AB782 - Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.

Amended IN Senate June 02, 2026 Amended IN Senate July 16, 2025 Amended IN Senate July 03, 2025 Amended IN Assembly May 05, 2025 Amended IN Assembly March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 782 Introduced by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva February 18, 2025 An act to amend Section 11018 714.6 of the Business and Professions Civil Code, relating to land use. real property. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 782, as amended, Quirk-Silva. Subdivisions: security. Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses. Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict or prohibit the residential uses of the property, are not enforceable against the owner of a housing development if an approved restrictive covenant housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as a housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as a housing development and if a modification document may be recorded. Existing law defines “housing development,” for purposes of these provisions, as a development located on the property that is the subject of the recorded restrictive covenant and meets one of 3 sets of specified requirements. One set requires the property to be owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations. This bill would narrow the housing developments that qualify for removing use restrictions on an existing commercial property, as described above, by excluding a development project within a charter city that meets 3 criteria. For that exclusion, the bill would require the charter city to have a population size between 200,000 and 400,000 and a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the housing element law, as specified. Additionally, the bill would require the charter city to have issued residential building permits that, on an average annual basis during the current regional housing needs allocation cycle applicable to the charter city, allow for a total of more than 500 residential units. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. The act requires prescribed security from a developer if the act or a local ordinance authorizes or requires the furnishing of security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement. Existing law requires the Real Estate Commissioner to make an examination of any subdivision, and to, unless there are grounds for denial, issue to the subdivider a public report authorizing the sale or lease of the lots or parcels within the subdivision. Existing law specifies the grounds for denial, including, among other things, the inability to demonstrate that adequate financial arrangements have been made for all offsite improvements included in the offering or the inability to demonstrate that adequate financial arrangements have been made for any community, recreational, or other facilities included in the offering. This bill would prohibit the Real Estate Commissioner, in issuing a public report for a residential development or project, from requiring the furnishing of a security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement related to an improvement if the Real Estate Commissioner determines that security sufficient to protect the interests of purchasers, owners, and lessees, as necessary, has been furnished to a local agency for the same improvement pursuant to the provisions above requiring security under the Subdivision Map Act. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 714.6 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 714.6. (a) Recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of private or publicly owned land contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, reciprocal easement agreement, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that restrict or prohibit the residential uses of the property, the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, or that restrict the number of persons or families who may reside on the property, shall not be enforceable against the owner of a housing development, if an approved restrictive covenant housing modification document has been recorded in the public record as provided for in this section, except as explicitly provided in this section. (b) (1) The owner of a housing development shall be entitled to establish that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable pursuant to subdivision (a) by submitting a restrictive covenant modification document pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code that modifies or removes any existing restrictive covenant language that restricts or prohibits the residential uses of the property, the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on the property, or that restricts the number of persons or families that may reside on the property, to the extent necessary to allow the housing development to proceed under the existing declaration of restrictive covenants. (2) (A) The owner shall submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant, a copy of any notice the owner believes is required pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (g), and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as a housing development under this section prior to, or simultaneously with, the submission of the request for recordation of the restrictive covenant modification document. (B) Before recording the restrictive covenant modification document, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12956.2 of the Government Code, the county recorder shall, within five business days of receipt, submit the documentation provided to the county recorder by the owner pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the modification document to the county counsel for review. The county counsel shall determine whether the original restrictive covenant document restricts the property in a manner prohibited by subdivision (a), whether the owner has submitted documents sufficient to establish that the property qualifies as a housing development under this section, whether any notice required under this section has been provided, whether any exemption provided in subdivision (g) or (h) applies, and whether the restriction may no longer be enforced against the owner of the housing development and that the owner may record a modification document pursuant to this section. (C) Pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code, the county counsel shall return the documents and inform the county recorder of the county counsel’s determination within 15 days of submission to the county counsel. If the county counsel