Back to California

AB-782 • 2026

Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.

Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.

Education Housing Land
Passed Legislature

This bill passed both chambers and reached final enrollment, even if later executive action is not shown here.

Sponsor
Quirk-Silva
Last action
2026-06-10
Official status
Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and HOUSING.
Effective date
Not listed

Plain English Breakdown

Using official source text because the generated explanation was unavailable or could not be confirmed against the official bill text.

Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.

AB 782, as amended, Quirk-Silva.

What This Bill Does

  • AB 782, as amended, Quirk-Silva.
  • Subdivisions: security.
  • Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.
  • Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict or prohibit the residential uses of the property, are not enforceable against the owner of a housing development if an approved restrictive covenant housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided.

Limits and Unknowns

  • This entry is temporarily using official source text because the generated explanation could not be confirmed against the official bill text during the last sync.

Bill History

  1. 2026-06-10 California Legislative Information

    Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and HOUSING.

  2. 2026-06-04 California Legislative Information

    Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).

  3. 2026-06-03 California Legislative Information

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  4. 2026-06-02 California Legislative Information

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  5. 2026-06-02 California Legislative Information

    Ordered to second reading.

  6. 2026-06-02 California Legislative Information

    From inactive file.

  7. 2025-09-12 California Legislative Information

    Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Wiener.

  8. 2025-08-20 California Legislative Information

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. 2025-08-19 California Legislative Information

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 18).

  10. 2025-07-16 California Legislative Information

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  11. 2025-07-15 California Legislative Information

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (July 14).

  12. 2025-07-03 California Legislative Information

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. P. & E.D.

  13. 2025-07-02 California Legislative Information

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on B. P. & E.D. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 2).

  14. 2025-06-11 California Legislative Information

    Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and B. P. & E.D.

  15. 2025-06-03 California Legislative Information

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  16. 2025-06-02 California Legislative Information

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1852.)

  17. 2025-05-27 California Legislative Information

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  18. 2025-05-23 California Legislative Information

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).

  19. 2025-05-21 California Legislative Information

    Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1627.)

  20. 2025-05-21 California Legislative Information

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  21. 2025-05-14 California Legislative Information

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  22. 2025-05-06 California Legislative Information

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  23. 2025-05-06 California Legislative Information

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  24. 2025-05-05 California Legislative Information

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  25. 2025-05-01 California Legislative Information

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 30).

  26. 2025-03-25 California Legislative Information

    Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  27. 2025-03-24 California Legislative Information

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  28. 2025-03-24 California Legislative Information

    Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  29. 2025-02-19 California Legislative Information

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  30. 2025-02-18 California Legislative Information

    Read first time. To print.

Official Summary Text

AB 782, as amended, Quirk-Silva.
Subdivisions: security.
Unlawfully restrictive covenants: redevelopment of commercial property for residential uses.
Existing law provides that recorded covenants, conditions, restrictions, or private limits on the use of land contained in instruments affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that, among other things, restrict or prohibit the residential uses of the property, are not enforceable against the owner of a housing development if an approved restrictive covenant housing modification document has been recorded in the public record, as provided. As part of this process, existing law requires the owner to submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the owner believes necessary to establish that the property qualifies as a housing development and requires the county counsel to determine, among other things, if the property qualifies as a
housing development and if a modification document may be recorded.
Existing law defines “housing development,” for purposes of these provisions, as a development located on the property that is the subject of the recorded restrictive covenant and meets one of 3 sets of specified requirements. One set requires the property to be owned or controlled by an entity or individual that has submitted a development project application to redevelop an existing commercial property, and the development project includes residential uses permitted by state housing laws or local land use and zoning regulations.
This bill would narrow the housing developments that qualify for removing use restrictions on an existing commercial property, as described above, by excluding a development project within a charter city that meets 3
criteria. For that exclusion, the bill would require the charter city to have a population size between 200,000 and 400,000 and a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the housing element law, as specified. Additionally, the bill would require the charter city to have issued residential building permits that, on an average annual basis during the current regional housing needs allocation cycle applicable to the charter city, allow for a total of more than 500 residential units. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. The act requires prescribed security from a developer if the act or a local ordinance authorizes or requires the furnishing of security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement.
Existing law requires the Real Estate Commissioner to make an examination of any subdivision, and to, unless there are grounds for denial, issue to the subdivider a public report authorizing the sale or lease of the lots or parcels within the subdivision. Existing law specifies the grounds
for denial, including, among other things, the inability to demonstrate that adequate financial arrangements have been made for all offsite improvements included in the offering or the inability to demonstrate that adequate financial arrangements have been made for any community, recreational, or other facilities included in the offering.
This bill would prohibit the Real Estate Commissioner, in issuing a public report for a residential development or project, from requiring the furnishing of a security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement related to an improvement if the Real Estate Commissioner determines that security sufficient to protect the interests of purchasers, owners, and lessees, as necessary, has been furnished to a local agency for
the same improvement pursuant to the provisions above requiring security under the Subdivision Map Act.

Current Bill Text

Read the full stored bill text
Download Bill PDF