California's 2027 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know

Although the California Legislature's 2026 session did not produce landmark legislation like last year's infill housing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption, it did yield another substantial body of housing legislation. See Holland & Knight's previous annual recaps of California Housing Laws in the final section below.

The dozens of housing-related bills signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom include laws creating a new ministerial approval pathway for townhome projects, extended subdivision expiration timelines, limits on plan-check reviews and expanded Density Bonus Law benefits. 

For a deeper dive into these new laws, register for our California's 2027 Housing Laws webinar series beginning on October 27.

This Holland & Knight alert takes a closer look at the most significant measures affecting housing development, land use and real estate finance, grouped into the following categories:

Streamlining and Permitting

• Assembly Bill (AB) 1751 – establishes a new approval pathway for qualifying townhome projects; see Holland & Knight's alert summarizing the various aspects of the legislation 
• Senate Bill (SB) 1169 – amends the Subdivision Map Act to extend expiration periods
• SB 677 – amends the Subdivision Map Act to bar third-party appeals of subdivision and parcel maps for qualifying urban infill housing projects and allows the state treasurer to provide federal tax-law bond approvals when a locality fails to act
• AB 1621 –limits local agencies to two plan-check reviews for housing building permits, restricts inspection-stage changes to approved plans and shortens permit appeal timelines
• SB 963 – establishes a 180-day deadline for the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to act on appealed coastal development permits
• AB 2118 – strengthens AB 2011's by-right development pathway for housing on qualifying commercial sites, particularly for mixed-use projects
• AB 2576 – expands the historic preservation exclusions enacted as part of SB 79
• AB 2390 – amends and clarifies the law regarding post-approval modifications to projects approved pursuant to ministerial laws such as SB 35 and AB 2011

Density and Upzoning

• AB 2433 – amends the Density Bonus Law to provide enhanced density bonus calculations related to for-sale housing projects, along with more broadly applicable benefits
• AB 2480 – requires local governments to provide an additional density bonus for certain student housing developments
• SB 1383 – limits the use of density bonus concessions to override local prevailing wage and labor standards for certain housing developments

Enforcement and Litigation

• SB 1344 – increases potential liability for plaintiffs who file actions to block housing projects by increasing the maximum Section 529.2 bond limit
• SB 916 – extends the Section 529.2 bond posting requirement to lawsuits challenging student housing developments

CEQA

• SB 958 – provides that impacts associated with increased building height in infill areas may not be treated as significant impacts 
• SB 1085 – requires cities and counties to identify public water systems and request a water demand verification within new timelines 
• AB 1732 – expands the CEQA exemption for affordable housing to include public college and university housing projects

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)and Missing Middle

• SB 1117 – prohibits local agencies from imposing development impact fees on the first 750 square feet of an ADU
• AB 956 – expands ADU eligibility to a wider range of residential properties
• SB 1196 – requires utility providers to complete expedited electrical service connections for newly constructed ADUs
• SB 1116 – amends and clarifies California's small lot subdivision laws under the Starter Home Revitalization Act
• SB 1090 – creates a temporary moratorium on using the Starter Home Revitalization Act in wildfire-affected areas in Los Angeles County

Planning, Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)

• AB 2074 – creates a new framework linking transit infrastructure investment with housing production incentives
• SB 457 – creates a formula-based method for cities and counties to estimate housing-site capacity for housing element projections 
• AB 2296 – extends timelines in the RHNA determination and apportionment process
• SB 1087 – extends SB 375's sustainable communities strategy framework to an eight-year planning framework and exempts regional transportation plans from CEQA

Fees, Costs and Financing

• SB 1036 – amends the Mitigation Fee Act to mandate that impact fee credits for redevelopment projects are based on fees attributable to prior use of the site
• AB 2044 – expands fiscal accountability requirements for state agencies when adopting new buildings standards
• SB 1014 – requires local governments to provide nonbinding infrastructure improvement costs estimates within 30 days of receiving a preliminary housing project development application 

Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections

• AB 179 – amends California's affordable housing finance and administration framework
• AB 2128 – prohibits housing authorities and covered housing providers from imposing work requirements or term limits as a condition of eligibility for housing vouchers or rental assistance
• SB 1170 – enables collection purchase agreements for nonprofit affordable housing organizations
• AB 1556 – creates a framework for recovering housing eligibility for state homelessness funds 

Factory-Built Housing

• AB 2185 – requires state affordable housing programs to better account for the unique financing needs of factory-built housing
• AB 1815 – limits a local government's ability to impose building standards for factory-built and modular housing

Except where otherwise noted, new laws take effect on January 1, 2027. 