is unable to make a determination, the county counsel shall specify the documentation that is needed in order to make the determination. If the county counsel has authorized the county recorder to record the modification document, that authorization shall be noted on the face of the modification or on a cover sheet affixed thereto, and the county recorder shall notify the owner or submitting party of the county counsel’s determination without delay so that the notice described in subparagraph (D) may be given. (D) Upon being notified that the county counsel has authorized the county recorder to record the modification document, the owner may mail, by certified mail to anyone who the owner knows has an interest in the property or in the restrictive covenant, a copy of the modification document, together with a copy of this section and a written explanation that the modification has been applied for and approved for recordation by the county counsel pursuant to this section. That notice shall be deemed given if the notice is actually received by the intended recipient or if the notice is mailed by certified mail both to an address for notice indicated in the restrictive covenant, if any, and to the intended recipient’s address as shown in the last equalized assessment roll, if that address reasonably can be ascertained from the assessment roll. The owner may also publish notice pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code identifying that a modification document pursuant to this section has been submitted to the county recorder and approved for recordation by the county counsel, and that the modification document is available for public inspection in the office of the county recorder. The notice shall also identify the property by assessor’s parcel number and mailing address. If no mailing address has been assigned for the property, then the property shall be identified instead by its nearest intersection. If the owner elects to publish notice in this manner, then notice shall be deemed given to anyone whose interest does not appear of record or for whom an address for notice does not appear of record and cannot reasonably be ascertained from the assessment roll. Notice as described in this subparagraph is optional, and failure to provide it shall not, in any manner, invalidate a restrictive covenant modification document recorded pursuant to this section. (E) The county recorder shall not record the modification document if the county counsel finds that the original restrictive covenant document does not contain a restriction prohibited by this section or if the county counsel finds that the property does not qualify as a housing development. If the owner of the property is not yet its record title owner, but is instead a beneficial owner with a right pursuant to a purchase and sale or similar agreement to purchase the property, then the owner shall not record the modification document until the owner closes escrow on the property and becomes its record title owner. (F) A modification document shall be indexed in the same manner as the original restrictive covenant document being modified. It shall contain a recording reference to the original restrictive covenant document, in the form of a book and page or instrument number, and date of the recording. The effective date of the terms and conditions of the modification document shall be the same as the effective date of the original restrictive covenant document, subject to any intervening amendments or modifications, except to the extent modified by the recorded modification document. (3) If the holder of an ownership interest of record in property causes to be recorded a modification document pursuant to this section that modifies or removes a restrictive covenant that is not authorized by this section, the county shall not incur liability for recording the document. The liability that may result from the unauthorized recordation shall be the sole responsibility of the holder of the ownership interest of record who caused the unauthorized recordation. (4) A restrictive covenant that was 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. (5) If the property is utilized in any manner that violates the terms of the restrictions required by this section, the city or county may, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, record a notice of that violation. If the owner complies with the applicable restrictions, the owner may apply to the agency of the city or county that recorded the notice of violation for a release of the notice of violation, and, if approved by the city or county, a release of the notice of violation may be recorded. (6) The county recorder may charge a standard recording fee to an owner who submits a modification document for recordation pursuant to this section. (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this section shall only apply to restrictive covenants that restrict or prohibit the residential uses of the property, the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on a property, or that restrict the number of persons or families who may reside on a property. This section does not apply to any other covenant, including, but not limited to, covenants that: (A) Relate to purely aesthetic objective design standards, as long as the objective design standards are not applied in a manner that renders the housing development infeasible. (B) Provide for fees or assessments for the maintenance of common areas. (C) Provide for limits on the amount of rent that may be charged to tenants. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to restrictive covenants, fees, and assessments that have not been consistently enforced or assessed prior to the construction of the housing development. (d) (1) Any suit filed by a party that is deemed to have been given notice as described in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), which challenges the validity of a restrictive covenant modification document pursuant to this section, shall be filed within 35 days of that notice. (2) In any suit filed to enforce the rights provided in this section or defend against a suit filed against them, a prevailing owner of a housing development, and any successors or assigns, or a holder of a conservation easement, shall be entitled to recover, as part of any judgment, litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, provided that any judgment entered shall be limited to those costs incurred after the modification document was recorded as provided by subdivision (b). (3) This subdivision shall not prevent the cou [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]