Construction defects rarely announce themselves. A stain on a ceiling, a hairline crack that keeps reappearing, a balcony that feels soft underfoot — these are the visible edge of failures in waterproofing, framing, or soils that were built in years earlier. California law gives homeowners and community associations a defined path to recovery, but it is a path with strict notice requirements and short, component-specific deadlines.
ROMO Law Group represents homeowners, homeowners associations, and property owners in California construction defect matters. This page explains how the governing statutes actually work, what the builder is entitled to do before you can sue, and where the deadlines fall.
Which law governs your claim
The threshold question in every California construction defect matter is whether the Right to Repair Act applies. Enacted as SB 800 and codified at Civil Code sections 895 through 945.5, the Act replaced the common law defect inquiry with a statutory scheme for most new residential construction.
Civil Code section 938 sets the scope: the Act applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreement was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003. The trigger is the seller’s signature on the purchase agreement — not when the home was built, and not when escrow closed. A home framed in 2001 but first sold under a 2004 agreement is covered. A home sold under a December 2002 agreement is not.
Claims outside the Act — and therefore litigated under negligence, strict liability, implied warranty, and express warranty theories — include:
- Homes first sold before January 1, 2003;
- Condominium conversions, which Civil Code section 896 expressly excludes from the Act’s supersession of other statutory and common law;
- Commercial and non-residential construction;
- Personal injury, fraud, breach of contract and express warranty, and violations of other statutes — all preserved by Civil Code section 943(a) even for covered homes.
Older articles still describe a rule allowing homeowners to bypass the Act’s deadlines and procedures where actual property damage occurred. That reasoning was rejected in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, which held unanimously that the Act supplants the common law and provides the exclusive remedy for claims within its coverage, property damage included. If you are reading construction defect content that relies on the earlier Liberty Mutual line of cases, it is out of date.
The standards: what counts as a defect
Civil Code section 896 sets out a statewide list of functionality standards organized by category — water issues, structural issues, soil issues, fire protection, plumbing and sewer, electrical, and a residual category covering other areas of construction. Section 897 sweeps in anything the list does not address, but only if it causes damage.
The consequential feature of this scheme is the burden of proof. Under Civil Code section 942, a claimant need only demonstrate that the home does not meet the applicable standard. No further showing of causation or damages is required for the standards themselves. That is a materially more favorable posture than the common law negligence case it replaced.
Component deadlines inside section 896
Several standards carry their own limitations periods, most running from close of escrow. These are short, and they are easy to miss.
| Component | Provision | Period |
|---|---|---|
| Plumbing and sewer systems | § 896(e) | 4 years from close of escrow |
| Electrical systems | § 896(f) | 4 years from close of escrow |
| Paths, driveways, hardscape, sidewalks, patios | § 896(g)(1) | 4 years from close of escrow |
| Interunit noise transmission | § 896(g)(6) | 1 year from original occupancy of the adjacent unit |
| Irrigation systems and drainage | § 896(g)(7) | 1 year from close of escrow |
| Untreated wood posts | § 896(g)(8) | 2 years from close of escrow |
| Untreated steel fences and adjacent components | § 896(g)(9) | 4 years from close of escrow |
| Paint and stains | § 896(g)(10) | 5 years from close of escrow |
| Landscaping systems | § 896(g)(12) | 2 years from close of escrow |
| Dryer ducts | § 896(g)(14) | 2 years from close of escrow |
Over all of it, Civil Code section 941(a) imposes a ten-year outer limit measured from substantial completion, but not later than the date a valid notice of completion was recorded. Section 941(d) provides that Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 — the four-year patent defect and ten-year latent defect statutes — do not apply to actions under the Act. Those statutes continue to govern claims outside it.
One clarification worth stating plainly, because it is widely misunderstood: a repose statute is a ceiling, not a grant. Ten years from substantial completion is the outside boundary. It does not mean a homeowner has ten years to act.