Streamlining and Permitting

AB 1751 (Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva) – Ministerial Approval for Townhome Projects. AB 1751 establishes a new ministerial, CEQA-exempt approval pathway for qualifying townhome development projects with up to 150 units. By removing discretionary review and CEQA obligations for townhome projects meeting specified objective criteria, the bill significantly accelerates the entitlement timeline for this product type, which has been identified as an important segment of California's "missing middle" housing supply. AB 1751 is an especially notable addition to the state's growing toolkit of ministerial housing approval pathways in that it does not impose a labor obligation and requires a relatively minimal affordable housing obligation. See Holland & Knight's alert summarizing the various aspects of AB 1751.

SB 1169 (Sen. Tim Grayson) – Tentative Subdivision Map Extensions. SB 1169 amends the Subdivision Map Act to extend the initial expiration period for approved or conditionally approved tentative subdivision maps from 24 months to 48 months and increase the initial extension that localities can provide from 24 months to 36 months (although applicants should be aware that further extensions are often available). These extended timelines also apply to any approved or conditionally approved map that is not expired as of December 31, 2026.

Developers have long been concerned that the existing two-year window is insufficient to complete the financing, final engineering and construction required to finalize a subdivision before the map expires, particularly for larger or phased projects. The Legislature has responded to this concern in past years with piecemeal extensions of some tentative maps approved within specific dates, but this law marks a welcome change that will make all tentative maps last for at least four years without the need to seek a discretionary extension from the locality.

SB 677 (Sen. Scott Wiener) – Subdivision Map Appeals and Bond Financing Approvals. SB 677 addresses two sources of delay for housing projects. First, it amends the Subdivision Map Act to eliminate the ability of third-party "interested persons" to require local governments to provide an "appeal" of tentative map, final map and related subdivision decisions. To qualify for this protection, the project site must 1) be entirely within an incorporated city that includes part of an urban area (or an urban area of a county with more than 250,000 residents), 2) meet the site criteria in Public Resources Code 21080.66(a)(3), enacted by last year's AB 130, 3) be served by public water and municipal sewers, and 4) avoid specified sensitive sites typical of housing streamlining laws.

The law preserves only certain avenues for appeal, including appeals by the applicant. This closes a procedural avenue that opponents have used to delay already-entitled projects at the map approval stage and takes a limited step towards reconciling older provisions of the Subdivision Map Act with the Legislature's more recent housing streamlining laws.

Second, the law aims to prevent reluctant local jurisdictions from blocking affordable housing financing by declining to hold the public hearing and provide the approval required under the federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (typically known as a TEFRA hearing and approval) for tax-exempt private activity bonds. The law provides that if the relevant local government entity fails to provide that approval within 30 days after a written request (or within its own published timeline, which cannot exceed 90 days), the state treasurer may step in and provide the necessary approval for qualified residential rental projects seeking a California Debt Limit Allocation Committee bond allocation.

AB 1621 (Assembly Member Lori D. Wilson) – Plan-Check and Appeal Timeline Limits. AB 1621 tightens the state's relatively recent efforts (through California Government Code 65913.3) to address delays at the post-entitlement phase of housing project developments. For building permits on housing projects, local and state agencies may not require or request more than two plan-check and specification reviews.

The law also limits "field changes" at inspection: Once building plans are approved, an agency may not require deviations from those plans as a result of a building inspection unless it makes written findings that no reasonable person could read the approved plans as compliant or that the change is needed to address a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety. If an applicant appeals an agency's denial or determination of noncompliance or incompleteness, that appeal must now be decided within 30 business days for projects of 25 units or fewer, and 45 business days for larger projects (down from 60 and 90, respectively). If an appeal is denied or not decided in time, the applicant may seek a writ of mandate to compel approval.

