Insights
Publications

California Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Inclusionary Housing Ordinances

6/18/2015 Articles

On June 15, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, No. S212072, unanimously upholding the validity of inclusionary housing programs in California. The closely watched case concerned the City of San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance, which the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) claimed was unconstitutional.

Under San Jose’s ordinance, new residential development projects of 20 or more units are required to sell at least 15 percent of the constructed “for-sale” units at a price that is affordable to low or moderate income households. While the ordinance includes alternative compliance options for developers – including construction of off-site affordable for-sale units, payment of an in lieu fee, or dedication of land – selection of one of the alternatives increases the inclusionary housing requirement to 20 percent, presumably to encourage on-site inclusionary housing.

CBIA brought suit in 2010, challenging the validity of the ordinance on its face. The primary argument advanced by CBIA before the California Supreme Court – after receiving a favorable decision at the Superior Court level followed by a reversal at the Court of Appeal – was that the conditions imposed by the ordinance were a “taking” without compensation, in violation of both the United States and California Constitutions.

In its unanimous decision, In its unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye with two concurring opinions by Justices Werdegar and Chin, the California Supreme Court rejected CBIA’s argument and upheld San Jose’s ordinance. The Court found that the ordinance did not constitute an exaction that would bring it within the gambit of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine—and heightened scrutiny—in the first place, as “the ordinance does not require a developer to give up a property interest for which the government would have been required to pay just compensation under the takings clause outside of the permit process.”  Instead, the Court held that “the ordinance falls within what we have already described as municipalities’ general broad discretion to regulate the use of real property to serve the legitimate interests of the general public and the community at large.”  Noting the severe housing shortage facing cities and counties across California, the Court then held that San Jose’s ordinance was reasonably related to the city’s legitimate interest in alleviating the “significant and increasing need” for affordable housing to meet San Jose’s regional share of housing needs.

Despite the broad scope of the ruling, however, the Court did not give municipalities carte blanche to enact affordable and/or inclusionary housing programs without limitations. For instance, the Court left untouched the holding of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, which struck down an affordable housing mandate in Los Angeles that required a certain percentage of rental units to made affordable to low-income households. Additionally, the Court recognized that there are constitutional limits on the power of a municipality to impose price controls on developers, including ensuring that such controls are not confiscatory, i.e. that they are so onerous that “they deny a property owner a fair and reasonable return on its property.” 

This decision has immediate impacts on both San Jose and the other approximately 170 cities and counties throughout California with similar inclusionary housing ordinances, all of which would most likely defeat a takings-based legal challenge. Additionally, those cities and counties without inclusionary affordable housing programs are likely to face pressure from affordable housing advocates to enact them. However, CBIA’s legal counsel has stated that they are reviewing all legal options, and CBIA has the option of asking the United State Supreme Court for further review.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Regulatory Changes Underway To Address Dwindling California Property Insurance Market

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for our clients to get property insurance these days, both for homes and businesses in Northern California’s wildfire-prone areas. Which, of course, is most of Northern...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Nonprofit Tenants and Lease Agreements: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today, we are again lucky to have Farella real estate partner Quinn Arntsen with us to talk about leasing...

Read More
Event

19th Annual Renewable Energy Law Institute

Dirk Mueller is speaking at the University of Texas School of Law 19 th Annual Renewable Energy Law Institute on "Mineral Issues Impact on Real Estate Documents, Siting and Planning: Texas vs. California." Session Overview :   Understanding...

Read More
News

Brian Donnelly Named a Distinguished Leader Award Finalist by The Recorder

Brian Donnelly Headshot
Read More
Publication

Real Estate Leasing Tips for Nonprofits

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today, we are lucky to have Farella real estate partner Quinn Arntsen with us to talk about leasing issues for...

Read More
News

How I Made Partner: 'Remember That You Have Agency and a Voice!' Says Ashley E. Breakfield of Farella Braun + Martel

Ashely Breakfield Headshot
Read More
Publication

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Housing Fee Reform Legislation

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors took the first of two votes to approve housing fee reform legislation last week. The legislation reduces by as much as a third the affordable housing fees and...

Read More
Event

Cannabis Real Estate Deep Dive

Quinn Arnsten will moderate the panel "Cannabis Real Estate Deep Dive" hosted by Bisnow.  Click  here  for more information and to register to attend.

Read More
News

55 New Montgomery Is in Lender’s Hands Following Foreclosure Auction

Restructuring, insolvency, and creditors rights partner Gary Kaplan provided expert commentary in the San Francisco Business Times article, "55 New Montgomery Is in Lender’s Hands Following Foreclosure Auction."  Read the full article here (subscription may be...

Read More