Zoning & Land Use  ·  October 3, 2026

California SB 1116 and Deed Restrictions: Which Covenants Can Still Stop a Starter-Home Subdivision?

A neighbor files for a small-lot subdivision under California's starter-home law, and the old deed restrictions on your tract say one house per lot. Or you own a qualifying lot and your title report shows an old covenant that seems to forbid the project. The usual answer has been that a state zoning law does not erase private covenants.

Senate Bill 1116 (Caballero), Chapter 808, Statutes of 2026, signed by Governor Newsom on September 29, 2026, changes that answer for one category of projects. SB 1116 adds Civil Code Section 714.9, which makes void and unenforceable any covenant, condition, restriction, or other provision in a deed, declaration, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the use of real property if it "prohibits or would physically preclude the development of a housing development project that is permitted pursuant to Section 65852.28 or 66499.41 of the Government Code." Those two Government Code sections are the starter-home subdivision rules first enacted by SB 684 (2023) and expanded by SB 1123 (2024).

Section 714.9 is narrower than a headline suggests. It excludes common interest developments and preserves certain objective restrictions. SB 1116 contains no urgency clause, so Section 714.9 takes effect January 1, 2027. As of October 3, 2026, no court has interpreted it.

Which deed restrictions does SB 1116 void in California?

Civil Code Section 714.9, subdivisions (a) and (e), effective January 1, 2027, void a covenant, condition, restriction, or other provision only if the restriction "prohibits or would physically preclude" a housing development project, the project is one "permitted pursuant to" Government Code Section 65852.28 or 66499.41, and the property is not part of a common interest development. A restriction that fails any of those conditions is not voided by Section 714.9.

The covered instruments are broad: "any deed, declaration, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the use of real property," which includes a typical recorded tract restriction. Subdivision (d) separately voids "any provision of a governing document or other instrument that is inconsistent with this section."

Two ways a covenant falls: "prohibits" and "would physically preclude"

The first prong covers covenants that forbid the project outright, such as a restriction allowing only one single-family dwelling per lot or banning any further division of a lot. The second prong covers covenants that do not mention subdivision at all but make the project impossible to build, such as a minimum lot size, a large setback, or a building-envelope limit that leaves no room for the units the Government Code allows. Which existing covenants are "physically precluding" in a particular case will often be a question of fact that depends on the lot, the project, and the plans.

What survives: the subdivision (b) safe harbor

Subdivision (b) states that a covenant "shall not be deemed to prohibit or physically preclude a housing development project solely because it imposes objective design standards, objective use restrictions, or requirements relating to public health and safety." That protection has three conditions, and each one is a potential litigation issue. The standards or requirements must be:

1. "uniformly applied";
2. not in conflict with Government Code Section 65852.28 or 66499.41 (the text says they must "not conflict with" those sections); and
3. not physically precluding the project those sections permit.

Section 714.9 does not define "objective," and how courts will draw that line is unsettled. A covenant requiring a particular exterior material is a plausible candidate for the safe harbor. A covenant giving an architectural committee open-ended discretion to reject plans is a much weaker one, because discretion is not an objective standard.

Section 714.9 does not create development rights

Subdivision (c) provides that the section operates "solely to render unenforceable those covenants or restrictions described in subdivision (a)." It does not "authorize any development that is not otherwise permitted by applicable state or local law," and it does not "alter the manner in which any person or entity reviews or approves a development, except to the extent that a covenant or restriction is rendered unenforceable under this section." A project still has to qualify under the Government Code, go through the city or county, and satisfy every surviving covenant.

Who can still enforce a CC&R or deed restriction against a starter-home subdivision?

After January 1, 2027, Civil Code Section 714.9 does not void a recorded restriction, so owners and associations that benefit from it may still enforce it against a starter-home subdivision, if the property is in a common interest development, the covenant falls within the subdivision (b) safe harbor, the project does not qualify under Government Code Section 65852.28 or 66499.41, or the covenant does not prohibit or physically preclude the project.