The law continues to allow local governments to toll deadlines while the application is being reviewed by an outside government agency, but this tolling is now limited to reviews by independent public agencies required by state or federal law, with notice to the applicant. A local agency's violation of these requirements is considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and is treated as a project "disapproval." The law helps clarify the process through which applicants can invoke the HAA's enforcement and penalty provisions. For developers, the law targets two of the most common sources of post-entitlement delay and cost – iterative plan-check cycles and late-stage inspection changes – and provides a meaningful remedy when localities do not comply. 

SB 963 (Sen. John Laird) – Coastal Commission Permit Timelines. SB 963 provides clarity on the process through which the CCC reviews coastal development permit appeals. The bill identifies the required components of an appeal application, requires the executive director to determine completeness within 30 days of submittal and authorizes them to reject an appeal that is not consistent with the required components. The bill also provides for de novo review of an appeal and establishes an 180-day deadline for the CCC to act on appealed coastal development permits following a substantial issue finding and complete submittal. Prior to this measure, there was no statutory deadline for the CCC to act after finding substantial issue on an appeal, leading to prolonged delays.

AB 2118 (Assembly Member Josh Hoover) – AB 2011 Mixed-Use Development Protections. AB 2118 strengthens AB 2011's (2022) by-right development process for qualifying housing projects on commercially zoned sites. Existing law already bars local objective design and development standards that would preclude an AB 2011 project from achieving its required density or require smaller units. AB 2118 adds that local standards may not prohibit or otherwise limit mixed-use development, which is defined as residential combined with office, retail, restaurant or other uses authorized by the parcel's zoning.

This change addresses concerns that some local jurisdictions have adopted objective standards that could constrain mixed-use development on AB 2011 sites. For qualifying projects along commercial corridors, AB 2118 also provides that AB 2011's setback, frontage and step-back requirements only apply to the "development project," rather than to the entire property on which the project is located.

See Holland & Knight's alert summarizing the pathway created by AB 2011.

AB 2576 (Assembly Member John Harabedian) – Expands SB 79's Historic Preservation Exclusion. AB 2576 amends SB 79 – the 2025 landmark transit-oriented development upzoning law – to expand the types of historic properties that a local agency may temporarily exclude from SB 79. Previously, the exclusion applied only to sites with a historic resource on a local register. AB 2576 extends the exclusion to the following, provided they were designated before January 1, 2025: 1) contributing sites within a historic district included on the California State Historic Resources Inventory; and 2) parcels individually listed as historical resources on the State Historic Resources Inventory. However, this exclusion is not automatic – it only applies where the local government has adopted an ordinance identifying the site's exclusion and lasts until one year after the local government adopts its seventh-cycle housing element. See Holland & Knight's alert summarizing the various aspects of SB 79. 

AB 2390 (Assembly Member Pilar Schiavo) – Post-Approval Modifications for Streamlined Ministerial Approvals. This law makes minor changes to the process for seeking modifications to projects previously approved through SB 35 and SB 423, as well as other ministerial statutes such as AB 2011. The law clarifies that, with very limited exceptions, localities must grant post-approval modifications as long as the project remains consistent with applicable locally adopted zoning, subdivision and design review standards that were in effect at the time of the original application or notice of intent. In addition, the law clarifies the process to toll expiration timelines if there is litigation against any modification.

Density and Upzoning

AB 2433 (Assembly Member David Alvarez) – Density Bonus Law Enhancements. AB 2433, referred to as the "Affordable Homeownership Bonus Law" by its author, makes a series of important changes to Density Bonus Law, some of which are primarily intended to improve for-sale affordable housing options, and others of which should improve access to Density Bonus Law for all. These changes include:

• For-sale projects that meet applicable affordability thresholds will receive two additional incentives or concessions beyond those available to rental projects.
• Local governments must affirmatively apply the Density Bonus Law to projects that meet the qualifying affordability levels rather than waiting for the applicant to request the law's benefits, marking a notable change in practice.
• Applicants can now elect to seek a density bonus in the form of a percentage increase infloor area ratio (FAR) where the applicant prepares a base density study. This is an important update as more jurisdictions shift to FAR and form-based codes.Applicants should carefully consider whether to seek additional density under the traditional dwelling-units-per-acre measurement or FAR.
• Projects using the "stacked" additional density bonus (available to projects that provide 15 percent verylowincome, 24 percent lower income or 44 percent moderate income base units) can substitute more "deeply affordable" units for higher-income affordability thresholds and are no longer subject to the previous requirementthat no more than 50 percent of the units be affordable.
• The law also makes important clarifications that, although consistent with current practice and regulatory guidance, should provide welcome comfort to project applicants facing challenges from opponents. Specifically, the law has been clarified to provide that:
• Granting a density bonus, incentive, concession or waiver is not "discretionary" and does not by itself require or trigger a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, rezoning, other discretionary approval or CEQA review. 
• Density bonus benefits apply throughout a mixed-use project, not just to the project's residential components.In addition, the law further specifies parameters that mixed-use projects should meet to ensure access to the full suite of Density Bonus Law benefits.