The prelitigation process, step by step
For covered claims, the Act requires the homeowner to give notice and give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair before suit. Working through a builder’s ordinary customer service department does not satisfy the statute.
| Step | Authority | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Homeowner serves written notice of claim by certified mail, overnight mail, or personal delivery, describing the claim in reasonable detail | § 910 | — |
| Builder must acknowledge receipt in writing | § 913 | 14 days after receipt |
| Builder inspection and testing, at builder’s cost, with the homeowner entitled to observe and record | § 916 | Within 14 days after acknowledgment; a second inspection must be requested within 3 days of the first and completed within 40 days |
| Builder may offer in writing to repair, with a step-by-step explanation, contractor license information, and proof of insurance | § 917 | Within 30 days of inspection or testing |
| Homeowner authorizes the repair, or requests names of up to three alternative contractors | § 918 | 30 days after the offer |
| Repair commences; every effort must be made to complete it | § 921 | Within 14 days of acceptance; completion targeted within 120 days |
| Homeowner may request mediation after repair | § 928 | Mediation within 15 days of the request, limited to four hours absent agreement |
A builder may also make a cash offer instead of a repair. Civil Code section 929 permits this and permits the builder to obtain a reasonable release in exchange. The homeowner may reject the offer and preserve the right to sue, with the section 896 standards still applying.
Civil Code section 930(a) directs that the Act’s time periods and requirements be strictly construed. If the builder fails to acknowledge the notice on time, elects not to participate, or fails to request an inspection within the specified period, section 915 releases the homeowner from the process. If the builder fails to make a timely offer to repair or otherwise strictly comply, section 920 does the same. If the builder fails to complete a repair within the time specified in its own repair plan, section 925 does the same again. Builder non-compliance is common, and documenting it is one of the most valuable things a homeowner can do in the first sixty days.
Civil Code section 927 provides tolling that protects the homeowner while the process runs: where a repair is completed, the filing deadline is extended to 100 days after completion; where the builder fails to respond, to 45 days after the response period expires. Section 928 tolls limitations from the date of a mediation request.
Homeowners associations and the Calderon process
A community association pursuing a defect claim faces a second, separate prelitigation regime. Civil Code section 6000 — the Calderon process — applies to associations of common interest developments with 20 or more units bringing claims against a builder, developer, or general contractor. An association with a post-2003 project can face both the Calderon process and the Right to Repair Act process.
The association serves a Notice of Commencement of Legal Proceedings identifying the project, listing the alleged defects in sufficient detail to put the builder on notice, describing the resulting conditions, and summarizing homeowner survey results and testing. Service tolls all applicable statutes of limitation and repose. From there:
- Within 25 days, the respondent may request to meet and confer with the board;
- Within 60 days, the respondent must provide access to plans, specifications, subcontracts and construction files, and must notify subcontractors, design professionals and insurers;
- Within 100 days, a dispute resolution facilitator convenes a case management meeting;
- The dispute resolution period runs 180 days, extendable once by mutual written agreement;
- At least 15 days before filing, if a settlement offer has been rejected, the board must hold a meeting of the members disclosing the offer and the alternatives.
Facilitator costs are allocated one-third each to the association, the respondent, and the subcontractors and design professionals. Communications during the process are confidential under the Evidence Code mediation privilege.
The balcony inspection laws — and why they matter to defect claims
Two statutes now require periodic inspection of exterior elevated elements. Both have produced a large volume of documentation about the condition of wood-framed balconies, decks, stairways and walkways across California.
| SB 721 — Health & Saf. Code § 17973 | SB 326 — Civ. Code § 5551 | |
|---|---|---|
| Applies to | Buildings with 3 or more multifamily dwelling units, EEEs more than 6 feet above ground, substantially supported by wood | Condominium associations with 3 or more attached multifamily units, as to EEEs the association maintains |
| First inspection | January 1, 2026 (extended from 2025 by AB 2579) | January 1, 2025 |
| Cycle | Every 6 years | Every 9 years, coordinated with the reserve study |
| Sample | At least 15% of each type of EEE | Random, statistically significant sample — 95% confidence, ±5% margin of error |
| Inspector | Licensed architect, structural or civil engineer, or a general contractor with an A, B or C-5 license and 5+ years’ experience | Licensed structural engineer, civil engineer, or architect |
| Immediate threat | Report to local enforcement agency within 15 days; preventive measures required | Notify the association immediately and local code enforcement within 15 days; association must prevent occupant access |
The connection to defect practice is direct. An inspection report identifying dry rot, failed waterproofing, or deteriorated ledger connections in a building completed within the last decade is frequently the document that triggers a section 910 notice or a Calderon notice — while there is still time to act within the repose period. Associations and apartment owners who receive an adverse EEE report should have it evaluated for claim purposes, not just for repair budgeting.
