An act to amend Section 714.6 of the Civil Code, relating to real property.
AB 1385 expands California Civil Code Section 714.6, which already allows certain restrictive covenants on real property to be rendered unenforceable against qualifying housing developments once a modification document is properly recorded. The bill adds a new category of eligible projects: developments located on property in a county that experienced a major wildfire disaster in January 2025, tied to the Governor’s January 7, 2025 state of emergency for the Palisades Fire and windstorm conditions. In practical terms, the bill is aimed at helping housing projects move forward where older deed restrictions, CC&Rs, or similar land-use limits would otherwise block construction.
The measure keeps the existing procedural framework in place. An owner must submit the original restrictive covenant and supporting documents to the county recorder, the county counsel must review whether the property qualifies, and notice requirements must be satisfied before a modification document can be recorded. The bill also preserves exceptions for conservation easements, certain settlements and mitigation agreements, state-required deed restrictions, local zoning and building code authority, and other non-density-related covenants such as aesthetic standards, common-area assessments, and rent limits. It also preserves the rule that unauthorized recordation is the responsibility of the property owner, not the county.
AB 1385’s main legal effect is to broaden the definition of “housing development” in Civil Code Section 714.6 so that wildfire-affected properties can use the covenant-modification process even if they are not otherwise within the statute’s existing affordable-housing categories. That means county recorders and county counsels would have additional duties to evaluate these applications, and the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill states that no state reimbursement is required, despite those added local administrative responsibilities.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and the Assembly with substantial support, including a 63-10 floor vote, suggesting broad agreement with the goal of facilitating housing recovery and redevelopment after the January 2025 wildfire disaster. At the same time, the bill was later held under submission and placed on suspense file, indicating fiscal or policy concerns remained unresolved at the committee level.
The main points of contention are likely to center on land-use control and the scope of the wildfire-related exemption. Supporters appear to view the bill as a targeted housing-recovery tool for disaster-impacted areas, while potential opponents may be concerned about weakening private restrictive covenants, affecting conservation interests, or expanding county review obligations. The bill’s detailed carve-outs for conservation easements and zoning compliance suggest an effort to address those concerns and limit the measure’s reach to housing-related restrictions.
AB 1385 would amend Civil Code Section 714.6 to extend the restrictive-covenant modification process to certain developments in counties that experienced a January 2025 major wildfire disaster, specifically those tied to the Palisades Fire emergency. This would allow qualifying housing projects on affected property to invalidate otherwise unenforceable density or occupancy restrictions in recorded covenants, subject to county counsel review, notice, and recording procedures. The bill would not change local zoning, building codes, or other land-use laws, and it preserves existing exemptions for conservation easements, settlement agreements, and state-required deed restrictions. It also imposes additional administrative duties on county officials, creating a state-mandated local program, while declaring that no reimbursement is required.
The bill appears to have received generally positive treatment in the Legislature, with strong committee and floor vote margins in the Assembly and committee approvals in the Senate process. That pattern suggests broad support for using the covenant-modification statute to speed housing redevelopment in wildfire-affected areas. However, the later action of being held under submission and placed on suspense file indicates that, despite policy support, there were unresolved concerns—likely fiscal, procedural, or stakeholder-related—that prevented final advancement at that stage.
The likely areas of contention are the balance between housing production and protection of private property restrictions, conservation interests, and local administrative burdens. Supporters likely emphasize the need to remove obsolete or restrictive covenants that can block rebuilding or new housing after a major disaster. Opponents or cautious legislators may worry about expanding a statute originally focused on affordable housing, the possibility of unintended effects on conservation easements or other recorded restrictions, and the added workload for county recorders and county counsels. The bill’s detailed exceptions and notice requirements appear designed to address these concerns, but the suspense-file action suggests some reservations remained.