Local Governments Given Broad Power to Authorize ADU Sales

| Michael Corbett
sale

As recently as last month, existing state law prohibited the sale of accessory dwelling units (“ADU”) from being sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence, except under specific circumstances where the ADU was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and held pursuant to a recorded tenancy-in-common agreement meeting certain requirements. Thanks to new state legislation – and depending on the city – the right of property owners to sell ADUs separate from primary residences has been considerably broadened. Drafted by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and signed into law on October 11, Assembly Bill 1033 provides a path forward for participating cities to adopt legislation authorizing the purchase and sale of ADUs as condominiums, regardless of whether the contractor was a qualified nonprofit or the manner in which the property is owned. The following summarizes the requirements of AB 1033 and provides guidance for homeowners in utilizing this change in law.

With respect to the construction of ADUs, Government Code § 65852.2 allows local agencies, by ordinance, to provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. Among other requirements, any such ordinance must (i) designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted, (ii) impose certain objective standards on ADUs (such as parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, and maximum size), (iii) provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located, and (iv) require ADUs be for residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for its lot.

AB 1033 now allows cities to adopt ordinances that authorize the sale of ADUs – constructed in compliance with Gov. Code § 65852.2 – as condominiums, provided such ordinances meet the following requirements:

(1) The condominiums are created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, the state’s statutory scheme governing residential condominiums.

(2) The condominiums are created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, which governs subdivision mapping, and all objective requirements of applicable local subdivision ordinances.

(3) Before recordation of the condominium plan, a safety inspection of the ADU must be conducted, evidenced either through (i) a certificate of occupancy from the local agency or (ii) a housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(4) Each lienholder of the applicable property must consent to the recording of a subdivision map and condominium plan before either of those documents may be recorded. With respect to lienholder consent, a lienholder may (i) refuse to give consent, or (ii) give consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied.

(5) Prior to recordation of the condominium plan (or any amendments thereto), written evidence of the lienholder’s consent must be provided to the county recorder along with the following signed statement from each lienholder:

“(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in their sole and absolute discretion and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have.”

(6) The lienholder’s consent must be included on the condominium plan or a separate form attached to the condominium plan (and include certain information required by statute), and must be recorded in the office of the applicable county recorder.

(7) The local agency must also include a statutory notice to consumers on any ADU submittal checklist or public information issued describing requirements and permitting for accessory dwelling units.[1]

(8) If an accessory dwelling unit is established as a condominium, the local government must require the homeowner to notify utility providers of the condominium creation and separate conveyance.

(9) For owners of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development with an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, such owners may not record a condominium plan without the written authorization by the association.

Under AB 1033, an ADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence where the above conditions are satisfied. While this is certainly an encouraging development in the fight to overcome the state housing crisis, many questions remain.

AB 1033 will only be as effective as the cities that choose to adopt the necessary legislation providing for the separate conveyance of ADUs as condominiums. As of this writing, the City of Santa Monica has passed a resolution directing staff to draft a conforming ordinance for consideration. No city has yet enacted an AB 1033-compliant ordinance.

Beyond the issue of city participation, the appetite of lienholders to consent to the mapping and sale of ADUs as condominiums is unclear. If the condominiumization of ADUs were to reduce the value of the principal residences acting as a secured asset, lenders may decline consent or grant consent while imposing onerous conditions on property owners.

Further, the market for the sale of ADUs as condominiums is an unknown quantity. It may prove difficult for property owners to sell ADUs as a condominium separate from a primary residence, and vice versa. Purchasing either interest would also subject owners to the rules and regulations applicable to homeowners’ associations, which can prove tricky for small, two-member associations, particularly when disputes arise.

Homeowners looking to sell ADUs should contact their local city officials and request information regarding the prospects for local adoption of an ordinance now authorized pursuant to California Government Code § 65852.2.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the mechanics and implications of AB 1033, please contact Michael Corbett from Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP, at 415.567.9000 or mcorbett@reubenlaw.com.

[1] See Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(1)(10)(E) for the required notice.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney Michael Corbett.