AB 2480 (Assembly Member Anamarie Ávila Farías) – Density Bonus Law Reforms for Student Housing. Building upon the existing density bonus for student housing developments with 20 percent of base units for lower-income students, the law creates a new "stackable" density bonus for qualifying student housing projects in specified "campus development zones" if at least 24 percent of base units are for lower-income students and an additional 26 percent of base units are for either moderate- or lower-income students.

The law provides specialized definitions of affordable rent, which take into account the nature of student housing, including by adjusting on the basis of how many shared versus unshared bedrooms are in a unit and permitting students to qualify as "moderate income" only if they are not claimed as dependents by their parents or guardians.

SB 1383 (Sen. Jesse Arreguin) – Density Bonus Concessions and Labor Standards. In a rare example of the Legislature taking action to retract the scope of Density Bonus Law, SB 1383 prohibits the use of density bonus concessions to eliminate or relax locally adopted labor standards that regulate wages paid, hours worked and other conditions of employment. Projects with affordable housing had previously invoked the Density Bonus Law to relax or eliminate requirements, such as locally adopted prevailing wage requirements, which are very rare.

Now, local labor standards can only be modified pursuant to the Density Bonus Law if a project is less than 85 feet tall or if the locally adopted labor standard exceeds the labor requirements imposed by SB 35 and SB 423 (Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code), as it was in effect on December 31, 2025. The fact that this new limitation on the scope of Density Bonus Law is now one of the few express limits in the statute is relatively persuasive evidence that the scope of regulatory relief available under this law is otherwise quite broad.

Enforcement and Litigation

SB 1344 (Sen. Christopher Cabaldon) – Increased Bond for Lawsuits Challenging Housing. SB 1344 amends California Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 – which currently allows defendants in actions challenging certain housing projects to require plaintiffs to post a bond – to increase the maximum bond amount from $500,000 to $1 million. Accordingly, this amendment increases potential liability for plaintiffs who file actions to block housing projects without substantial justification. 

SB 916 (Sen. Angelique Ashby) – Bond-Posting Requirement for Student Housing Litigation. SB 916 also expands the Section 529.2 bond procedure, specifically extending it to lawsuits challenging student housing projects. 

CEQA

SB 958 (Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson) – Building Height Impacts Excluded from CEQA Significance. SB 958 provides that environmental impacts associated with increased building height alone may not be treated as significant impacts for non-industrial projects meeting certain conditions. To qualify, 1) the use and density of the project must be analyzed in the environmental impact report, 2) the project must be located on a previously graded infill site, 3) there must be no sensitive biological resources physically present on the site and 4) the project must be consistent with the local airport land use plan, to the extent applicable. SB 958 addresses a recurring pattern of project opponents raising height-related concerns (e.g., glare, shadows and wind patterns) as a basis for delaying a project through additional environmental review. 

SB 1085 (Sen. Maria Elena Durazo) – Water Supply Verification Timelines. Under existing law, lead agencies are required to evaluate a project's impact on water supply. Certain project classes are also required to prepare water supply assessments (WSA), including residential projects with 500 or more units and commercial office projects with more than 1,000 employees or more than 250,000 square feet of floor space (WSA project).

SB 1085 requires local agencies to identify public water systems and request water demand verifications for WSA projects within new statutory timeframes. Specifically, within 15 days of 1) receiving an SB 330 preliminary application for any WSA project that is subject to the AB 130 urban infill housing development statutory exemption, or 2) issuing a completeness determination for any other WSA project, the local agency must identify public water systems that may supply water to the project and request that the water system determine whether the water demand from the project was included in the system's urban water management plan (UWP).

If the WSA project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130 or SB 35, the public water system must return a UMP assessment to the local agency no later than 45 days following the request. If the local agency cannot identify a public water system, the local agency must prepare a WSA after consulting with the water supplier, Local Agency Formation Commission and any adjacent water public system. 

