Senate Bill 625 Streamlines Architectural Approval After Disaster
Jacqueline Pagano, Esq., Roseman Law, APC
Like much of the legislation passed in recent years, Senate Bill 625 (SB 625) aims to address the housing crisis in California, this time by making it easier for homeowners to rebuild following a disaster. California continues to experience the impacts of climate change with disasters of increasing scale and frequency, destroying entire communities. In the fi rst month of 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fi res burned more than 50,000 acres and destroyed nearly 13,000 homes in Los Angeles, resulting in large- scale displacement amidst an already painful housing shortage.
SB 625 was enacted in response to this crisis to make it easier for homeowners to rebuild homes destroyed in disasters. It took effect on January 1, 2026, and adds two new sections to the Davis-Stirling Act, Civil Code sections 4752 and 4766.
Civil Code section 4752 renders void and unenforceable any provision of a governing document to the extent it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. Disaster is defi ned, generally, to mean a federally, state, or locally declared state of disaster or emergency.
In order for the protections of section 4752 to apply, the rebuilt residential structure must be “substantially similar” to the home that was destroyed. To be “substantially similar,” a reconstructed residence must (i) comply with the local building code, (ii) meet size, height and location standards established by Code, and (iii) comply with any objective design standards of the association which were in effect at the time the original structure was damaged, to the extent that the same do not confl ict with the size, height and location standards in the Code or unreasonably increase the cost of, or effectively prohibit, rebuilding a substantially similar home.
Under section 4752, owners of damaged or destroyed homes may rebuild up to 110 percent of the interior livable square footage of the damaged or destroyed structure, may build to a height of up to 110 percent of the height of the damaged or destroyed structure (or to the height allowed by the governing documents at the time of reconstruction, whichever is greater), and may either rebuild the structure in the same location and to the same exterior dimensions as the damaged or destroyed
28 July |August 2026
structure, or may rebuild in a different location so long as the setbacks for the residential structure will be at least four feet from the side and rear lot lines. A proposal that meets these standards, complies with the building code, and otherwise complies with the enforceable objective design standards of the association in effect at the time of the prior home’s destruction, will be deemed “substantially similar reconstruction,” thereby triggering the special architectural review process outlined in Civil Code section 4766.
Civil Code section 4766 imposes several requirements on an association’s review of applications for substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was damaged in a disaster. Notably, and regardless of any timelines for architectural review set forth in the governing documents, the reviewing body must determine whether a submitted application is complete and provide the applicant with written notice of its determination as to the completeness of the application within 30 days of receipt. If the reviewing body determines that an application is incomplete, the body shall simultaneously provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete. If the reviewing body fails to notify an applicant that the application is incomplete within 30 days of its receipt, the application will be deemed complete.
Once an application is deemed complete, the reviewing body has 45 days to process it. To the extent the governing documents impose stricter review timelines, however, associations should comply with the timelines prescribed by the governing documents to avoid auto approval.
If the reviewing body determines that the complete application is not compliant with the association’s lawfully adopted standards in effect at the time the application was fi rst submitted, the body must return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a comprehensive list of the items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied. If a denial is appealed to the board of directors under the Civil Code, the board has 60 days from the date of the appeal to provide the applicant with a fi nal written determination on the appeal.
These changes in the law highlight the need for associations in planned developments to have lawfully adopted architectural
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
