property taxes

Real Estate Tax Appeal Deadline is September 15, 2025

| Kevin H. Rose

Given the decline in many sectors of the real estate market, property owners have suffered a decline in property values due to lower rental rates and depressed sales prices.  Owners have the right to a temporary decrease in real property taxes reflecting the decline in value, if such value can be shown by an appraisal or other permitted documentation.  In order to exercise this right, a property tax appeal must be timely filed.  The deadline for such appeals in Alameda and San Francisco counties (and many other counties) is Monday, September 15, 2025.  Some counties have other deadlines and each deadline should be confirmed.  There is no right to file for a decline in value after the applicable County deadline. If you have any questions about the process, please contact Kevin Rose at krose@reubenlaw.com.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Kevin H. Rose. 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.

property line

Property Line Disputes and Easement Rights

| Lindsay Petrone

Many property owners are unaware of where their property legally begins and ends which can lead to property line disputes.  In residential areas, owners often rely on historical use or the location of fences, especially when surveys are not conducted during property transactions.  In Wang v. Peletta (112 Cal.App.5th 478 (2025)), a survey revealed that a large portion of Peletta’s neighbor’s (Wang) retaining wall encroached onto Peletta’s property.  Further investigation revealed the wall was built without permits, violating county code, and Peletta refused to allow Wang access to make necessary repairs.  Wang claimed that they had an easement for the wall to remain on the Peletta’s property and related access rights to make the repairs, which the lower court denied and Wang appealed. Initially, Wang argued they had acquired a prescriptive easement through continuous and open use of the property.  A prescriptive easement requires the claimant to prove (1) use for five years, (2) open and notorious use, (3) continuous and uninterrupted use, (4) use hostile to the owner, and (5) under a claim of right.  The court in Wang ruled that even if these elements were met, Wang did not acquire a prescriptive easement because the wall violated county law and constituted a public nuisance.  According to legal precedent, a prescriptive easement cannot be granted for property used in a public nuisance where the action is brought by a citizen who has suffered special injury in consequence thereof.  Wang contended that this rule applied only to continuing and not permanent public nuisances.  They argued the wall was a permanent encroachment and the three (3) year statute of limitations for nuisance claims had expired.  However, the court in Wang disagreed, ruling the nuisance could be abated by the nature of the notice of violation requiring abatement (either by bringing the wall into compliance or removing it entirely).  Therefore, it was deemed a continuing nuisance rather than a permanent one.  As such, the statute of limitations did not apply and the prescriptive easement denied. Wang then alleged that if the easement was not obtained by prescriptive use the court should grant an equitable easement out of fairness.  A court has discretion to grant an equitable easement if the person seeking the easement evidences all three elements: (1) the trespass was innocent and not willful or negligent, (2) the easement will not cause irreparable injury to the public or the property owner and (3) the hardship to the trespasser from denying the easement is greatly disproportionate to the property owner’s from the continuance of the easement.  Courts approach the issuance of equitable easements with an abundance of caution and resolve doubtful cases against the easement.  Here, the court found that the encroachers were aware that permits were required to build the wall, so the trespass was not innocent.  With the first condition unmet, the court denied the equitable easement without considering the other factors. The Wang v. Peletta case highlights key points about prescriptive and equitable easements.  It confirms that an easement cannot be granted for property used in violation of law (such as a public nuisance), but does not clarify whether private nuisances can ever ripen into easements.  The case also clarifies the distinction between permanent and continuing nuisances—if a structure is possibly removable, the nuisance may be considered continuous and the statute of limitations for nuisance claims never runs.  Property owners should be aware of the potential legal consequences if their structures encroach on neighboring property and consider whether their encroachments could be classified as continuing nuisances.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Lindsay Petrone. 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.

