Attorney General Bonta Issues Builder’s Remedy Legal Alert: Local Governments Must Comply with California Housing Law

 Alert emphasizes the importance of lawful and consistent processing of Builder’s Remedy applications across California 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a legal alert to help California local officials understand the importance of the consistent statewide interpretation and application of California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) — including local governments’ responsibility to timely process Builder’s Remedy applications. In the alert, Attorney General Bonta analyzes two recent court cases involving the cities of La Cañada Flintridge and Goleta to explain these responsibilities and highlight that local governments' faithful and expedient discharge of their duties is essential to resolving California’s housing shortage crisis and making housing more affordable for all Californians. 

 “California courts have been very clear about the interpretation of California housing law and the responsibility of local governments to follow the law and swiftly process Builder’s Remedy applications,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The legal alert today is intended to ensure local governments understand their responsibility to facilitate affordable housing: California expects nothing less and is committed to ensuring that all cities and counties are part of the solution — no exceptions.” 

Background on Housing Element and the Builders Remedy

Under the state’s Housing Element Law, every city and county in California must periodically update its housing element to meet its share of the regional and statewide housing needs. Among other things, a compliant housing element must include an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and a program to implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the housing element. 

Under California’s HAA, failure to adopt a timely and compliant local housing plan triggers the so-called “Builder’s Remedy.” Under the HAA's Builder’s Remedy provision, local governments subject to the Builder’s Remedy may not deny certain housing projects — in particular, those that include certain thresholds of low- or moderate-income units — for inconsistency with zoning or land use designation. While developers have submitted dozens of Builder’s Remedy applications in the past years, many noncompliant jurisdictions have been failing to process those applications in a timely fashion, leaving the state of California no choice but to step in. 

In the legal alert today, Attorney General Bonta highlights the results of two cases that make clear local governments’ responsibility and legal duty to process builders remedy applications. 

Cal. Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge 

In 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) filed a request to intervene in Cal. Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, in order to uphold California’s housing laws, and reverse the City of La Cañada Flintridge’s denial of a mixed-use affordable housing project after it failed to comply with Housing Element Law between October 15, 2021 and November 17, 2023 —  also the time period in which the project’s application was considered. The affordable housing project, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy, would bring approximately 80 mixed-income residential dwelling units, 14 hotel units, and 7,791 square feet of office space to the community. 

In 2024, the court held that La Cañada Flintridge did not have a housing element in substantial compliance with state law at the time a Builder’s Remedy application was submitted and ordered the City to process the application in accordance with the law. La Cañada Flintridge appealed this decision and was subsequently ordered to either post an appeal bond of $14 million or dismiss its appeal. La Cañada Flintridge dismissed its appeal. 

The key takeaways in this case include: 

• A Builder’s Remedy application vests at the time of submission of a SB 330 preliminary development application — a city cannot ‘backdate’ its housing element compliance date to an earlier date so as to avoid approving a Builder’s Remedy application.
• The refusal to process a timely Builder’s Remedy application is a violation of the HAA.

Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Goleta

In 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a proposed affordable housing project in Goleta — a city located in Santa Barbara County that is experiencing an acute housing shortage. A housing development project by the Shelby Family Partnership would have created 56 single-family homes, 13 of which would be affordable to lower-income households. In 2023, Goleta unlawfully refused to process an SB 330 preliminary application, seeking to add the aforementioned affordable homes, based on its theory that SB 330 applies only to “new” projects.

On February 26, 2025, the superior court issued an order requiring Goleta to process the at-issue affordable housing project pursuant to state law, finding that:

• SB 330 is not limited only to “new” development projects and does not prevent applicants from amending an existing project — including submitting an application under the Builder’s Remedy; and
• Local governments cannot disapprove qualifying housing development projects, except in narrowly defined circumstances pursuant to the HAA. 

The legal alert goes on to explain consequences for the failure to properly implement in the Builder’s Remedy, such as a referral to and intervention by the Attorney General and penalties under the HAA — including a minimum fine of $10,000 per unit of the proposed project. If a local government appeals a court order finding that the local government violated the HAA, the local government must post an appeal bond or dismiss its appeal. The appeal bond guarantees that a project remains financially viable if the city or county loses the appeal. In 2024, La Cañada Flintridge appealed the decision ordering it to process a lawful builder's remedy application, and was ordered to either post an appeal bond of $14 million or dismiss its appeal. La Cañada Flintridge dismissed its appeal. These consequences emphasize the importance of the HAA and California’s intent to further promote housing development projects. 

The full legal alert can be found here.