Below is general educational information: interested parties should contact their litigating lawyer friend and entitlement specialist for complete details on this more complex subject.

A church Corporation (including a Corporation sole or nonprofit religious Corporation) and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit can be firm plaintiffs in litigation against a city, empowering your organization to stand up for its rights confidently. 

The key is which cause(s) of action fit  the situation:

·       State-housing-law enforcement (mandamus/injunction) if the project qualifies for SB-4 “use by right” or other ministerial/streamlined approvals, and the city refuses or drags its feet.  Documenting your case thoroughly can help your organization feel prepared and confident in pursuing legal remedies.

·       Civil-rights “discrimination” claims (federal RLUIPA, etc.) are available if you can show the city treated your religious institution worse because of its spiritual nature or imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise via land-use regulation.  Recognizing these options can help your organization feel more in control of challenging unfair treatment.

·       State enforcement penalty regimes (like SB‑1037) may be available only through the Attorney General or HCD, not typically as a private damages claim by the applicant.

Below is how your cited bills fit together in practice.

1) If the project is an SB‑4 project, the city’s discretion is heavily constrained

What SB‑4 does (the “Yes in God’s Backyard” framework)

 SB‑4 (Gov. Code § 65913.16) requires ministerial (“use by right”) approval for specific 100% affordable housing projects on land owned by a religious institution (or qualifying nonprofit college) on or before 1 January 2024, notwithstanding inconsistent local zoning, if detailed site/project/labor criteria are met. 

Key SB‑4 points that matter for lawsuits:

• “Use by right” means no conditional use permit or other discretionary review, and it is treated as not a “project” for CEQA purposes in the ministerial sense. 
• The project must comply with objective development standards that are not in conflict with SB‑4, and SB‑4 includes timelines and “deemed compliant”-style protections if the city fails to document conflicts with objective standards promptly. 
• SB‑4 defines “religious institution” in corporate terms (nonprofit religious Corporation/Corporation sole), which typically covers church corporations. 

So if your project truly qualifies under SB‑4 and the city refuses approval, your most substantial core claim is usually to compel compliance (writ/mandamus + injunctive relief), not “discrimination” per se.

2) AB‑1893 (HAA / “Builder’s Remedy 2.0”) can be an additional hammer — if your project qualifies

 AB‑1893 amended the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code § 65589.5) and tightened the rules around when cities may disapprove or condition housing in ways that render it infeasible; it also refines “Builder’s Remedy” mechanics.

 The HAA generally requires that a local agency not disapprove qualifying housing unless it makes specific written findings supported by evidence (e.g., “specific, adverse Impact” on health/safety with no feasible mitigation). 

 Why this matters to a church/nonprofit: SB‑4 cross-references the HAA definition of “housing development project.

That means your SB‑4 project often sits inside the broader HAA ecosystem, giving you additional statutory arguments against denial/constructive denial, depending on the project’s affordability mix, completeness status, and local housing element posture.

3) AB‑712: fee-shifting + mandatory fines for prevailing applicants enforcing “housing reform laws.”

 AB‑712 (Chapter 496, Statutes of 2025) creates a powerful remedy: where an applicant sues to enforce a public agency’s compliance with a “housing reform Law” as applied to that applicant’s project and prevails, the applicant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and the court must impose fines on the local agency (as specified).

Other AB‑712 features you should plan around:

• It extends statutes of limitation by 60 days, starting when the applicant gives written notice of intent to sue. 
• It limits local agencies from forcing applicants to indemnify/defend/hold harmless the agency in suits alleging the agency violated the applicant’s rights under housing reform laws. 
• It defines “housing reform Law” broadly as laws that protect applicants / limit agency discretion in favor of housing projects. 

If SB‑4 applies, AB‑712 is potentially a central leverage point, because SB‑4 is precisely the type of “streamlining/ministerial approval” statute AB‑712 was designed to enforce through meaningful consequences.

4) SB‑808: fast-track court process to challenge housing permit denials/failures to act

 SB‑808 creates an expedited writ of mandate pathway for actions reviewing a local agency’s denial of a permit or entitlement for a housing development project or residential unit, and gives trial and appellate preference.

 It also requires prompt compilation/certification of records and sets aggressive hearing/decision timelines (as summarized in legislative analyses and practitioner summaries).

 Bottom line: If the city says “no” (or effectively “no” through unlawful delay), SB‑808 is designed to get you a judicial decision fast.

5) SB‑1037: considerable penalties — but typically only in AG/HCD enforcement actions.

