AB 782: Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. June 26, 2026In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
2. June 24, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 8. Noes 4.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
3. June 10, 2026Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and HOUSING.
4. June 4, 2026Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).
5. June 3, 2026Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
6. June 2, 2026Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
7. June 2, 2026Ordered to second reading.
8. June 2, 2026From inactive file.
9. September 12, 2025Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wiener.
10. August 20, 2025Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
11. August 19, 2025From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 18).
12. July 16, 2025Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.