California sues five local governments over housing-plan violations

California has moved from administrative warnings to court enforcement against five local governments accused of failing to comply with the state’s Housing Element Law.

Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Housing and Community Development filed writ petitions on July 16, 2026, against Calexico, Costa Mesa, Half Moon Bay, Ridgecrest and Turlock. The cases are pending. The filings contain the state’s allegations and requests for relief, not final court findings.

The lawsuits could affect local rezoning, housing applications and permitting decisions as California presses cities to complete plans for accommodating housing needs across income levels.

What California filed

The Attorney General’s Office filed separate actions in the superior courts for the counties where the cities are located: Imperial, Orange, San Mateo, Kern and Stanislaus counties. The petitions ask judges to require the jurisdictions to comply with state housing law and to impose other remedies allowed by law.

The state says the five jurisdictions remained out of compliance after receiving notices of violation, written findings and opportunities to respond and meet with HCD. The July cases followed a March 25, 2026 HCD warning to 15 cities and counties that remained out of compliance. That warning gave jurisdictions 30 days to respond before possible referral to the Attorney General; it was an earlier administrative enforcement step, not the same action as the July lawsuits.

California’s sixth housing-element cycle requires local governments to plan for approximately 2.5 million additional homes statewide. That figure is a statewide planning obligation, not a guarantee that all of the homes will be built.

The Attorney General’s Office said more than 95% of California communities had attained housing-element compliance in the sixth cycle after HCD’s review and technical assistance. The five cities are the jurisdictions HCD referred to the Attorney General for enforcement in the July announcement.

What housing plans must include

Every city and county must periodically update a housing element as part of its general plan. The plan must address existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community, identify adequate sites for housing and include programs to carry out the plan.

Housing elements also connect to zoning and other local rules. If a jurisdiction lacks enough suitable sites for its assigned share of regional housing needs, its plan may need to commit to rezoning additional land. HCD reviews housing elements and related actions to determine whether they substantially comply with state law.

Costa Mesa shows the potential stakes

The Costa Mesa petition provides the clearest example of what California is asking a court to order. It asks for a writ requiring the city to adopt and submit a compliant housing element, complete required rezoning and meet its regional housing obligations within 120 days.

That 120-day period is a requested remedy, not an existing court order.

The petition also asks for a declaration that Costa Mesa is not substantially compliant, penalties, investigative and legal costs, and other relief. It seeks temporary relief that could include suspending the city’s nonresidential permitting authority and requiring approval of certain residential developments. Those measures would require court action and are not automatic consequences of filing the case.

The petition alleges that Costa Mesa’s sixth-cycle housing-element deadline was October 15, 2021, and that the city had not completed all required rezoning as of the filing. The petition also says HCD found in May 2023 that the city’s housing element met the statutory requirements reviewed at that stage but could not be found substantially compliant until required rezoning was completed. Local reporting has described implementation as ongoing, while city officials have disputed the state’s characterization of the city’s progress.

Potential penalties and Builder’s Remedy

Under Senate Bill 1037, which took effect January 1, 2025, local governments may be liable for civil penalties for each month they failed to timely comply with the Housing Element Law. The Attorney General’s Office said collected penalties are deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, which supports affordable housing in the affected jurisdiction.

Noncompliance can also expose a jurisdiction to the Builder’s Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act. In general terms, that remedy can limit a local government’s ability to deny certain housing projects—particularly projects that include specified shares of lower- or moderate-income units—because they conflict with local zoning or land-use designations.

Builder’s Remedy is not an automatic approval for every housing application. The lawsuits also do not immediately rezone land, approve projects or impose the requested permitting restrictions.

Local progress varies

The five cities do not necessarily face identical deficiencies or identical legal exposure. The petitions are separate cases, and the practical effects will depend on each city’s housing element, rezoning status, legal response and court proceedings.

In Turlock, city officials told CBS Sacramento that the city had made significant progress toward compliance and that adopting required rezoning rules was the remaining step. The state’s lawsuit alleges that Turlock’s revised housing element still did not satisfy all legal requirements after HCD reviewed its latest version.

That difference illustrates why the cases should not be treated as a single statewide finding against all five cities. Each jurisdiction can respond to the allegations, negotiate with the state or ask the court to reject some or all of the requested relief.

What happens next

The cities will have opportunities to respond in court. The cases could proceed through litigation, settlements, consent decrees, amended housing elements or rezoning actions. The Attorney General’s Office said jurisdictions may resolve violations through agreements establishing timelines for compliance.

Residents should watch city council and planning commission agendas for housing-element amendments, rezoning proposals and public hearings. Builders and housing applicants should monitor court filings and any orders affecting permitting or project review. Local governments should watch for HCD findings, settlement terms and court deadlines.

A court ruling, settlement, consent decree or later HCD determination could change the practical effect of the cases. Until then, the July filings represent an escalation of state enforcement—not a final determination that any of the five jurisdictions violated the law.

Sources

• California Attorney General: Legal action against five local governments
• California HCD final warning to 15 communities
• CBS Sacramento report on the five lawsuits
• Los Angeles Times/Daily Pilot report on Costa Mesa

Related News

• Delaware launches office to help small businesses navigate permits and regulations
• New Hampshire Landfill Law Pauses New Capacity Approvals and Adds Review Panel
• Minnesota’s New Domestic-Violence Laws Take Effect Aug. 1
• Indiana Inspector General Stops Publishing Individual Investigation Summaries