renovations

Potential Expansion of All-Electric Building Requirements

| Kaitlin Sheber

Last week, Supervisor Mandelman introduced all-electric legislation that would require many buildings undergoing “major renovations” to convert to all-electric. The legislation would expand the City’s current prohibition on new construction of mixed-fuel buildings, which has been in place since 2021. Under the proposed ordinance, after January 1, 2026, the Building Official can only accept permit applications to conduct major renovations for all-electric buildings or buildings that will be converted to all-electric.  Should this legislation be approved, those seeking to perform major renovations that do not fall under one of the five exceptions below have until January 1, 2026 to submit and have DBI accept a building permit application, or the project will be subject to the new all-electric building requirements. The legislation provides for the following exceptions to the all-electric requirement: Where it is physically or technically infeasible to convert to all-electric design; Projects that retain gas to serve a restaurant; Change of use projects from nonresidential to residential units. This exception expires after January 1, 2031; Where the building replaced or upgraded a major system fueled by natural gas within the last 5 years; or 100% affordable housing projects until January 1, 2027. Between January 1, 2027 and January 1, 2028, 100% affordable projects where the cost of converting to all-electric conflicts with the project’s ability to meet its housing goals will be exempt. This exception expires after January 1, 2028. As we previously reported, the Ninth Circuit earlier this year struck down similar legislation in the City of Berkeley that prohibited the use of natural gas in newly constructed buildings, finding that the law was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”). This proposed legislation would provide a carveout consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, amending the definition of all-electric buildings to include buildings with natural gas infrastructure solely dedicated to serve appliances covered by the EPCA and that comply with the Department of Building Inspection’s design guidelines for electric-ready buildings. This new language appears to address the preemption issue for all-electric legislation. The legislation is under consideration by several legislative bodies and is subject to change. We will continue to monitor as the City considers this proposed legislation.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Attorney, Kaitlin Sheber. 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.

condominium

San Francisco Legalizes Condo Sales of ADUs

| Jay Drake

San Francisco has adopted a significant ordinance implementing Assembly Bill 1033 (Ting, 2023) that opens the door to a new form of homeownership: allowing certain accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and their associated primary residences to be sold separately as condominiums. Unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 8, 2025, the ordinance (File No. 241069) amends the Planning and Subdivision Codes to allow subdivision and separate conveyance of eligible ADUs—primarily new or detached units on small lots—marking a major shift in local land use policy. The ordinance is now pending the Mayor’s signature. Expanding Housing Access Through ADU Ownership ADUs have been promoted as a way to introduce low-impact housing into established neighborhoods, but restrictions on resale and rental use have limited their appeal. To address this, the State Legislature enacted AB 1033, effective January 1, 2024, allowing cities to authorize the sale of ADUs and primary dwellings as separate condominiums. San Francisco is among the first cities in the state to implement this authority. Summary of the Ordinance The ordinance: Adds Planning Code Section 207.4, establishing the process by which certain ADUs may be sold separately from their primary residences as condominiums; Amends Planning Code Sections 207.1 and 207.2 to clarify the circumstances under which ADUs may be subdivided and established as condominiums; Adds Subdivision Code Sections 1316 and 1396.8, aligning subdivision procedures and providing an exemption from the condo conversion lottery. Planning Code Section 207.4 – Authorizing Separate Sale for Certain ADUs New Planning Code Section 207.4 permits the separate sale or conveyance of certain ADUs and their associated primary residences, under certain conditions. The ADU must have been approved under the state ministerial program in Planning Code Section 207.2 or former Section 207(c)(6). Although Section 207.4 does not detail subdivision procedures, it requires compliance with the Subdivision Code. In practice, this means separate sales must meet the criteria in Subdivision Code Section 1316. Eligibility Under Planning Code Section 207.1 (SF Local Program) ADUs developed under the City’s local, discretionary program in Section 207.1 are generally not eligible for separate sale under Section 207.4. A narrow exception is for an ADU located in a building consisting entirely of condominiums as of July 11, 2013, which has had no qualifying evictions under the SF Rent Ordinance since July 11, 1996. Eligibility Under Planning Code Section 207.2 (State-Mandated Program) ADUs approved under the City’s state-mandated, ministerial program (Planning Code Section 207.2 or former Section 207(c)(6)) may qualify for separate sale under Planning Code Section 207.4, provided that the subdivision complies with Subdivision Code Section 1316. Those requirements are summarized below. Subdivision Code Section 1316 – Procedural and Eligibility Requirements Subdivision Code Section 1316 establishes the substantive and procedural requirements for subdividing an ADU and its associated primary residence for separate sale as condominiums. To qualify, the project must satisfy the following: An application to construct the ADU must have been submitted on or after May 1, 2025; The lot proposed for subdivision must contain four or fewer existing dwelling units; The ADU must either be (A) a newly constructed, detached unit on a lot with an existing single-family home or existing condominiums, and (i) approved under the City’s state-mandated, ministerial approval programs in Planning Code Section  2 or former subsection 207(c)(6), and (ii) not created by converting space within any existing structure; or (B) an attached or detached unit that is part of a new single-family home or new condominium project, and is a new construction approved under the City’s state-mandated, ministerial approval programs in Planning Code Section  207.2 or former subsection 207(c)(6). Junior ADUs (JADUs) are not eligible; All structures must comply with applicable Planning and Building Code standards; Additional Requirements: The project must also comply with: The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act; The California Subdivision Map Act; San Francisco’s general subdivision and condo mapping procedures and standards; A safety inspection of the ADU must be conducted as evidenced through a certificate of occupancy or HUD-compliant inspection and report; Lienholder (i.e., lender) consent (signed and recordable); HOA approval (if applicable); and Notices to utility providers and disclosures regarding financing implications. Subdivision Code Section 1396.8 – Exemption from Condo Conversion Lottery Subdivision Code Section 1396.8 exempts qualifying ADU/primary unit projects from San Francisco’s long-standing condominium conversion lottery. This exemption applies only if the project meets all the criteria of Section 1316 and is not subject to disqualifying evictions under Subdivision Code Section 1396.2. Conclusion Planning Code Section 207.4 and Subdivision Code Section 1316 together create a new legal framework for subdividing and selling certain ADUs as condominiums. While the ordinance opens real opportunities for new forms of homeownership, its eligibility limits are strict and require careful legal and title review. We are available to assist with: Project structuring and subdivision applications; CC&R and condominium plan drafting; Davis-Stirling and Subdivision Map Act compliance; Title and lienholder consent issues. Please contact us to discuss how this ordinance may apply to your property or development.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, 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.

