Builder’s remedy must yield to the Coastal Act when developer proposes project in area not zoned for housing
In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, No. B337897, ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2026 WL 2198336 (July 30, 2026), the Second District Court of Appeal held that a city may deny a builder’s remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) when the project proposes land uses that are not permitted under the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) certified by the California Coastal Commission. The decision is the first appellate ruling to squarely address the possible tension between the HAA’s builder’s remedy—which sharply limits the ability of a city out of compliance with state housing law to reject affordable housing developments—and the Coastal Act’s requirement that coastal development conform to a Commission-certified LCP. The court’s answer was clear: The Coastal Act’s procedures and Commission oversight cannot be bypassed, even to serve the HAA’s “laudable goal” of promoting affordable housing.
In July 2022, New Commune DTLA LLC applied to the City of Redondo Beach for permits to build a 141,000-square-foot mixed-use project consisting of 30 condominiums, six of which would be affordable housing units. The proposed site sat within the City’s Coastal Commercial-4 (CC-4) zone, which the City’s Commission-certified LCP restricted to public access uses, coastal-related commercial-recreational facilities, and services supporting pedestrian-oriented recreational boating and fishing. Residential uses were neither permitted nor conditionally permitted in the CC-4 zone. The developer acknowledged the zoning conflict but argued the City was required to approve its project as a “builder’s remedy” under the HAA, because—as the Court of Appeal determined in a prior published opinion—the City lacked a certified housing element at the time the application was submitted. (See New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, 115 Cal.App.5th 111, 126 (2025).)
The City declined to process the application, notifying the developer that the project proposed unpermitted uses under its certified LCP and inviting the developer to pursue a general plan amendment, LCP land use plan amendment, and zoning amendment to change the site’s designated use. The developer did not pursue those avenues. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, New Commune filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel project approval under the HAA.
The trial court denied the petition, and the Second District affirmed, reasoning that the HAA’s builder’s remedy provisions could not override Coastal Act requirements and the City’s certified LCP. The court declined to adopt the developer’s proposed framework for “harmonizing” the two statutes—under which a city would evaluate builder’s remedy projects against only a handful of “specific, objective” Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies—describing that approach as “unworkable.” The court reasoned that it would improperly delegate to local governments the responsibility to make judgments about whether “specific, objective” Coastal Act policies would be served by projects proposed in their jurisdictions.
Instead, the court analyzed the case under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(3), which requires a city to deny a builder’s remedy project if the denial is “required in order to comply with specific state or federal law” and “no feasible method” exists to comply without rendering the housing unaffordable. On the first prong, the court held that the City’s certified LCP embodies state policy—not merely local zoning—because the Commission reviewed and certified it for conformity with Coastal Act policies. Because the LCP did not authorize residential uses in the CC-4 zone, and only the Commission (not the City acting alone) could authorize a land use change through the amendment process, the City’s denial was required as a matter of state law. On the second prong, the court found the City’s feasibility analysis was adequate. The City had invited the developer to pursue an LCP amendment to change the site’s designation, but the developer declined. Without the developer’s participation in the amendment process, the court concluded, there was no abuse of discretion by the City in deciding there was no feasible path to compliance.
For developers, the opinion makes clear that the HAA’s builder’s remedy is not a viable way to circumvent the Coastal Act. Projects that propose uses not permitted under a certified LCP will face denial even in jurisdictions that lack compliant housing elements. Developers pursuing builder’s remedy projects in the coastal zone should evaluate at the outset whether their proposed uses conform to the site’s LCP land use designation.
For municipalities, the decision reinforces that a certified LCP embodies state policy and provides a lawful basis for denying noncompliant builder’s remedy projects under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(3). Notably, the court left the door open for the Legislature to recalibrate the balance between the HAA and the Coastal Act, signaling that any change must come from Sacramento—not from judicial rewriting of either statute.
While the case is a setback for affordable housing construction in California, it does not grant cities and counties in the coastal zone carte blanche to ignore the HAA throughout their jurisdictions. The effects of the opinion are limited to areas where the LCP itself precludes new housing development. In areas within the coastal zone where the LCP allows for housing, the builder’s remedy may be available if the local jurisdiction lacks a compliant housing element.