AB 1732 (Assembly Member Alvarez)– Affordable Housing Exemption Expansion. AB 1449, enacted during the California Legislature's 2023-2024 session, created a CEQA statutory exemption for affordable housing projects (i.e., 100 percent low-income) that satisfy certain labor standards and site criteria. AB 1732 expands this CEQA exemption to "public university or public college housing projects" that also fulfill labor standards and site criteria. The law defines public university or public college housing projects as "one or more housing facilities to be occupied by students, faculty, or staff of one or more campuses of the University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges, including dining, academic, student support service spaces, and other necessary and usual attendant and related facilities and equipment." AB 1732 also extends the sunset date of this CEQA exemption to 2037. 

ADUs, JADUs and Missing Middle Housing

SB 1117 (Sen. Sabrina Cervantes) – Impact Fee Exemption for Small ADUs. Under state ADU law (Government Code Section 65852.2 et seq.), local agencies are prohibited from assessing development impact fees on ADUs that have less than 750 square feet of interior livable space and JADUs with less than 500 square feet. For ADUs with more than 750 square feet of interior livable space, impact fees must be assessed proportionately based on the size of the primary dwelling unit. SB 1117 now prohibits local agencies from imposing impact fees on the first 750 square feet of an ADU, provided the project proposes less than two ADUs on a single lot. For projects that propose more than two ADUs on a single lot, the proportionality standard still governs. 

AB 956 (Assembly Member Quirk-Silva) – Two Detached ADUs on Single-Family Parcels; ADU Zoning Expansion. Under state ADU law, there are four ADU project categories that are commonly referred to as "state exempt ADUs" (previously known as Subdivision (e) ADUs) that 1) are subject to only a building permit application and 2) cannot be subject to local development standards or other provisions of state ADU law.

One such protected "state exempt ADU" was a single 800-square-foot detached unit on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family residence that adheres to four-foot rear and side yard setbacks and height limitations. AB 956 expands that category to now include two detached ADUs on a parcel with a proposed or existing single-family residential dwelling. In doing so, AB 956 streamlines approvals and reduces the ability of local agencies to apply development standards to qualifying two-detached-ADU projects.

AB 956 also makes an important change to the statutory protections ADUs have against homeowners association (HOA) reviews. Under AB 956, HOAs (and their governing declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions) can no longer prohibit or unreasonably restrict ADUs on any parcel that is "zoned to allow" single-family residential use. The prior version of state law used the term "zoned for." This small but important textual amendment was made in response to an April 2026 San Diego County Superior Court decision that upheld an HOA's denial of an ADU proposed on a parcel that allowed single-family uses, but not exclusively (i.e., townhomes and duplexes were also permitted). AB 956 now ensures that HOAs can no longer deny or unreasonably restrict ADUs on properties that are not zoned exclusively for single-family residential purposes, as long as the base zone also permits single-family residential structures. 

SB 1196 (Sen. Jerry McNerney) – Expedited Electrical Connections for ADUs. In an effort to mitigate growing concerns regarding delays in the energization process for new housing projects, SB 1196 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to establish timelines for California utilities to respond to and process requests to energize small energization projects by September 30, 2027. The term "small energization project" includes energization projects that do not require distribution or service line extensions and whose only upgrade is a new electric meter.

The new timelines must include, among other things, a deadline for utilities to determine whether an energization application is complete, and if incomplete, utilities must provide a list of deficiencies and an explanation of how the applicant may remedy such deficiencies. SB 1196 also requires the forthcoming rules to allow applicants to submit energization applications at the same time they submit a building permit application with a local agency. 

SB 1116 (Sen. Anna Caballero) – Small Lot Subdivision Reforms. SB 1116 amends the Starter Home Revitalization Act – SB 684, as previously amended by SB 1123 – which requires local agencies to ministerially approve, without a public hearing, small lot subdivisions (i.e., 10 or fewer lots and/or units). SB 1116 voids covenants and deed restrictions that prohibit or physically preclude the development of a Starter Home Revitalization Act project, except for real property that is part of a common interest development or HOA community.