 SB‑1037 adds Government Code § 65009.1 and increases court-ordered civil penalties when cities fail to adopt compliant housing elements or to approve projects that state Law requires be ministerially approved.  Still, the statute’s penalty mechanism is keyed to actions brought by the Attorney General or HCD.

 The AG’s legal alert describes penalties of $10,000–$50,000 per month per violation (when the local agency’s conduct meets the statute’s “arbitrary/capricious/unlawful” type thresholds) in those enforcement suits.

Practical use for a church/nonprofit applicant: SB‑1037 is often best used by:

• Documenting the violation, then
• Triggering state oversight (HCD/AG attention) to expose the city to state-level enforcement risk.

6) When does it become a “discrimination” lawsuit (instead of “they violated SB‑4”)?

The strongest “discrimination” tool in land use is usually RLUIPA

RLUIPA prohibits governments from implementing land use regulations that:

• impose a substantial burden on religious exercise absent a compelling interest / least restrictive means,
• treat religious assemblies on less than equal terms than comparable nonreligious assemblies.
• discriminate based on religion or denomination.

The DOJ summarizes RLUIPA as protecting “houses of worship… from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws” and explains how discretionary land-use processes may be misused to discriminate against houses of worship.

 A city can unlawfully violate SB-4/HAA/HAA without it constituting religious discrimination.  Conversely, discrimination can occur even if the city claims it is applying neutral rules.  Your evidence often turns on:

• comparator projects (similar secular projects treated better),
• hostile statements, unusual process, shifting rationales,
• discretionary hurdles imposed only on the religious applicant, etc.,

So yes: a church Corporation / 501(c)(3) can sue for discrimination — but you typically plead discrimination under RLUIPA (and sometimes constitutional theories) and plead SB‑4/HAA violations as separate statutory counts seeking mandamus/injunctive relief (and fees/fines where applicable).

A practical “playbook” if the city refuses to approve

Step 1 — Confirm eligibility and lock the record

• Confirm the project meets SB‑4 criteria (ownership timing, affordability, site adjacency constraints, labor requirements, objective standards compliance).
• Make sure the application is positioned to be treated as a ministerial approval (i.e., SB‑4 “use by right”).

Step 2 — Demand written, objective reasons (and preserve deadliness

 SB 4 is built around objective standards and written documentation of conflicts within defined timeframes; these constitute the basis for a writ petition. 

Step 3 — Parallel-track enforcement

• Applicant lawsuit: seek writ/mandamus under the housing statutes and use SB‑808 to accelerate judicial review where applicable.
• Fee/fine exposure: plead entitlement to AB‑712 remedies if you prevail in enforcing a housing reform Law.
• State escalation: notify HCD/AG (SB‑1037 creates meaningful state leverage in the correct posture).

Step 4 — Add RLUIPA only if facts support it.

 If your evidence indicates religious targeting or unequal terms, add RLUIPA discrimination/substantial burden counts.

The key gating question: Is your project a “housing development project” under these laws?

 SB‑4 explicitly ties “housing development project” to the HAA definition, and SB‑808’s expedited review also turns on whether the dispute involves housing entitlements for a “housing development project” or residential unit.

So, eligibility is the hinge that determines how strong your “state mandate” case is.

Quick clarifying questions (so I can give you a tighter, fact-specific roadmap)

·         What is the project?  (100% affordable?  mixed-income?  number of units?)

·         Does the religious institution own the land, and was it owned on/before 1 January 2024?

·         What exactly did the city do   (formal denial, refusal to deem complete, “pause,” discretionary process demanded, CEQA demanded, etc.)

·         Do you have any comparators (similar secular developments treated more favorably) or statements that suggest religious animus?

Not legal advice. Proving religious discrimination in land use is fact-intensive, and the “winning” evidence is usually a combination of (a) what the city said, (b) how the city treated you compared to similarly situated secular uses, and (c) how the city departed from its normal rules/process. 

 Below is a practical, litigation-ready roadmap.

1) Start by choosing the legal “lane” (because each lane has different proof)

Most religious land‑use discrimination cases are framed under RLUIPA (a federal civil-rights statute) and/or the First Amendment / Equal Protection.  RLUIPA is aimed explicitly at zoning/landmarking decisions affecting religious institutions.  The key RLUIPA “proof lanes” are: Equal Terms, Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden, and Exclusion/Unreasonable Limitation.

Sources: the statutory text and DOJ overview.