The people who typically benefit from a recorded restriction are other owners in the tract, the original declarant, or an association with enforcement powers.

A recorded declaration of restrictions for a subdivision's common plan is enforceable in California as an equitable servitude against later purchasers, even if their deeds do not mention it, when it was recorded before the contract of sale was executed, describes the property it governs, and states that it binds all purchasers and their successors. (Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345.) Section 714.9 does not change who has standing; it removes the covenant itself for covered projects, so most fights will be about scope.

Exception 1: Common interest developments, including HOA communities

Subdivision (e) states: "This section does not apply to real property that is part of a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100." Civil Code Section 4100 defines a common interest development as a community apartment project, a condominium project, a planned development, or a stock cooperative. Under Civil Code Section 4175, a planned development generally has common area owned by an association or in common by the owners, or maintained by an association with power to levy assessments that can become liens.

If your neighborhood is a planned development governed by a Davis-Stirling association, Section 714.9 does not reach your CC&Rs. But not every neighborhood with a "homeowners association" is a common interest development. A tract may have recorded deed restrictions and a voluntary neighborhood group, with no common area and no assessment lien power. Whether a tract qualifies under Sections 4100 and 4175 turns on the recorded documents.

Compare California's accessory dwelling unit rule: Civil Code Section 4751 voids covenants in a planned development that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict an ADU or junior ADU that meets the Government Code's ADU requirements on a single-family-zoned lot, while allowing reasonable restrictions. Section 714.9 takes the opposite approach to common interest developments.

Exception 2: The project does not qualify under the Government Code

Section 714.9 protects only a project "permitted pursuant to" Government Code Section 65852.28 or 66499.41. If the project falls outside those sections, the covenant is not voided by Section 714.9. Eligibility questions are therefore covenant questions. Under Section 66499.41 as amended by SB 1116 (the operative text appears to be the combined version enacted by SB 1090, which was chaptered last), they include, among others:

• Size. The subdivision must result in 10 or fewer parcels and the project must contain 10 or fewer residential units, except as provided in subdivision (g), which addresses accessory dwelling units.
• Zoning and vacancy. The lot must be zoned to allow multifamily residential use, or be vacant and zoned for single-family residential development. SB 1116 defines "vacant" as having no permanent structure, unless the structure is abandoned or untenantable as specified. Housing subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law restricting rent or sales price to lower-income levels, housing subject to local rent or sales price control, and housing occupied by tenants within the five years before the application are not "vacant." A vacant single-family lot also may be no larger than one and one-half acres.
• Location. The lot must be a legal parcel in an incorporated city whose boundaries include some portion of an urbanized area, or in an urbanized area or urban cluster in a county with a population greater than 600,000 based on the most recent Census Bureau data, and must meet site requirements cross-referenced to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
• No repeat splits. The lot may not itself have been created under Section 66499.41 or under the SB 9 lot-split statute, Government Code Section 66411.7.

A project that fails any of these tests gives a neighbor an argument against the map and for enforcing the covenant. For how private rights interact with state upzoning generally, see our article on SB 79 and transit upzoning, and our zoning disputes page.

A non-qualifying project example: Altadena

A separate bill, SB 1090 (Perez), Chapter 1006, Statutes of 2026, an urgency statute signed September 30, 2026, provides that the ministerial approval rules in Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 do not apply to housing development projects located in ZIP Code 91001 or 91003 if the application is submitted on or after October 1, 2026, until January 1, 2030, except as specified in SB 1090. Because Section 714.9 reaches only projects "permitted pursuant to" those sections, it appears that a starter-home project in those Altadena ZIP codes that is outside the starter-home rules during the suspension would not be protected by Section 714.9. No court has addressed that interaction.

What Section 714.9 does not say about other recorded interests

Section 714.9 contains no express exception for easements, conservation easements, or recorded affordability covenants. Whether an access or utility easement can be a provision that "would physically preclude" a project is unsettled. Affordability covenants are addressed only indirectly: housing subject to a recorded lower-income affordability covenant is not "vacant" under Section 66499.41, which matters for single-family-zoned lots that must be vacant to qualify.