AB 130

AB 130 – A Seismic Shift For CEQA?

| Andrew J. Junius and Melinda Sarjapur

The big news this week is the signing of the California budget, which includes an important reform of CEQA as it applies to infill housing projects.  In recent years, the California legislature has been slowly chipping away at CEQA by creating a variety of streamlining programs that make certain types of housing approvals ministerial and therefore exempt from environmental review (ex: SB 423 / SB 2243 / AB 2162 / SB 684).  While these new laws were a great starting point in removing the CEQA barriers that have stymied housing production for decades (and provide useful project streamlining and other benefits), they are complex and limited to specific project types or locations, leaving out many urban infill sites. AB 130, signed into law by the Governor on Monday, reaches directly into CEQA and creates a broad new statutory exemption that applies to urban infill housing development projects.  However, it is important to understand that AB 130 is not a project streamlining program. The new law adds section 21080.66 to the Public Resources Code.  To qualify for this exemption, the project site must: Not be more than 20 acres in size (for Builder’s Remedy or certain emergency shelter projects, 5 acres); Be located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or an urban area as defined by the US Census Bureau; Has been previously developed with an urban use; have at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoining with urban uses; or have 75% of the area within a quarter-mile radius of the site be developed with urban uses; Once the site qualifies, the project will qualify for this exemption if it meets the following criteria: The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, including applicable local coastal programs.  Use of the state density bonus cannot be asserted as grounds for inconsistency.  Importantly, this consistency determination is not left to technical details and the city planners.  “If there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent” with local zoning and planning laws, it will be considered consistent; It must be dense enough; at least 1/2 of the applicable density set for in Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) must be provided – this is typically 30 du/acre for metropolitan jurisdictions; The site meets environmental screening criteria provided under SB 35/423, including generally that it not be located on a site that is in certain environmentally-sensitive areas of the Coastal Zone; prime farmland; wetlands; a high fire hazard severity zone; a hazardous waste site (unless cleaned); a delineated earthquake fault zone; a special flood hazard area; a regulatory floodway; subject to a community conservation plan or conservation easement; or contain a habitat for protected species; Cannot require demolition of an historic resource listed on a national, state, or local historical register before the date that an SB 330 preliminary application was submitted; If located within 500 feet of a freeway, certain design and air filtration requirements apply; and No portion of the project can be designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed-and-breakfast Inn, or other transient lodging. AB 130 does require tribal consultation.  This has been an issue in the implementation of SB 423 (formally SB 35).  The weakness of SB 423 was that the tribal consultation process was not structured enough to provide a clear ending to that process or guideposts for required mitigating conditions.  AB 130 attempts to solve that problem by including clear, statutory deadlines that are either met within a specific reasonable time frame or default mitigation measures would be imposed allowing the development to qualify for exemption. Certain labor standards apply.  100% affordable projects must pay construction workers prevailing wages.  Projects greater than 85 feet in height must pay prevailing wages and utilize a skilled and trained (union) workforce.  And in San Francisco specifically, projects with 50 units or more are generally required to pay construction workers prevailing wages, even if they are less than 85 feet in height. The new legislation allows for CEQA exemption only.  On its own, it would not provide for a streamlined design review process, increase in allowable density or reduction of applicable development standards as is the case with some other recent state-law housing programs.  However, it can be combined with state density bonus and the Housing Accountability Act to increase density and reduce local discretion. For decades, CEQA has been a major, and in many cases fatal, barrier to the construction of needed housing.  AB 130 may finally break through and free infill projects from this burden. AB 130 was signed into law on June 30, 2025 as part of the state budget legislation and is currently in effect.  Also signed into law on Monday were other helpful CEQA changes that we will be reporting on in the coming weeks.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partners, Andrew J. Junius and Melinda Sarjapur. 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.