What you can recover
Civil Code section 944 sets the measure of damages under the Act. A claimant may recover the reasonable value of repairing the violation, the cost of repairing damage caused by the repair work itself, the cost of repairing damage resulting from the failure to meet the standards, the cost of removing and replacing an improper builder repair, reasonable relocation and storage expenses, lost business income where the home was the licensed principal place of a home-based business, reasonable investigative costs for each established violation, and other costs or fees recoverable by contract or statute.
For detached single-family homes, Civil Code section 943(b) limits the recovery for repairing a nonconformity to the lesser of repair cost or the diminution in current value caused by the nonconformity, subject to the common law personal use exception.
Builders and other parties may raise the affirmative defenses in Civil Code section 945.5, which operate on comparative fault principles — unforeseen acts of nature exceeding applicable code design criteria, a homeowner’s unreasonable failure to mitigate or unreasonable delay in giving notice, failure to follow maintenance recommendations, alterations and ordinary wear, expiration of the limitations period, a valid release, and a successful builder repair.
There is no general prevailing-party attorney fee provision in the Right to Repair Act. Any fee recovery has to come from a fee clause in the purchase agreement or warranty, from an association’s governing documents in a Davis-Stirling action, or from another statute. Content suggesting that “the builder pays your legal fees” in California defect cases is not accurate as a general rule.
Legislation to watch
AB 1903, a builder-side reform measure framed as a housing supply bill, has moved through the Legislature in the 2025–2026 session. As engrossed, it would raise the homeowner’s burden of proof to require appreciable, non-speculative, present physical damage; permit releases in exchange for cash payment or repair; eliminate recovery of investigative costs; bar damages based on extrapolation; and restrict the standing of common interest development associations to bring defect claims. As of this writing it has not been chaptered. Its passage would materially change the framework described on this page, and homeowners and associations weighing whether to act should factor that uncertainty in.
Page current as of August 2026.
How we approach these matters
Defect cases are built on sequence. Which statute governs, what the purchase agreement said, when escrow closed, when substantial completion occurred, which component failed, and whether the builder’s response complied with the statute — those answers determine both the deadline and the leverage. The early work is documentary and investigative: assembling the construction file, retaining the right consultant for the failure mode at issue, and serving a notice that satisfies section 910 rather than one that invites a stay.
ROMO Law Group works with homeowners, boards, and property owners in Encino and across California. Consultations are free and there is no obligation.
Frequently asked questions
Does California's Right to Repair Act apply to my home?
Civil Code section 938 provides that the Act applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreement was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003. The trigger is the seller's signature on the purchase agreement — not the construction date and not close of escrow. Homes sold before that date, and condominium conversions, are litigated under pre-existing common law instead.
Do I have to notify the builder before filing suit?
Generally yes, for claims covered by the Act. Civil Code section 910 requires written notice describing the claim in reasonable detail before an action is filed. In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, the California Supreme Court held the Act is the exclusive remedy for covered claims, including claims involving actual property damage. Filing without complying can result in the case being stayed until the process is completed.
What happens if the builder ignores my notice?
The Act sets strict deadlines and Civil Code section 930(a) directs that they be strictly construed. If the builder fails to acknowledge the notice within 14 days, fails to request inspection on time, fails to make an offer to repair within the statutory window, or fails to complete a repair as scheduled, sections 915, 920 and 925 release the homeowner from the prelitigation requirements and permit an action to be filed.
How long do I have to bring a construction defect claim?
Under the Act, Civil Code section 941(a) sets a ten-year outer limit from substantial completion. Several component standards in section 896 carry much shorter periods measured from close of escrow — four years for plumbing, sewer and electrical systems, one year for irrigation and drainage, two years for landscaping systems, and five years for paint and stains, among others. Section 941(d) provides that Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 do not apply to claims under the Act. Which period governs depends on the defect.
Will the builder have to pay my attorney's fees?
Not automatically. The Right to Repair Act contains no general prevailing-party attorney fee provision. Civil Code section 944 permits recovery of costs and fees “recoverable by contract or statute,” so fee recovery generally depends on a fee clause in the purchase agreement or warranty, or on the governing documents in a homeowners association matter. Reasonable investigative costs for each established violation are separately recoverable as damages under section 944.