applicant has 90 days from receiving that notice to supply it, or "the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect."
• The 20 percent rule. Under subdivision (d), if the applicant revises the project so the number of residential units or the square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, excluding increases from a density bonus or similar provision, a new preliminary application is required.

Under Section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(7), applications deemed complete before January 1, 2025 may proceed under prior law or opt into the AB 1893 rules if they qualify.

What if the city regains compliance later?

Compliance is measured on the deemed-complete date, so a compliance finding obtained after a complete preliminary application was submitted does not by itself let the city deny a qualifying project under subdivision (d)(6). The applicant's risk is losing the date by missing the Section 65941.1 deadlines or making a 20 percent change (not counting density bonus increases). Separately, under subdivision (o)(2), vesting protection against later ordinances can be lost if construction does not begin within two and one-half years (three and one-half years for an affordable housing project) after final approval.

How does an owner sue to enforce the builder's remedy, and what can a court order?

An owner or applicant enforces the builder's remedy under Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (m), by petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, filed and served within 90 days of the later of the city's final action or the expiration of specified processing deadlines. If the court finds a violation, it must order compliance within 60 days at most and, with narrow exceptions, award attorney's fees.

Procedure and remedies

• Bad faith: if the court finds the agency acted in bad faith, it may direct approval.
• Fees: the court "shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner," except in extraordinary circumstances or a narrow CEQA-related good-faith exception.
• Fines (subdivisions (k)(1)(B) and (l)): if the agency fails to comply with the order within the time set, the court must impose a fine of at least $10,000 per housing unit, multiplied by five if the agency acted in bad faith.

What is still unsettled

The AB 1893 version has applied only since January 1, 2025, and many of its specific provisions, including the density formula and subdivision (f)(6), have little or no published appellate interpretation. Two 2026 bills, SB 1072 (Chapter 322) and AB 1621 (Chapter 780), amend Section 65589.5 effective January 1, 2027; SB 1072 adds expiration of specified State Housing Law time periods as a trigger for the 90-day petition deadline in subdivision (m), and AB 1621 expands "disapprove" to cover specified postentitlement permit violations. Their Legislative Counsel's Digests do not describe changes to the builder's remedy eligibility criteria. Read the current text before filing.

On either side, the outcome often depends on facts fixed months earlier: the HCD findings on the deemed-complete date, the preliminary application, and the written hearing record. Our zoning disputes practice represents property owners, applicants and neighbors. If a deadline may be running, contact us with the notice or decision in hand.

Common questions

This article is general information about California law as of October 3, 2026 and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Anyone facing a specific dispute should consult a lawyer about their own circumstances.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.