charging

AG Instructs Localities to Permit EV Stations

| Tara Sullivan

If you own an electric vehicle, one main concern is finding a public charging station.  While California has lead the nation with the number of electric vehicles sold (25.1% of all vehicle sales as of January 2025), and also leads with the number of chargers in the state (178,549 public & shared chargers as of March 2025), getting an electric vehicle (“EV”) charging station approved has proven to be a challenge.  The biggest roadblock EV charging station companies face are local jurisdictions and their Planning-Zoning codes. As a refresher, the state legislature passed laws that mandated local jurisdictions create a streamlined approval process for EV charging (AB 1236 (Chiu, 2015) and AB 970 (McCarty and Chiu, 2021) adding Sections 65850.7 and 65850.71 to the California Government Code (together referred to as “charging streamlining laws”)). Many jurisdictions have implemented a streamlined permit review system through their building & permitting departments.  Others, such as San Francisco, have updated their Planning codes to allow certain sites, such as former gas stations, to be converted to EV charging sites. However, the majority of jurisdictions throughout the state either do not have EV charging stations in their Planning-Zoning codes, require a Conditional Use permit or other discretionary review, or are not permitted altogether, despite the state laws requiring the opposite. To assist, the Attorney General issued a Legal Alert in March 2025.  Titled “Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permit Streamlining Requirements” (OAG 2025-001), it is a “reminder” to local California jurisdictions of the state laws to streamline and expedite the permitting of EV charging stations. The Legal Alert clearly outlines what the state legislature intended with AB 1236 and AB 970.  It also provides examples of how jurisdictions have been out of compliance.  Importantly, the alert specifies: EV streamlining laws supersede all local zoning designations and ordinances EV charging stations can go in any zoning district, whether or not they are currently zoned for them or are expressly prohibited. Meaning, they are permitted throughout a locality’s boundaries. EV charging laws apply to both primary and secondary uses of EV chargers The EV streamlining laws apply to all charging station installations, regardless of whether the EV stations are for personal, public, or fleet use; or whether they are for light-medium, or heavy-duty vehicles. EV charging facilities are permitted as-of-right. No discretionary review-applications of EV charging stations No Conditional Use permits, no design review, variances, or other use permits are allowed. Localities cannot consider aesthetics / design. Accelerated timeline for EV charging station review-permit issuance Applications shall be deemed complete within 5 or 10 days from submittal (depending on # of chargers proposed). After deemed complete, locality has 20 or 40 business days to approve the permit (depending on # of chargers proposed). This includes any Planning-Zoning review. Only specific health and safety impacts can be reviewed and conditioned by local jurisdictions A locality must specify in writing that, based on substantial evidence, the charging station “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” Specific, adverse impact = “a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” The Legal Alert states that components of a proposed installation that are integral for the functioning of the charging station (equipment, paving, etc.) are included in the streamlining process.  Design guidelines that implicate health and safety, such as safety-related lighting and clearance, are permissible for a locality to impose under Section 65850.7.  In addition, items such as bathrooms, accessory structures, etc., that are not necessary to the EV charging are subject to a locality’s zoning processes. The Legal Alert clearly states how local jurisdictions should (and should not) be reviewing and approving EV charging installations.  It is meant to push local jurisdictions to update their processes and stop imposing illegal conditions and timelines for review of EV charging installations.  The Legal Alert’s written guidance will help EV charging companies and individuals obtain permits in a timely and efficient manner.  Hopefully this will open up approvals throughout the state so that the number of charging stations rise, furthering the use of electric vehicles.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Tara Sullivan. 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.

