Court Strikes Down California's Split Lot Housing Law as Unconstitutional

California's SB 9 Struck Down by Judge

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin issued a landmark ruling this week, striking down the controversial Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which permitted property owners to subdivide lots and build new homes. This decision interrupted a law that state leaders had lauded as a solution to the housing crisis by promoting the creation of more affordable living spaces in single-family neighborhoods. Five Southern California charter cities, including Redondo Beach and Torrance, were part of the legal battle that led to this pivotal ruling.

Since SB 9 went into effect in 2022, its impact has been relatively minor compared to its intended goals. Data from a survey covering 16 cities shows that only 75 lot-split applications and 112 applications for new units have been approved under the law. This figure pales compared to more than 8,800 permits for accessory dwelling units, or in-law apartments, granted in the same period.

The Constitutional Challenge and Its Basis

Judge Kin's decision rests on the claim that SB 9 fails to serve a statewide interest, a requirement for laws that apply to charter cities with established local governance rights. These cities hold the constitutional privilege to enact legislation independent of state mandates. The crux of the argument presented by Pam Lee, the plaintiffs' attorney, was that SB 9 did not meet the specificity needed to mandate below-market-rate housing constitutionally. SB 9's stated objective to ensure access to affordable housing did not directly translate to the creation of housing with below-market rates, thus rendering the law unconstitutional, according to Judge Kin's interpretation.

The legal challenge also proved the complexity of balancing statewide housing needs with the autonomy of charter cities, a dynamic that has significantly influenced California's approach to housing legislation.

Pushback from the State and Housing Advocates

Immediate reactions from housing advocates and state officials voiced disappointment and concern over the ruling. State officials are considering the ruling with an eye toward an appeal. Rob Bonta, the state Attorney General and defendant in the case indicated that his team is reviewing the court's decision and will look to defend SB 9 vigorously.

State Sen. Toni Atkins, responsible for authoring SB 9, criticized the Judge's ruling, calling it "sadly misguided." Atkins expressed determination to address any loopholes that municipalities could exploit to hinder housing development. She emphasized SB 9's broader objective of increasing accessible housing and not solely focusing on subsidized homes.

The debate revolves around whether single-family neighborhoods should be preserved or evolved to include more multi-family housing units. Proponents saw SB 9 as a step toward equity and increased housing supply, a critical issue in California for years.

Impact and Future Prospects

Developers who have supported SB 9 argued that the law was ineffective due to impediments such as anti-speculation measures and additional fees imposed by cities. These barriers, they claim, have hampered the actualization of SB 9's intent. Sen. Atkins' response to these concerns came in the form of a second bill, SB 450, created to resolve these issues. However, SB 450 is currently on hold.

Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor, pinpointed the lack of consensus around the law's objective. As he observed, the hesitance reflected in SB 9 indicates fluctuating levels of comfort among lawmakers with the legislation's push toward transforming single-family neighborhoods. He views the Legislature's response to this ruling as indicative of their commitment to restructuring housing norms within these areas.

With this ruling, the future of SB 9 hangs in the balance as municipal governments, state leaders, and California's legislative bodies ponder their next moves. How they will navigate this setback in the fight against the state's housing shortage remains to be seen. The eyes of many, from property owners to housing activists, are trained closely on the legal and legislative developments that will follow this judicial decision.