Purchase & Sale  ·  October 3, 2026

California's New Grocery Covenant Law (AB 1857): What It Voids, What It Doesn't, and What to Check Now

A supermarket closes. A regional grocer wants the space, or a buyer wants the parcel to lease to one, and the title report turns up a restriction saying the site can never again be used as a grocery store. A restriction like that can keep a closed supermarket empty long after the operator left.

On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1857 (Aguiar-Curry), chaptered as Chapter 901, Statutes of 2026. It adds two sections to the Civil Code: Section 714.8, which the bill names the "Grocery Store Access Act," and Section 714.8.1. It is easy to read the law as a ban on anti-grocery covenants. That is not quite what the text does. The law gives specific people a recording procedure to clear a specific kind of restriction, after a specific triggering event, and it leaves several common shopping-center provisions alone.

Because the law is brand new, no court has interpreted it yet, and several provisions raise questions only litigation or a cleanup bill will answer.

What does AB 1857 cover, and when does it take effect?

When does the new grocery covenant law take effect?

AB 1857 has no urgency clause, and Section 714.8 does not state its own operative date. Under the normal rule for statutes passed in a regular session (Cal. Const., art. IV, Sec. 8(c)(1)), it takes effect on January 1, 2027.

Section 714.8.1, the forward-looking prohibition, states its own start date: "Beginning on January 1, 2027, no person or entity shall create or record" a covenant of the covered type once the statute's triggering conditions are met (Civ. Code Sec. 714.8.1(a)(1)).

Neither section contains a sunset or repeal date.

Two timing points matter. First, Section 714.8 reaches existing covenants: its clearing procedure is framed around establishing "that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable" (Sec. 714.8(d)(1)), with no cutoff by recording date. Second, Section 714.8.1 operates only going forward: it bars creating or recording a covered restriction on or after January 1, 2027, when its grocery-closure conditions are met. A covenant both created and recorded before that date is not barred by it, though it may still be cleared under Section 714.8.

What kinds of restrictions does AB 1857 reach?

The instruments covered.

The statute reaches "[a]ny covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property" that "effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket" (Civ. Code Sec. 714.8(c)).

That list is broad: deed restrictions, lease clauses, loan documents, and instruments never recorded at all. The "effectively prohibits or restricts" language suggests a restriction need not use the word "grocery" to be covered if its practical effect is to block grocery use, though how far that phrase extends has not been tested.

What counts as a "grocery store."

The statute defines "grocery store" or "supermarket" as "a retail store in this state that sells a broad range of perishable and nonperishable household food products for offsite consumption," with examples including fresh meat, poultry, seafood, produce, dairy, frozen foods, canned and dry goods, baked goods, and beverages (Civ. Code Sec. 714.8(b)(1)).

Two categories are carved out (Sec. 714.8(b)(2)):

• an establishment "primarily engaged in retailing automotive fuels" together with a limited line of groceries, such as a gas station food mart; and
• an establishment "primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of groceries" such as milk, bread, soda, and snacks, like a convenience store.

So a covenant that bars a convenience store or a fuel-station market is not the target. A covenant that bars a full-line grocer is.

Only grocery-use restrictions.

Section 714.8(e) is short and important: the section "shall only apply to restrictive covenants that restrict or prohibit the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket." A restriction on pharmacies, restaurants, fitness uses, or anything else in the same instrument is not touched. And under Section 714.8(j), voiding the grocery restriction does not affect the rest of the instrument: "All such remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect."

For a departing grocery tenant, that means clearing a re-letting restriction in its lease does nothing to the tenant's remaining lease obligations.

Is the restriction automatically void on January 1, 2027?

No. This is the point most likely to be missed.

A covered restriction is "void and unenforceable against an interested party" only "if both of the following conditions are met" (Civ. Code Sec. 714.8(c)):

1. A triggering event. A grocery store or supermarket either "[p]reviously operated on the property and has ceased operations," or "[i]s no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center" (Sec. 714.8(c)(1)(A)-(B)).
2. A recorded modification document. "An approved restrictive covenant modification document has been recorded in the public record as provided for in this section" (Sec. 714.8(c)(2)).

Until the second condition is satisfied, the statute does not by its terms make the restriction unenforceable. The process is modeled on an existing procedure in Civil Code Section 714.6, which lets owners of qualifying housing developments (including 100 percent affordable projects and certain redevelopments of existing commercial property that include residential uses) clear covenants that restrict residential use, also by recording a county-counsel-approved modification document. We discussed how that housing procedure is not self-executing in our article on converting retail property to housing in California. The grocery version works the same way.

Who can use the procedure

Only an "interested party" can invoke Section 714.8, and the restriction is void only "against an interested party." The statute defines that term (Sec. 714.8(h)) as:

1. the owner or current lessee of the property;
2. a person or entity holding a right to acquire the property under an option, purchase and sale agreement, or similar agreement;
3. a person or entity that has submitted a complete application for a business license, conditional use permit, or other land use entitlement to a city or county "for the purpose of operating a grocery store or supermarket"; and
4. a party under contract to lease the property for the purpose of operating a grocery store or supermarket.