HOAs

New Law Requires HOAs to Repair Utilities

| Jay Drake

California Senate Bill 900 (SB 900), effective January 1, 2025, introduces significant changes to the responsibilities of homeowners associations (HOAs) in common interest developments, particularly condominiums.  The legislation mandates that HOAs take immediate action to repair utility service interruptions originating in the project’s common area, such as gas, heat, water or electrical service, even if the issue extends into individual units.  Repairs must commence within 14 days of the disruption. Key Provisions Impacting Condo Owners and HOAs Expanded Repair Responsibilities.  SB 900 amends Civil Code Section 4775, part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, to require HOAs to repair or replace utility services that begin in the common area of the project, even if the issue extends into individual units – unless otherwise provided in the project’s declaration, or unless the utility service that failed is required to be maintained, repaired, or replaced by a public, private, or other utility service provider.  This includes utilities like gas, heat, water or electrical service.  The HOA must commence repairs within 14 days of the service interruption. Emergency Assessments and Loans.  If an HOA lacks sufficient funds in its reserve account to cover these repairs, SB 900 allows the HOA board of directors to levy emergency assessments without a vote of the HOA members.  Additionally, HOAs can secure loans for necessary repairs without member approval. Reserve Study Requirements.  SB 900 also amends Civil Code Section 5550 to require that utility lines be explicitly listed as line-item components in future HOA reserve studies.  This requirement ensures proper financial planning for maintenance and replacement of utility infrastructure. Controversial Aspects of SB 900 One concern with the new law is the potential financial burden on homeowners.  The ability of HOA boards to levy emergency assessments without a membership vote means that individual homeowners could face significant costs for repairs.  The legislation grants HOA boards the authority to declare an emergency and initiate repairs without a membership vote, raising concerns about the concentration of decision-making power and the potential for misuse. Steps HOAs Can Take in Response to SB 900 HOAs should examine their governing documents to determine the extent of their responsibility for utility repairs.  If the documents are silent on this matter, SB 900’s provisions will apply.  HOAs must ensure that utility lines are included as line-item components in their reserve studies.  This will facilitate proper financial planning for maintenance and replacement of utility infrastructure.  HOAs should develop clear protocols for responding to utility service interruptions, including timelines for initiating repairs and procedures for levying emergency assessments or securing loans if needed. SB 900 represents a shift in the responsibilities of homeowners associations in California, particularly concerning the maintenance and repair of utility services.  While the intent is to ensure timely repairs and minimize disruptions for residents, the law has introduced concerns regarding financial burdens on homeowners and the authority of HOA boards.  Condominium owners and HOAs should closely examine the implications of SB 900 to understand how it affects their rights and obligations.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, 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.