SB 1116 does not void restrictions that impose objective design, use or public health and safety standards that do not physically preclude a Starter Home Revitalization Act project at its permitted density. SB 1116 also revises development standards that local agencies can apply, including 1) a FAR of no less than 1.25 (instead of 1.0), 2) front setbacks no greater than 10 feet from the original lot line and 3) internal setbacks between parcels, except as required by the California Building Code. SB 1116 also removes the 5-acre limitation on lots zoned for multifamily residential use. Lastly, the bill borrows a concept from the HAA in that Starter Home Revitalization Act must be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.

SB 1090 (Sen. Sasha Renée Perez) – Starter Home Revitalization Act Moratorium in Wildfire Recovery Areas. SB 1090 creates a moratorium (effective from September 30, 2026, through January 1, 2030) on using the Starter Home Revitalization Act (see above) in two Altadena (Los Angeles County) zip codes covering areas impacted by the 2025 Eaton Wildfire. The bill exempts Starter Home Revitalization Act applications submitted prior to the law's effective date.

Planning, Housing Element and RHNA

AB 2074 (Assembly Member Matt Haney) – Regional Transit Hub Districts and Downtown Housing. AB 2074 expands the Legislature's push to link regional transit and high-density housing developments, building on the approach of last year's SB 79. The bill requires major transit cities (Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and Long Beach) to designate at least one regional transit hub district by July 1, 2027.

In these districts, cities must adopt development standards facilitating dense "downtown housing development" of at least 60 dwelling units per acre. The bill also provides that downtown housing development projects in such districts are eligible for streamlined approval pursuant to SB 35's ministerial process but must meet the labor standards associated with SB 35. 

SB 457 (Sen. Josh Becker) – Formula-Based Approach to Housing Element Projections. SB 457 makes a technical but important change to the housing element process going forward. Currently, when jurisdictions utilize nonvacant sites to accommodate their RHNA allocation, they must demonstrate that the existing uses on those sites will not prevent residential redevelopment during the housing element cycle – a task that can be difficult for built-out cities relying primarily on redevelopment. SB 457 authorizes a holistic, formula-based approach to nonvacant sites, directing the California Department of Housing and Community Development to devise formulas that reflect the probability of development for a variety of sites and allows agencies to utilize those formulas in lieu of the current site-by-site approach. Although seemingly technical, this change could have a large impact on which cities and counties will be subject to the Builder's Remedy in the upcoming planning cycle, and which will be able to invoke the significant benefits of being included on Housing Element sites inventory. See Holland & Knight's alert summarizing California's housing element inventory designations. 

AB 2296 (Assembly Member Diane Papan)– Increased RHNA Allocation Timelines. AB 2296 amends housing element law to require regional councils of governments to develop allocation methodologies and distribute RHNA allocations earlier in the process: for the seventh RHNA cycle, methodologies must be developed two and a half years before the housing element adoption deadline, and allocations must be distributed two years before that deadline. These new timelines do not apply to seventh-cycle regions with housing element deadlines falling before 2030.

SB 1087 (Sen. Cabaldon) – Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plans. SB 1087 amends the sustainable communities strategy framework established by SB 375 (2008), moving from a four-year to an eight-year planning timeframe and exempting regional transportation plans from CEQA. 

Fees, Costs and Financing

SB 1036 (Sen. Grayson) – Impact Fee Offsets for Redevelopment Projects. SB 1036 amends the Mitigation Fee Act to require that impact fees imposed on projects that demolish or change an existing use be offset so they reflect only the project's incremental impact on public facilities. Similarly, the bill limits water and sewer capacity charges to the change in the connection's capacity.

AB 2044 (Assembly Member Cottie Petrie-Norris) – Building Standards Cost-of-Compliance Estimates. Existing law requires agencies to include cost assumptions when proposing a new statewide building standard, but AB 2044 will require the California Building Standards Commission to deny a proposed standard if the estimated cost-of-compliance information in the agency's initial statement of reasons is inadequate. This bill continues a trend of recognizing and attempting to curtail the cumulative costs of continually updated building standards.

SB 1014 (Sen. Grayson) – Infrastructure Cost Estimates for Housing Projects. SB 1014 allows applicants to request a good-faith, nonbinding estimate of required on-site and off-site improvements along with a preliminary or standard development application, and the city or county must respond within 30 business days. An applicant may submit a separate request to applicable utility agencies, and a similar 30-day response deadline applies. In addition, within 30 business days of deeming a post-entitlement phase permit application complete, cities and counties must also provide an itemized list of required improvements and unlisted improvements are generally barred absent specified exceptions.

Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections

AB 179 – Housing Budget Trailer Bill. Unlike last year, when the Legislature created a major CEQA exemption in a housing budget trailer bill through AB 130, this year's budget bill hewed much more closely to state housing finance. See Holland & Knight's alert summarizing the various aspects of AB 130. Notable changes include a new commitment that at least 90 percent of the state's private activity bond ceiling must go to qualified residential rental projects, with bond allocation being a ministerial act for projects awarded state funding by the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) once federal thresholds are met.

For state funding notices issued after July 1, 2027, agencies must also give scoring credit to affordable projects that receive local fee reductions or waivers. Building upon Gov. Newsom's initiative to consolidate state housing departments under the recently created California Housing and Homelessness Agency, the law also consolidates the major multifamily programs under the new agency's HDFC, directing it to develop a consolidated application and simultaneous awards. (This law took effect on July 13, 2026.)

AB 2128 (Assembly Member Haney) – Prohibition on Work Requirements and Term Limits in HUD-Assisted Housing. AB 2128 prohibits housing authorities and other covered housing providers – expressly including private owners and property managers that administer or are subsidized through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs such as vouchers and project-based rental assistance – from imposing work requirements or term limits as a condition of initial or continued eligibility or in a way that affects the amount of rent subsidy or assistance, unless federal law requires otherwise. Voluntary employment and job training programs remain permitted if participation does not affect eligibility or subsidy amounts, and Moving to Work agencies, the Family Self-Sufficiency program and public housing community service requirement are carved out.

SB 1170 (Sen. Durazo) – Joint Powers Authority for Nonprofit Housing. SB 1170 authorizes nonprofit housing developers to enter into joint powers agreements with public agencies to exercise common powers collectively, including to pool risk and obtain insurance coverage. A risk-pooling agreement must ensure that no participating public agency becomes responsible for the joint powers agency's underlying debts or liabilities and that participating public agencies are indemnified against them. The joint powers agency may use its insurance revenues only for operating expenses and for technical support, education, safety engineering and advisory assistance to its members. 

AB 1556 (Assembly Member Haney) – Recovery Housing Funding. AB 1556 establishes conditions for state-funded recovery housing programs, including compliance with Housing First core components, a prohibition on evicting residents for relapse absent another lease violation, on-site overdose-reversal medication and a written return-to-use policy approved by a National Alliance for Recovery Residences affiliate or similar entity. 

Factory-Built Housing

AB 2185 (Assembly Member Quirk-Silva) – Affordable Housing Programs for Factory-Built Housing. AB 2185 requires state affordable housing agencies to revise their program guidelines to facilitate factory-built housing by July 1, 2027. Measures include confirming that such projects are an eligible use of funds and, for projects funded directly, making early deposits available to cover upfront factory production costs applicable to factory-built housing. The bill also permits funding agencies to require security against a project's failure to close financing. 

AB 1815 (Assembly Member Buffy Wicks) – Uniform State Building Standards for Factory-Built Structures. AB 1815 prohibits local governments from imposing building standards on qualifying factory-built housing structures (as defined) that exceed or differ from the California Building Standards Code, subject to the usual authority for local climatic, geological and topographical amendments. The bill also creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of determinations that facilitate factory-built housing. 

A separate bill, AB 2166 (co-authored by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo) would have established a low-cost financing program for factory-built housing production facilities and manufacturers. However, Gov. Newsom vetoed the bill, citing that, "a proposal of this scale should instead be considered through the annual budget process, where its funding needs, risk protections, and administrative structure can be evaluated together."

For more information about how to maximize these and other state housing laws to advance the approval of your project, contact the authors or your Holland & Knight West Coast Land Use and Environmental Group attorney.

Previous California Housing Law Alerts

• A Closer Look at California's New Housing Production Laws, December 6, 2017
• California's 2019 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, October 8, 2018
• California's 2020 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, October 18, 2019
• California's 2021 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, November 4, 2020
• California's 2022 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, October 13, 2021
• California's 2023 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, October 10, 2022
• California's 2024 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, October 31, 2023
• California's 2025 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, November 5, 2024
• California's 2026 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know, December 11, 2025

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.