A buyer in escrow on a closed-store parcel, or a grocer that has signed a lease, can start the process without waiting for the seller or landlord.

How the procedure works

The steps in Section 714.8(d)(2) are:

• Submission. The interested party submits to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and the documents it believes show a triggering event. The statute lists examples: business license records, health department permits, Alcoholic Beverage Control license records, or county assessor records (Sec. 714.8(d)(2) and (d)(2)(A)).
• Mandatory notice to the owner. The interested party must send the current property owner, by certified mail, those documents, a copy of the section, and a written explanation. Notice is deemed given if it is actually received or mailed by certified mail to the notice address in the covenant. If the covenant identifies no address for the current owner and the interested party cannot find one after reasonable diligence, failure to give this notice does not invalidate the recording (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(A)). County counsel's review includes whether required notice was provided (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(B)).
• Referral to county counsel. The recorder must send the package to county counsel "within five business days of receipt" (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(B)).
• County counsel review. County counsel decides whether the covenant is covered, whether a triggering event is shown, whether required notice was given, and whether an exemption applies (the statute refers to exemptions "provided in subdivision (g)," though the exemptions appear in subdivision (i)). It must report its determination "within 15 days of submission to the county counsel" (the statute does not say business days for this step), and if it cannot decide, it must specify what additional documentation it needs (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(B)-(C)).
• Recording or refusal. The recorder may not record the modification if county counsel "finds any reason why the modification document is not appropriate" (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(E)).
• Optional notice after approval. Once approved, the interested party may give certified-mail notice to anyone it knows has an interest in the property or the covenant, and may also publish notice under Government Code Section 6061 (Sec. 714.8(d)(2)(D)). This step is optional, but as explained below, it has consequences.

The recorder may charge a standard recording fee (Sec. 714.8(d)(6)). If a party records a modification the statute does not authorize, the county is not liable; liability rests with the party who submitted it (Sec. 714.8(d)(3)).

Is there a deadline to challenge a recorded modification?

Yes, for some parties. "Any suit filed by a party that is deemed to have been given notice as described in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), which challenges the validity of a restrictive covenant modification document pursuant to this section, shall be filed within 60 days of that notice" (Civ. Code Sec. 714.8(f)(1)).

A few points about that deadline:

• It runs from the post-approval notice described in Section 714.8(d)(2)(D), not from recording and not from the earlier mandatory notice to the owner.
• It applies to parties "deemed to have been given" that notice. Notice is deemed given on actual receipt or certified mailing to the addresses the statute specifies, and, if the interested party publishes, to anyone whose interest does not appear of record, or whose address for notice does not appear of record and cannot reasonably be ascertained from the assessment roll.
• The statute says "60 days" without saying business days, while the same section uses "five business days" for the recorder's step. Do not assume extra time. Because notice can be deemed given when it is mailed or published, count conservatively from the earliest possible date (the mailing or publication date), not the date you opened it, and get advice promptly.
• Because the post-approval notice is optional, an interested party that skips it may leave the challenge period open-ended for parties it did not notify. Interested parties who want finality have a reason to send it.

If you hold the benefit of a grocery restriction and receive a notice under this section, treat it like a served pleading. Deadlines for real estate claims are discussed more generally in our article on California real estate litigation statutes of limitations.

What does AB 1857 leave alone, and what is still unsettled?

Section 714.8(i) lists four categories the section "does not apply to" and "shall not be construed to invalidate or render unenforceable." Section 714.8.1(b) repeats the same four for the forward-looking ban.

Exclusives that protect an operating grocer

An "exclusive-use provision, radius restriction, or similar covenant contained in a lease or sublease between a landlord and a tenant" survives, to the extent it keeps the landlord from leasing other space in the same commercial project or shopping center to a competing grocer, "provided that at least one grocery store or supermarket ... is in actual operation within the commercial project or shopping center at the time enforcement of the provision is sought" (Sec. 714.8(i)(1)).

Note the qualifiers: a lease or sublease between landlord and tenant, competing premises in the same project or center, and a grocer actually operating there when enforcement is sought. An exclusive protecting an anchor that has gone dark, with no other grocer operating, does not fit.

Caps on the number of grocers

A covenant that "limits the number of grocery store or supermarket tenants within a single commercial project or shopping center, but does not prohibit all grocery store or supermarket use of the property" also survives, again only while at least one grocer is in actual operation in the project or center when enforcement is sought (Sec. 714.8(i)(2)).

Government-negotiated restrictions

A restriction a governmental entity agreed to in a development agreement, disposition and development agreement, or similar public land use entitlement is exempt "to the extent it regulates the mix or density of retail uses within a specific development" (Sec. 714.8(i)(3)).

