California quietly ended single family zoning, allowing four homes per lot

California quietly doubled down on its termination of single family zoning, ending loopholes that allowed municipalities to block an earlier state law designed to let owners build four homes on existing single family lots.

As reported earlier this year by the Wall Street Journal, fewer than 500 homes have been built since a 2021 law, SB 9, was passed allowing owners to split their single family home lots in two, and build two homes on each new lot.

Cities quickly passed restrictions to SB 9 properties, such a Temple City’s requirement that 1,000 square foot courtyards be constructed to create distance between housing units, and Redondo Beach won a lawsuit against the law when a judge found it cannot apply to charter cities, and does not meet the purpose of providing affordable housing by not requiring that SB 9 homes be income-restricted “affordable” housing.

“In order to justify SB 9’s interference with the municipal concerns of land use and zoning regulations, the Legislature cannot rely on potential, eventual decreases in prices resulting from increased housing supply to demonstrate that SB 9 would increase the supply of affordable (i.e., below market-rate) housing,” ruled Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kim. “Accordingly, the Court finds that SB 9 is neither reasonably related to ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.”

Under the California Constitution, the state’s 126 charter cities have substantial power over municipal affairs so long as they do not violate the state constitution.

With Kim’s ruling in effect, lawmakers moved ahead with SB 450, a bill signed into law by the governor in the fall that significantly reduces the power of local authorities to reject SB 9 projects, and redefines state housing goals with regard to charter cities’ power over municipal affairs.

“Following its passage, many cities enacted highly subjective standards that make it impossible to use the provisions of SB 9 to actually build housing,” wrote California YIMBY, which supported SB 450. “Some of these standards, such as onerous design reviews, create prohibitive costs; others, such as building setbacks and low height limits, make it physically impossible for homeowners to proceed with SB 9 projects.”

SB 450, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025, requires local governments to approve or deny projects within 60 days, removes or reduces demolition restrictions, environmental and design reviews, and requires denials to come with a list of application deficiencies and how to fix them. Projects with no denial within 60 days are automatically approved.

The law applies only to Census-defined urban areas, which is largely a non-limiting factor. The Census says 94.2% of Californians live in urban areas. The law also requires that resulting split lots be at least 1,200 square feet, and no less than 40% in size of the original lot, meaning lots must be at least 3,000 square feet to be split. However, the average lot in even San Francisco, which has the second-smallest average lots in the nation of any major city at 6,084 square feet, meaning most lots are eligible for splits.

The League of California Cities, whose members include almost every city in the state, cited insufficient staff to deal with the influx of housing applications under new state laws requiring ministerial (by-right) approval of projects that meet basic requirements, and the potential for loss of local control to lead to unintended consequences.

“The California Legislature continues to pass, and the Governor sign dozens of complex housing laws requiring ministerial approval of various projects without funding local governments to hire the necessary staff to implement these laws,” wrote the League in opposition. “Cities plan and zone for the intensity of land uses in their general plans to ensure safe and smart residential development. By removing the ability of local governments to account for this, these streamlined housing projects may have negative impacts on the environment, agriculture, noise levels, and wildlife.”

To address Kim’s ruling, SB 450 added legislative findings that the state faces a “housing crisis of availability and affordability,” and that solving the crisis requires “encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing” and development of housing that is affordable at all income levels.”

SB 450 also explicitly targeted charter cities and the Kim ruling, saying “the severe shortage of housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair,” and that it applies to “all cities, including charter cities.”

While SB 450 is yet to be challenged by the time of writing, the law represents a key point of contention with regards to legislators’ power over interpreting the state constitution without voters’ direct approval, and the delegated power of charter cities against the state more generally.

One indication about the future of SB 450 — and single-family zoning in charter cities — is the case of Huntington Beach and the question of its power to have local voter identification laws.

Voters of Huntington Beach, a charter city, passed a law requiring voter identification for local elections. A judge recently upheld Huntington Beach’s law, citing the municipal affairs doctrine in the state constitution and lack of conflict with any state law.

However, the judge’s ruling also forewarned that a new state law banning voter identification requirements — taking effect on January 1, 2025 — could bring the matter back to court, and set new precedent in the battle between the state government and charter cities attempting to hold on to their constitutional powers.