The Aftermath of Senate Bill 9: Single-Family Residential


Community No More? What to Know and How to Respond


Racheal E. Solomon, Esq. and Robert M. DeNichilo, Esq., CCAL Nordberg | DeNichilo, LLP


Senate Bill 9, commonly known as the “Lot Splitting Bill,” went into effect on January 1, 2022, and is codifi ed as Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. When homeowners desire to split their lot into two parcels, they must apply to the local agency for approval. If the lot is located within a single-family zone, the law now requires a “staff-level review” where a checklist of objective requirements and exceptions are reviewed to issue an approval or rejection of the proposed lot split. As long as such a proposal does not have an adverse impact, fall into an exclusion, or confl ict with objective design standards, homeowners can split their lots and build new homes under the simplifi ed ministerial review process outlined in SB 9.


In response to the bill and its impact on the loss of local control over the issue, some jurisdictions have placed interim moratoria on proposed lot splitting to allow time to research and prepare local ordinances to address SB 9. As a result, local communities might not see the ultimate effect of SB 9 until such temporary bans are lifted. While this article does not discuss whether cities have the authority to adopt such moratoria, the California Attorney General has responded by asserting that a city’s directive to cease processing such applications would directly violate SB 9 and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This article examines how the complex bill affects homeowners associations and how some may respond with the assistance of legal counsel.


The provisions of SB 9 allow certain qualifying single-family residential lots to (1) add a second primary residential home to their existing lot, or (2) split a single-family lot into two lots and add up to two primary residential homes (including Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”)/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”)) to the new lot. All such proposals are subject to certain size, setback, owner occupancy, zoning, environmental constraints, and other limitations. For example, lot splitting is not eligible under SB 9 if the lot it located in a historic district, fi re or earthquake hazard area, fl ood risk area,


22 May | June 2023


conservation area, or would require demolition or alteration of rent-controlled housing or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. Among other such limitations, qualifying lots may be split into no more than two parcels (Gov. Code Section 66411.7(a)(1)), and each new parcel/lot must be at least 1,200 square feet in size, unless the local jurisdiction by ordinance adopts a smaller minimum lot size. Moreover, local government is not allowed to adopt design restrictions or ordinances that would require a new primary residence to be smaller than 800 square feet in size. (Gov. Code Sections 65852.21(b), 66411.7(c)(2).) SB 9 is complementary to other recent legislation which promotes new affordable housing by banning the prohibition on installation of ADUs/JADUs, namely Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22, and Civil Code Section 4751. When read together with SB 9, homeowners who split their lot into two parcels may then also install a qualifying ADU/JADU on each lot, which would result in up to four residences where there used to be only one residence.


What is the overall outcome of SB 9? Some have referred to this bill as the death of single-family zoning, since one lot originally designed for one residential home in a single- family zone may then be divided into two lots with up to a maximum of four total residences (when combined with ADUs). (Gov. Code Section 66411.7(j).) The number of new homes permitted under SB 9, if constructed, may result in new diffi culties for associations. The number of residents will undoubtedly increase, which means limitations on available parking, overused facilities, stress on infrastructure such as water and sewer lines engineered and built to service a set number of residences, and a variety of potential enforcement issues related to new tenants. There may also be issues related to how the new lots are to be charged assessments: Will each new lot be subject to assessments? Also, will such lots automatically be part of the association that governs the community, including voting rights and access to common facilities?


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36