voting

2025 Brings New HOA Election and Voting Rules

| Michael Corbett

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (California Civil Code Section 4000 et seq.) (“Act”) is the primary body of law governing residential common interest developments (“CIDs”) and homeowners associations (“HOAs”) in California.  Several bills – such as those relating to HOA elections, the permissibility of electronic voting, maintenance responsibilities for public utilities serving CIDs, and dispute resolution procedures for construction defect claims – were recently enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Newsom.  These modifications to the Act have since been codified in the California Civil Code and became effective January 1, 2025. The following is a brief summary of the 2025 changes to the Act, which HOAs and boards of directors should take into consideration, and where appropriate, update the governing documents applicable to the CID which they oversee. New Electronic Voting Rights and Procedures Assembly Bill No. 2159 authorized and established several new procedures and protocols enabling electronic voting for HOAs and its members.  These changes now permit HOAs to adopt electronic secret ballot voting under specific conditions while maintaining transparency and security.  To effectuate these modifications, amendments have been made to California Civil Code §§ 5105, 5110, 5120, 5125, 5200, and 5260. Civil Code Section 5105 – Election Rules.  Rules relating to electronic voting have been added, including requirements for both inspectors of elections and member options to switch between the use of electronic and written ballots.  Additionally, floor nominations are prohibited when using electronic ballots, though they remain allowed with paper ballots. Civil Code Section 5110 – Inspectors of Election.  Updates have been made to address and clarify the role and responsibilities of inspectors of elections in electronic voting.  Specifically, Civil Code § 5110 was amended to allow HOAs to conduct all votes by electronic voting – including those by secret ballot – except those relating to the approvals of proposed increases to regular and/or special assessments.  For elections by electronic secret ballot, § 5110 further provides technical requirements aimed at bolstering the security of the voting system, including those relating to the authentication of the identity of HOA members, and the separation of voter identity from the vote cast. Civil Code Section 5120 – Association Records and Enhanced Records.  Provisions have been added to help ensure the integrity and security of electronic ballots.  Specifically, § 5120(c) was modified to mandate that a person, including a member of the HOA or an employee of its management company, be prohibited from opening or otherwise reviewing any tally sheet of votes cast by electronic secret ballots before the time and place at which the ballots are counted and tabulated. Civil Code Section 5125 – Custody of Election Materials.  To account for the new 2025 electronic voting rights described herein, § 5125 was updated to incorporate any “tally sheet of votes cast by electronic secret ballot” into the procedures governing the existing custodial requirements of election inspectors in maintaining election materials. Civil Code Section 5200 – Association Records and Enhanced Records.  The definition of “Association election materials” under § 5200(c) was expanded to include electronic voting records; specifically, the tally sheet of votes cast by electronic secret ballot. Civil Code Section 5260 – Requests That Must be in Writing.  To account for the aforementioned changes to electronic voting procedures, subsection (g) was added to § 5260 to require any “request to opt out of or opt into electronically voting by electronic secret ballot” be delivered in writing to the HOA.  Guidelines were also added addressing notification requirements for HOA members related to electronic voting. Quorum Adjustments for Elections Assembly Bill No. 2460 made several clarifications and updates to Civil Code § 5115 relating to HOA elections and quorum requirements, while also accounting for and being in harmony with the new electronic voting rules and procedures, including those for secret ballots, as described above. Civil Code Section 5115 – Voting Procedures.  § 5115 of the Act (and Corporations Code § 7512) have been amended to provide that, the absence of a quorum for purposes of member elections, an HOA would be authorized to adjourn the meeting to a date at least twenty (20) days after the adjourned meeting, at which time the quorum required for purposes of a reconvened meeting would be twenty percent (20%) of the members, whether voting in person, by proxy, or by secret ballot.  These amendments further require HOAs to provide general notice of such reconvened meetings no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the reconvened meeting.  Further, an HOA whose governing documents require a quorum for election of directors, are to provide general notice of a statement that the association may call a reconvened meeting to be held at least twenty (20) days after a scheduled election if the quorum is not reached, as specified.  Finally, in the absence of a quorum, an HOA is now authorized to adjourn a meeting to a date at least twenty (20) days after the adjourned meeting, at which time the quorum required for purposes of a reconvened meeting would be twenty percent (20%) of the members, whether voting in person, by proxy, or by secret ballot.   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.

housing element

Major Builder’s Remedy/Housing Litigation Win

| Thomas P. Tunny

In a litigation result that will have a number of positive consequences for developers and housing advocates, the City of La Canada Flintridge (“City”) last week moved to dismiss its appeal of a closely-watched “Builder’s Remedy” case. After the appeals court ordered the City to post a $14 million bond on appeal, the City chose not to do so and will now comply with the trial court decision and process a housing application to build an 80-unit apartment project (“Project”). Readers may recall us reporting on this litigation previously. (California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge (L.A. Sup.Ct. No. 23STCP02614 and 2DCA No. B338985).) In May 2023, the City Council determined the Project did not qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, in part because the SB 330 Preliminary Application was filed after the date that the City Council (retroactively) self-certified its Housing Element update. Later that month, the City informed the Project developer that its SB 330 Preliminary Application was complete, but maintained its position that the Builder’s Remedy did not apply to the Project. The developer petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court for a writ of mandate, alleging that the City violated the HAA, State Housing Element Law, and other state laws. The Superior Court granted the writ, making four key rulings: the City cannot “self-certify” its housing element; the Builder’s Remedy is “vested” on the date a complete SB 330 preliminary application is submitted; the Builder’s Remedy is available until any required rezoning is completed; and the City unlawfully “disapproved” the Builder’s Remedy Project. The Court’s ruling in effect means a City can’t back-date its Housing Element compliance to avoid approving a Builder’s Remedy project. The Court of Appeal’s decision to require such a substantial bond (the City’s entire budget is $42 million) not only reinforces the pro-housing intentions of the Builder’s Remedy, Housing Element, and HAA rules, but also puts cities and counties on notice with respect to processing housing projects. In this case, not only did the City lose the litigation, but it likely will have to pay the petitioners’ attorney’s fees, and the developer may recover millions in losses incurred due to the appeal. Local jurisdictions seeking to continue old strategies of baselessly denying housing projects will have to think twice going forward about the potential costs.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Thomas P. Tunny. 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.