A. RLUIPA “Equal Terms” (comparators)

You prove the government treated a religious assembly/institution “on less than equal terms” than a **nonreligious assembly/institution.”

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ overview.

Core proof idea: find the proper secular comparator (e.g., theaters, community centers, clubs, schools, lodges, banquet halls, shelters—depending on your zoning category) and show they got a smoother path, fewer conditions, or approvals where you were denied.

B. RLUIPA “Nondiscrimination” (religion-based motive)

You prove the city discriminated “based on religion or religious denomination.”

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ Q&A statement.

Core proof idea: show the decision was because it was religious (directly or indirectly), using statements, selective enforcement, or inconsistent application.

C. RLUIPA “Substantial Burden” (pressure that seriously impedes religious exercise)

You prove the land-use decision imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise.  The city must justify it under a demanding test (compelling interest/least restrictive means) where RLUIPA applies.

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ overview.

Core proof idea: show the city’s actions significantly inhibit your ability to use/build/convert property for your religious mission, not just inconvenience.

D. RLUIPA “Exclusion/Unreasonable limitation” (citywide patterns)

You prove the city totally excludes religious assemblies or unreasonably limits them within the jurisdiction.

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ overview.

Core proof idea: show there’s effectively nowhere feasible for religious assemblies to locate—on paper or in practice.

2) What “proof” looks like in practice (the evidence categories that win cases)

Courts rarely see a “smoking gun.” Winning cases are typically built on multiple evidence streams pointing to discrimination.

1) Direct evidence (best, but uncommon)

This includes statements or documents indicating bias:

• Planning commissioner/council comments about “churches,” “religion,” “this congregation,” “these people,” etc.
• Emails/texts between staff and neighbors describing a desire to stop a religious use.
• Written staff reports or conditions that explicitly target religious aspects without an objective basis.

Why it matters: RLUIPA specifically targets discriminatory application of zoning decisions affecting religious institutions.

Sources: DOJ RLUIPA explanation of discrimination in discretionary processes; statutory nondiscrimination rule.justice+2

2) Comparator evidence (the backbone of “Equal Terms”)

You want 2–5 strong comparators that are:

• Nonreligious
• Assembly-like uses (gathering people)
• Similarly situated on key land-use dimensions: zone, parking/traffic impacts, hours, noise, CUP vs by-right, etc.

Examples of comparators that often work (depending on your code):

• Private clubs/lodges
• Community centers
• Theaters/event venues
• Schools/tutoring centers
• Nonreligious nonprofits with assembly functions

RLUIPA’s equal-terms clause is explicitly about religious vs. nonreligious assemblies.

Sources: RLUIPA equal-terms language; DOJ overview’s examples of assemblies treated differently.cornell+2

Practical tip: build a simple “comparator file” for each:

• The entitlement type (CUP or design review?)
• Conditions imposed (parking, security, hours)
• Timeline (days from application to approval)
• Whether CEQA was required
• Complaints and Enforcement History

3) Procedural irregularities (very persuasive circumstantial proof)

Evidence that the city treated you differently by breaking its own norms, such as:

• refusing to accept or process your application when others were accepted
• inventing requirements not in the code or not imposed on others
• changing interpretations midstream
• “moving the goalposts” with new objections after you comply
• unusual delays, continuances, or refusal to agendize
• selective enforcement of code provisions

These patterns align with the DOJ’s description of how discretionary land-use processes can be used to discriminate against religious uses.

Sources: DOJ overview; DOJ Q&A statement.justice+1

4) Shifting reasons & pretext

If the city gives multiple inconsistent reasons (or the record contradicts them), that’s classic “pretext” evidence:

• First it’s parking, then it’s traffic, then it’s “neighborhood character,” then it’s “safety,” etc.
• Staff says one thing, then counsel changes the justification later
• Conditions are demanded that don’t tie to objective standards

RLUIPA’s protections focus on preventing discriminatory enforcement of land-use regulations.

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ Q&A statement.cornell+1

5) Community pressure + government adoption

Neighbor opposition alone isn’t illegal—but when officials adopt religiously-tinged hostility as the basis for governmental action, it becomes powerful evidence:

• “Not in our neighborhood” + explicit references to religion
• Pressure campaigns where staff/officials coordinate with opponents
• Public comments that show bias, followed by official action aligned with that bias

DOJ materials describe how religious groups may face both subtle and overt discrimination in land use decisions.