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient.  Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein.  Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm.  We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law.  We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

New State Condo Law Protects HOAs from Financial Fraud and Embezzlement

| Jay Drake

Responding to reported cases of fraud and embezzlement against homeowners associations (“HOAs”), the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2912 (“AB 2912”), which became effective on January 1, 2019.  AB 2912 amends the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act by adding safeguards to protect HOAs for common interest developments by increasing HOA board of directors (“Board”) oversight over the HOA’s financial accounts, establishing tighter control over monetary transfers, and generally protecting HOAs from financial fraud.

The key provisions of AB 2912 are summarized below:

  • Civil Code Section 5380 has been amended to prohibit an HOA’s managing agent from making transfers of greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) or five percent (5%) of an HOA’s total combined reserve and operating account deposits, whichever is lower, without prior written approval of the Board.
  • Civil Code Section 5500 now requires an HOA Board to review the HOA’s financial statements monthly (rather than quarterly under the prior law).  The Board’s review must now include more complete financial statements and HOA account records.
  • Civil Code Section 5806 requires that HOAs maintain fidelity bond insurance providing coverage for dishonest acts, including computer fraud and funds transfer fraud, by an HOA’s managing agent and their employees, in addition to the HOAs’ directors, officers and employees.  The coverage must be in an amount equal to or more than the combined amount of the reserves of the HOA and the total assessments of the HOA for three (3) months.

HOA Boards and managers should review their procedures to make sure they comply with the new legal requirements.  While AB 2912 may increase the burden on HOA Boards and HOA managers, the new rules will help to ensure that HOAs maintain control over their finances and protect the investments of home owners.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP  Attorney Jay Drake

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.

Is the San Francisco Condo Lottery Dead?

| Michael Corbett

Prior to 2013, the City of San Francisco (“City”) implemented an annual condo conversion lottery system for 2-6 unit residential and mixed-use properties. But with the lottery resulting in a backlog of applications extending well over a decade, the Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance No. 117-13, ushering in changes to Article 9 of the City’s Subdivision Code (San Francisco Subdivision Code, § 1300, et seq.) and temporarily supplanting the lottery system with an “Expedited Conversion” program (the “ECP”). The following summarizes the scope of the ECP, its current status, and what property owners hoping to accomplish a condo conversion should be prepared for in the coming years.

The ECP halted the conversion lottery program for a minimum of 10 years, and was intended to allow properties stuck in lottery purgatory to convert to condos over the course of a 7-year period. Under the ECP, the Department of Public Works was required to stop accepting and processing new condo conversion applications for properties that would otherwise be subject to the lottery. (Subdivision Code § 1396.5)

Controversially, the ECP also required applicants to offer binding, lifetime leases to all tenants who do not own the property in which they reside (“Tenants”), and included a poison pill that would essentially suspend the ECP in the event litigation were filed challenging the legality of the ECP. (Subdivision Code §§ 1396.4, 1396.5) In light of the lifetime lease provision, such a legal challenge was considered at the time to be a fait accompli.

Sure enough, in June 2017, a federal lawsuit was filed by San Francisco property owners against the City in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of the ECP’s lifetime lease provision, brought the vast majority of the ECP to an abrupt halt. This matter is now at the court of appeals, with no timeline for resolution.

As outlined by the Department of Public Works, the impacts of the ECP’s suspension for various categories of ECP applications are as follows:

Notably, 2-unit, owner-occupied residential buildings are not subject to the ECP and may bypass the lottery system altogether. With regard to such properties, when the separate owners of each unit have occupied the building for at least 1 year they may submit an application for condo conversion. More information for 2-unit, owner-occupied condo conversions can be found at the Department of Public Works’s website (Residential Condominium Conversion Application Materials & Two Unit Owner Occupied Conversions).

Barring further changes approved by the Board of Supervisors or court action, the Department of Public Works will not begin accepting new condo conversion applications, nor conduct a condo conversion lottery, until at least 2024. Yet again, local property owners are left to the mercy of the City and court system to determine their property rights.

 

Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP  Attorney Michael Corbett

The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.