Introduction

California’s housing crisis has forced a fundamental restructuring of local control over single-family neighborhoods. Senate Bill 9 (the HOME Act), effective January 1, 2022, introduced a ministerial approval process for two-unit developments and urban lot splits in single-family zones. In September 2025, the California Court of Appeals upheld SB‑9’s application to general law cities, reinforcing the state’s authority to override local zoning in the name of housing production.

For property owners, developers, and lenders, these developments mean faster approvals, reduced entitlement risk, and clearer investment pathways—provided projects meet SB‑9’s objective standards.

Background:

The seismic shift in California’s development approval process has significantly altered the real property building landscape and redefined the power structure for property owners, developers, and local municipalities. This transformation has profound implications, with property owners and developers now facing the daunting task of navigating the intricacies of new laws. At the same time, local municipalities find themselves stripped of authority in property development.

Under the new law, SB-9, the California Legislature holds the ultimate authority in property development approvals. Local municipalities are now limited to granting ministerial approvals that align with state-level mandates. Any objection from the local municipality can trigger legal action and the withholding of state and federal funds.

Article:

A new world exists regarding zoning, densities, approvals, and land valuations. The new laws have the potential to impact property valuations significantly, and property owners and developers should be aware of these changes.

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb-9-fact-sheet.pdf

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B332315.PDF

https://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/4b/4b246c75-4838-41fd-8143-22d073a61c76.pdf

Requirement of municipalities:

Detailed Explanation

General Plan Law Still Applies
Under California law, every city and county must adopt a general plan that meets state requirements (Gov. Code §§ 65300–65302). The General Plan Guidelines issued by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provide the framework for compliance and are periodically updated to reflect new legislation.

1.     SB‑9 Is Self-Executing
SB‑9 (Gov. Code §§ 65852.21 and 66411.7) requires ministerial approval of:

·        Up to two primary units on a single-family parcel.

·        Urban lot splits creating two parcels from one.

·        These approvals must occur even if the local general plan or zoning ordinance does not yet allow it. SB‑9 expressly preempts conflicting local standards.

2.     Local Ordinances and General Plan Consistency

While SB‑9 does not mandate an immediate general plan amendment, cities often adopt implementing ordinances to clarify objective standards (e.g., setbacks, height limits). These ordinances should align with the general plan; however, failure to update the plan does not excuse noncompliance with SB-9.

3.     HCD Enforcement

As of January 1, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has enforcement authority over SB‑9. Violations may also implicate other housing laws, such as the Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act.

4. Bottom Line:

• Municipalities must maintain a state-compliant general plan, but SB‑9 projects cannot be denied for inconsistency with the general plan or zoning.
• SB‑9 is mandatory and overrides local discretion, making it critical for cities to adopt objective standards and update their plans for clarity and compliance.

5. State Preemption and SB‑9

• SB‑9 explicitly declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern, which allows the Legislature to override local land-use authority—even for charter cities.

The law requires ministerial approval of qualifying two-unit developments and urban lot splits, regardless of whether the local general plan or zoning allows them.

• Local agencies must modify or waive objective standards that would physically preclude SB‑9’s minimum entitlements (two units per lot, each at least 800 sq. ft.).

6. General Plan Consistency vs. State Law

• California law requires general plans to be internally consistent and to guide local land-use decisions (Gov. Code §65300.5). However, state housing laws preempt conflicting local policies.

If a general plan or zoning ordinance conflicts with SB‑9, the state mandate controls. Cities cannot use inconsistency as a basis to deny an SB‑9 project.

7. Enforcement

• As of January 1, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has enforcement authority over SB‑9. Violations can also trigger penalties under the Housing Accountability Act and other housing laws.

✅ Bottom Line:
Municipalities must maintain a general plan, but they cannot adopt policies or ordinances that undermine SB‑9’s requirements. Even if a general plan says “single-family only,” SB‑9 overrides that restriction for qualifying projects.