policy

The Basics: A Title Insurance Primer

| Corie A. Edwards

Most sophisticated real estate professionals understand that before real property is acquired, a review of the condition of title is an essential part of the due diligence process. But the nuances of title insurance coverage are often not understood. In most cases, a prospective buyer of real estate will receive a preliminary title report or title commitment from a title insurer affiliated with the escrow agent for the transaction. That document typically includes the legal description for the property, a statement about the proposed form of title insurance policy, the exceptions to the title insurance coverage that the title insurer offers, a statement of the conditions that must be met before policy issuance, as well as boilerplate exclusions and limitations on covered risks. Many buyers do not understand that there are different forms of title insurance policies or that the insurance coverage may vary widely between them. For example, a 2021 ALTA Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance, a form developed by the American Land Title Association (“ALTA Policy”), is frequently used to insure title to commercial property. The ALTA Policy includes a list of 10 “insuring clauses” which may protect the buyer – the insured – against loss or damage that occur as a result of title problems that exist as of the date when the policy is issued (typically the date when escrow closes). Briefly explained, the insuring clauses allow for coverage when, for example: Title is vested other than as stated in the policy, i.e., someone other than the buyer actually owns the property, or the buyer’s interest in the property is different than what is insured; The title is defective for reasons that include a forged deed, seller incapacity or incompetency, an improperly recorded conveyance, or a lien encumbers the property; Title is unmarketable; There is no right of access to/from the property; There is a violation or enforcement of law – including building and zoning violations – if an “Enforcement Notice” relates to the use or occupancy of the property, the character or location of improvements on the land, subdivision, or environmental remediation/protection; A jurisdiction enforces its police power against the property (e.g., forfeiture or eminent domain), to the extent described in an Enforcement Notice; There are other defects in title or vesting, including those which result from the seller’s title being acquired through a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer in violation of bankruptcy or other law; and Other covered title defects occur between the date when the policy is issued and the date when the document that conveys the property is recorded. When an ALTA Policy is selected, the buyer has the option to purchase a variety of extended coverage endorsements. Some commonly requested endorsements provide coverage for zoning matters, environmental protection liens, access and/or utility access, contiguity (where the property consists of multiple parcels), subdivision, and encroachments. If the buyer’s acquisition of the property is financed, the lender typically requires the buyer to fund the cost of policy of title insurance to protect the lender’s security interest in the property. A lender’s policy covers similar risks to an owner’s policy, and may contain its own set of extended coverage endorsements. The 2021 ALTA Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance is generally available to individuals (i.e., “natural persons”) who purchase a residential property, and includes coverage that is considerably more broad than that of the ALTA Owner’s Policy. The CLTA Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance, a form developed by the California Land Title Association, in contrast, offers less coverage than that offered by the ALTA Owner’s Policy. In all cases, the language of the insuring clauses dictates the specifics about what the policy does and does not insure as do the conditions and exclusions from coverage. For example, title insurance policies do not cover matters that are “created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to” by the insured, or which are known to the insured and not disclosed to the title insurer prior to policy issuance. A key point of misunderstanding about title insurance is that the list of exceptions that are identified in a preliminary title report or title insurance policy is not a representation about the condition of title. The preliminary title report is simply an offer to insure property, and the terms and conditions on which the title insurer is willing to do so. Cal. Ins. Code § 12340.11. When a party seeks complete information about the condition of title, it should inquire about obtaining a Condition of Title Report from a title insurer. It should also investigate other sources of information that may impact title to a property, such as court records for the jurisdiction where the property is located. A prospective buyer of real property should carefully consider what form of title insurance policy will fit its needs and the kinds of title risks for which it requires insurance. Each policy form offers different kinds of coverage, as do the various optional endorsements. A qualified real estate attorney may be of assistance to a buyer completing a pre-acquisition title review and selecting the most appropriate form of title policy.   Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Corie A. Edwards. 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.

1 2 3 … 56