Sources: DOJ Q&A statement; DOJ overview.justice+1

6) Disparate Impact patterns (supporting evidence)

Even if you can’t prove intent, patterns help:

• The zoning map effectively leaves religious uses with only impractical sites
• Conditional use permit standards are so discretionary that they function as a barrier
• Religious uses are consistently denied or burdened compared to similar secular uses

This aligns with RLUIPA’s concern about unreasonable limitations and discriminatory land-use systems.

Sources: RLUIPA text; DOJ overview.cornell+1

3) Translate evidence into the elements you must prove (a checklist)

A) If you’re asserting RLUIPA Equal Terms

You generally need:

1.       You are a religious assembly/institution (church Corporation qualifies)

2.       You were treated less favorably than a nonreligious assembly/institution that is similarly situated

Sources: RLUIPA equal terms; DOJ overview.cornell+2

What to gather

• Approvals for secular assemblies in the same zone / similar intensity
• Conditions & timelines imposed on them vs. you
• Staff interpretations applied to them vs. you

B) If you’re asserting RLUIPA Nondiscrimination

You need evidence that religion was a motivating factor in the adverse treatment.

Sources: RLUIPA nondiscrimination clause; DOJ Q&A statement about discrimination in zoning.cornell+1

What to gather

• Statements about religion/denomination
• Emails and internal notes
• Selective enforcement + pretext indicators

C) If you’re asserting RLUIPA Substantial Burden

You need to show that the land-use decision seriously burdens religious exercise (not just makes it more complicated), and that it arises in a covered context (RLUIPA’s scope includes individualized assessments, federal funding, or commerce impacts).

Sources: RLUIPA substantial burden + scope; DOJ overview of scope triggers.cornell+2

What to gather

• Evidence of inability to operate/relocate/expand
• Cost and delay impacts tied to the city’s conduct
• Lack of feasible alternative sites (not merely inconvenient)
• Prove the city used discretionary/individualized permitting (often true in CUP/design review regimes)

4) How to build the record (practical steps that create “court-usable” proof)

Step 1: Lock down the administrative record

Land-use cases often rise or fall on “the record.” Do this immediately:

• Save all staff emails you receive, correction letters, and meeting notes
• Request your full project file from planning
• Download video/transcripts of hearings and public comments
• Keep a dated log of every interaction and demand

Why: Your most substantial discrimination proof often comes from what officials said and how the process deviated.

Sources: DOJ overview on discretionary processes; DOJ Q&A.justice+1

Step 2: Use public records requests to obtain internal communications

Target:

• city staff ↔ council/commission communications
• staff ↔ neighborhood groups/opponents
• internal “strategy” discussions
• drafts of staff reports (compare language changes over time)

This is where direct evidence and pretext are most likely to appear.

Step 3: Build the comparator dataset

Ask planning for a list of:

• CUPs/approvals for assembly uses over the last 3–5 years in the same zone
• Similar size/occupancy projects (parking/traffic impacts)

Then extract:

• outcome (approve/deny)
• timeline
• conditions
• staff findings

Because RLUIPA’s equal-terms is fundamentally a comparison inquiry, you want complex examples.

Sources: RLUIPA equal-terms clause; DOJ overview.cornell+1

Step 4: Capture objective standard compliance (even though it’s not “discrimination”)

Even in a discrimination case, judges like clean hands:

• show you meet objective zoning/building standards
• show the city’s objections are vague/subjective (“compatibility,” “aesthetic,” etc.) or inconsistently applied

DOJ materials emphasize misuse of discretionary processes; showing you met objective requirements highlights differential treatment.

Sources: DOJ overview; DOJ Q&A.

5) Common “gotchas” (what doesn’t usually prove discrimination by itself)

• A denial alone ≠ is discrimination.  You typically need comparators, irregularities, or biased statements.  (RLUIPA requires proof tied to religion/assembly treatment or substantial burden.)
• Neighborhood opposition alone isn’t enough—unless officials adopt religious bias as governmental rationale.
• General zoning restrictions may be lawful if applied evenly; RLUIPA claims often turn on unequal application or substantial burden in individualized assessments.

6) A simple “proof storyboard” that often works

If you can tell this story with documents, you’re in strong territory:

·         We’re a religious institution seeking to use property for a religious mission.

·         Comparable secular assemblies were approved with fewer burdens / faster timelines / fewer conditions. 

·         The city departed from its normal process and applied different standards to us.

·         The city’s stated reasons shifted and don’t match the objective evidence (pretext).

·         The net effect blocked or severely impaired religious exercise (or treated us less than equally).