8. What SB‑9 Does—and Why It Matters

SB‑9’s Core Goal: Increase housing supply by allowing:

• Two primary dwelling units on a single-family parcel.
• Urban lot splits that create two lots from one, each eligible for two units—potentially four units where only one existed.

Key Features:

Ministerial Approval: No discretionary hearings or CEQA review.

• Objective Standards Only: Cities can regulate height, setbacks, and design objectively, but cannot block two units of at least 800 sq. ft. each.

·        Anti-Displacement Protections: SB-9 prohibits the demolition of affordable or recently occupied units, ensuring that existing residents are not unfairly displaced.

·        Owner-Occupancy Requirement: For lot splits, most applicants must sign a 3-year occupancy affidavit, which means they commit to living in one of the units for at least three years. This requirement is designed to maintain the character of the neighborhood and prevent speculative development.

·        Ministerial Approval: The Game-Changer

What Does “Ministerial” Mean?

·        No Subjective Judgment: Cities cannot deny projects based on “neighborhood character” or similar criteria.

·        No Public Hearings: Eliminates a significant source of delay and political opposition.

·        No CEQA Review: Ministerial approvals are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Why It Matters

• Predictability: If you meet the checklist, you get approved.
• Speed: No hearings, no appeals, no CEQA delays.
• Lower Risk: Reduces entitlement uncertainty for lenders and investors.

Callout: Common Local Opposition Tactics Neutralized

• “Neighborhood Character” Arguments
• Traffic and Parking Objections
• Public Hearing Pressure
• Environmental Review Delays

9. SB‑9 removes these discretionary choke points, replacing them with a state-level rules-based system.

The September 2025 Court of Appeal Decision

Case: City of Rancho Palos Verdes et al. v. State of California
Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Four
Filed: September 4, 2025

Key Holdings:

• Housing Is a Statewide Concern: The Legislature can override local zoning to address the housing crisis.
• General Law Cities Lack Home-Rule Authority: They must comply with SB‑9.
• SB‑9 Is Constitutional: No due process, equal protection, or takings violations.
• Affordability Argument Rejected: Increasing supply is a legitimate means to improve affordability.

Impact: SB‑9 is fully enforceable in general law cities, which make up most California municipalities.

10. Charter Cities: The Next Legal Battle

April 2024: The Superior Court ruled SB‑9 unenforceable against certain charter cities.

• June 2024: Attorney General appealed, arguing housing is a statewide concern.
• Status: Appeal pending; outcome will determine whether SB‑9 applies uniformly statewide.

Compliance Checklist for SB‑9 Projects

• Confirm Zoning: Single-family zone in an urbanized area.
• Screen for Exclusions: No recent tenant occupancy, no historic or environmental constraints.
• Apply Objective Standards: Height, setbacks (≤ 4 ft side/rear), lot coverage.
• Lot Split Rules: Approximate equality, ≥ 1,200 sq. ft. per lot, owner-occupancy affidavit.
• Document CEQA Exemption: Cite PRC §21080(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §15268.

Sidebar for Lenders: SB‑9 Risk & Underwriting Checklist

Why It Matters: SB‑9’s ministerial approval process reduces entitlement risk, but lenders should still verify compliance to avoid surprises.

Top Risk Factors

• Eligibility Errors: Parcel ineligible due to environmental or historic constraints.
• Tenant Occupancy Violations: Recent rental history can disqualify the project.
• Local Ordinance Overreach: Some cities adopt “objective” standards that effectively block SB‑9—watch for HCD enforcement.
• Owner-Occupancy Affidavit: Missing or invalid affidavit for lot splits can void approvals.
• Construction Feasibility: Objective standards may still constrain design (e.g., height limits, lot coverage).

Underwriting Tips

• Require evidence of eligibility (zoning map, urbanized area confirmation).
• Obtain written confirmation from the city that the project qualifies for ministerial approval.
• Verify owner-occupancy affidavit for lot splits before funding.
• Include compliance covenants in loan docs (e.g., adherence to SB‑9 standards).
• Budget for HCD enforcement risk if local ordinances conflict with state law.