Design standards and common-area obligations

Covenants about "purely aesthetic objective design standards," common-area maintenance fees or assessments, and other obligations "that do not have the purpose or effect of prohibiting or restricting the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket" are untouched (Sec. 714.8(i)(4)).

Zoning and permits

The statute is not a zoning override. It does not authorize any use "not otherwise consistent with the local general plan, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan, conditional use permit, or other land use entitlement," and does not exempt a grocer from any required permit (Sec. 714.8(g)(2)). Building, fire, health, parking, signage, and hours rules remain (Sec. 714.8(g)(1)). If local approvals are also an obstacle, that is a separate zoning and land use problem.

What questions does the text leave open?

A new statute with no case law will be tested at its edges. Several features of the enacted text are likely to draw disputes.

Which property has to have had the grocery store? The first trigger asks whether a grocery store "[p]reviously operated on the property." Many grocery restrictions burden a neighboring pad or outparcel where no grocer ever operated; they were imposed to protect the anchor's store next door. Whether a restriction on that kind of parcel can be cleared under the first trigger, or only under the second ("no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center"), is not spelled out. The second trigger also contains an unusual cross-reference ("pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (i)"), which points to the exceptions for exclusives and grocer-count caps. How courts and county counsel read that reference is unsettled.

When can a cleared covenant come back? Section 714.8(d)(4) provides that a restriction "originally invalidated by this section shall become and remain enforceable while the property subject to the restrictive covenant modification is utilized in any manner that violates the terms of the restrictions required by this section," and Section 714.8(d)(5) lets the city or county record a notice of violation after notice and an opportunity to be heard. That language is copied word for word from Section 714.6, the housing covenant statute. Section 714.8 does not clearly identify what "restrictions required by this section" a grocery site must keep. The June 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee analysis described the provision as reviving the covenant if the property is not used for a grocery store, but that analysis addressed an earlier version of the bill, and the enacted text does not say so in those words. Anyone relying on a cleared covenant to finance a non-grocery reuse should treat this as an open risk.

Fee-shifting. A prevailing interested party, and its successors or assigns, is entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees in a suit to enforce the statute's rights or to defend against a suit, but the award is "limited to those costs incurred after the modification document was recorded as provided by subdivision (b)" (Sec. 714.8(f)(2)). Subdivision (b) is the grocery store definition, not the recording procedure, so that cross-reference is another drafting point likely to come up. The section also preserves fee awards "otherwise authorized by applicable law" (Sec. 714.8(f)(3)).

The forward-looking ban has no stated remedy. Section 714.8.1 says no one shall create or record a covered covenant from January 1, 2027 onward once a grocer has ceased operating on the property or is no longer operating in the project or center, but it does not state a separate penalty or say at what moment the condition is measured. A restriction created in violation of it would presumably still be subject to the clearing procedure in Section 714.8, but no court has addressed how the two sections interact.

What should owners, buyers, landlords, and departing grocers check now?

Buyers of retail parcels and closed-store sites:

• Pull every recorded instrument affecting the parcel (deeds, declarations, reciprocal easement agreements, memoranda of lease), and ask for unrecorded leases and side agreements, since the statute reaches unrecorded instruments.
• Build the operating history: whether and when a grocer operated on the property or in the center. The statute's examples of supporting records (business licenses, health permits, ABC licenses, assessor records) are a useful checklist.
• Confirm whether your purchase agreement or option makes you an "interested party" under Section 714.8(h)(2), and allocate in the contract who prepares and pays for the modification document and how a county counsel denial affects closing.
• Check zoning and entitlements separately.

For disputes over contingencies, closing conditions, or a deal that falls apart over a title restriction, see our purchase and sale disputes practice page.

Shopping-center owners and landlords:

• Inventory your grocery exclusives and radius clauses. The statute's protection for them is limited to provisions in leases and subleases between landlord and tenant, only to the extent they bar leasing other space in the same project or center to a competing grocer, and only while at least one grocer is in actual operation in the project or center when enforcement is sought.
• If your anchor has closed, expect that a buyer, tenant, or prospective grocer may use the new procedure, and that the mandatory certified-mail notice to you (as owner) may be sent to the notice address in the restrictive covenant, so keep that address current and watch for it.
• Review lease and REA forms, and any covered restriction that will be created or recorded on or after January 1, 2027 (including deals signed in 2026 but recorded later), against Section 714.8.1.

Grocery tenants leaving a site:

• Restrictions you create or record on or after January 1, 2027 may be barred by Section 714.8.1 if a grocer has ceased operating on the property or in the center. The statute does not say when that condition is measured, so restrictions negotiated as part of a closing, sale, or lease termination need a careful look.
• Restrictions you already hold may be cleared later by an interested party using Section 714.8. Your remaining lease obligations are not affected by that (Sec. 714.8(j)).

Lenders and title: "security instrument" is among the covered instruments. Whether a title insurer will insure over a cleared restriction, and on what terms, is a question to raise early.

Our contract disputes page covers lease and agreement enforcement more broadly, and you can reach us through our contact page.

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.