Does SB 1116 apply to deed restrictions recorded decades ago?

Civil Code Section 714.9 does not say whether it reaches covenants recorded before January 1, 2027. Its text applies to "any covenant" in "any deed, declaration, contract, security instrument, or other instrument," with no recording-date limit. But Civil Code Section 3 provides that no part of the Civil Code is retroactive unless expressly declared, and SB 1116 contains no express declaration for Section 714.9.

An owner can argue that the statute governs enforcement after its effective date, which is a prospective application. A neighbor can argue that voiding a pre-2027 property right is a retroactive effect the Legislature did not expressly declare, and may raise constitutional contract or property arguments. California courts generally presume statutes operate prospectively absent a clear indication otherwise. (Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188.) How that presumption applies to Section 714.9 is unsettled as of October 3, 2026.

Two different dates

SB 1116 carries two separate timing rules:

• Civil Code Section 714.9 takes effect January 1, 2027. SB 1116 has no urgency clause, and Section 714.9 has no separate operative date or sunset.
• SB 1116's amendments to Government Code Section 65852.28 become operative January 1, 2027, "only with respect to applications received pursuant to this section by a local agency on or after January 1, 2027." SB 1090's combined versions of Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41 (Sections 2.3 and 4.3 of SB 1090) carry the same application-date sentence for the amendments they make.

Section 714.9 has no application-date limit of its own, so whether it protects a project whose application was received before January 1, 2027 is another open question.

Three bills amended the same sections

AB 2601 (Chapter 955, Statutes of 2026) and SB 1090 (Chapter 1006, Statutes of 2026) also amend Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41, and each of the three bills contains versions that incorporate the others' changes depending on which was enacted last. SB 1116 was chaptered first (September 29, 2026) and SB 1090 last, so under Government Code Section 9605 SB 1116's own versions of those sections appear to be superseded by the combined text in SB 1090. Eligibility should be measured against the operative combined text, not a summary of one bill. Civil Code Section 714.9 itself appears only in SB 1116.

What can a homeowner, HOA, or lot owner do now?

Under Civil Code Section 714.9, the first step for either side is the same: compare the recorded restriction and the project against three tests, namely prohibition or physical preclusion, a project permitted under Government Code Section 65852.28 or 66499.41, and property outside a common interest development.

If you are a neighbor or association enforcing a covenant

• Confirm whether you are in a common interest development. If the property is part of a condominium, planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project, subdivision (e) takes Section 714.9 out of the case.
• Test eligibility. Parcel count, unit count, zoning, vacancy, lot size, and location are each potential grounds to argue the project is not "permitted pursuant to" the Government Code sections.
• Separate the covenants. A lot-split ban or one-house-per-lot covenant is the most exposed. An objective, uniformly applied design covenant may survive under subdivision (b).
• Check uniform application. If the restriction has been waived for other lots, the "uniformly applied" condition in subdivision (b) may be hard to meet, and waiver can also be a defense under general covenant law.

If you own a lot burdened by an old deed restriction

• Map each restriction to the statute. Identify which covenants prohibit or would physically preclude the project, and which are objective standards you can design around.
• Decide whether to clear title before building. On its face, Section 714.9 does not require any recorded document: unlike the separate recording procedure for certain covenants under Civil Code Section 714.6, discussed in our article on retail-to-residential conversions, it contains no modification-document procedure. But a lender, a title insurer, or a buyer may still want a court order. A declaratory relief action under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060, or a quiet title action under Code of Civil Procedure Section 760.010 and following, are the usual vehicles. See our quiet title and partition actions page.
• Check the fee clause. Section 714.9 has no fee-shifting provision, so fee recovery will depend on the recorded instrument or another statute.
• Treat easements separately. See our boundary and easement disputes page.

ROMO Law Group represents both neighbors and property owners in covenant and land use disputes, and the analysis above is written for both.

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.