11.  Looking ahead

Expect:

• Legislative Refinements: To close loopholes and strengthen enforcement.
• More Preemption Battles: As the state continues to override local zoning.
• Charter City Appeal Outcome: The next significant milestone for statewide uniformity.

12.  Bottom Line

SB‑9 represents a paradigm shift from subjective local control to a rules-based, ministerial framework for small-scale infill housing. The Legislature set the lane, the courts have cleared it for general law cities, and HCD enforces it. For stakeholders, the path is more precise, faster, and more predictable than ever—though the charter city appeal remains a key variable.

13. State Preemption and SB‑9

SB‑9 explicitly declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern, which allows the Legislature to override local land-use authority—even for charter cities.

• The law requires ministerial approval of qualifying two-unit developments and urban lot splits, regardless of whether the local general plan or zoning allows them.
• Local agencies must modify or waive objective standards that would physically preclude SB‑9’s minimum entitlements (two units per lot, each at least 800 sq. ft.).

14. General Plan Consistency vs. State Law

• California law requires general plans to be internally consistent and to guide local land-use decisions (Gov. Code §65300.5). However, state housing laws preempt conflicting local policies.
• If a general plan or zoning ordinance conflicts with SB‑9, the state mandate controls. Cities cannot use inconsistency as a basis to deny an SB‑9 project.

15. Charter Cities

 ·        Government Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities, including charter cities. Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution provides charter cities with the authority to “make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters.”

• Definition: Cities that have adopted their own charter (a local constitution) under the California Constitution.
• Authority: Have “home rule” power over municipal affairs, meaning local law can override state law on local matters—unless the state law addresses a statewide concern and is reasonably tailored to that concern.
• SB‑9 Applicability:
• SB‑9 intended to apply to charter cities, but its enforcement is currently in dispute.
• April 2024 Superior Court Ruling: Held SB‑9 unconstitutional as applied to five charter cities (Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier, Del Mar), finding it was not reasonably related to its stated purpose of ensuring affordable housing.
• Status: The Attorney General has appealed; outcome pending. If the appeal succeeds, SB‑9 will apply statewide, including charter cities.

16. Key Legal Principle

• General Law Cities: Always subject to SB‑9 because they lack home-rule authority.

·        Charter Cities: Government Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities, including charter cities.” Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution provides charter cities with the authority to “make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters.”

17. Enforcement

• As of January 1, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has enforcement authority over SB‑9. Violations can also trigger penalties under the Housing Accountability Act and other housing laws.

✅ Bottom Line:

Municipalities must maintain a general plan, but they cannot adopt policies or ordinances that undermine SB‑9’s requirements. Even if a general plan says, “single-family only,” SB‑9 overrides that restriction for qualifying projects.

18. Key Takeaways

• SB‑9’s Core Purpose: Increase housing supply by allowing two-unit developments and urban lot splits in single-family zones, with ministerial approval.
• Ministerial Approval = Speed + Certainty: No discretionary hearings, no CEQA review, and only objective standards apply—removing major local barriers.
• Objective Standards: Cities can regulate height, setbacks, and design objectively, but cannot block two units of at least 800 sq. ft. each.
• Recent Court Win: The California Court of Appeals (Sept. 2025) upheld SB‑9 for general law cities, confirming housing is a statewide concern.
• Charter City Litigation Pending: Enforcement against charter cities remains unresolved; the Attorney General’s appeal is in progress.
• Implications for Stakeholders:
• Owners/Developers: Faster, more predictable approvals for small-scale infill.
• Lenders/Investors: Reduced entitlement risk and clearer underwriting.
• Cities: Limited discretion; must comply with state law and objective standards.
• Compliance Essentials: Verify eligibility, apply objective standards, document owner-occupancy for lot splits, and cite CEQA ministerial exemption.
• Consult your land planning lawyer to verify the facts and conclusions.