SB 625 already voids California CC&Rs that block disaster rebuilding
SB 625 already voids California CC&Rs that block disaster rebuilding
2026-09-09 · California · Compliance
A California law that voids association covenants standing in the way of rebuilding after a disaster, and puts hard deadlines on architectural review of the rebuild, has been in force since January 1, 2026 — and it has drawn far less attention than its effect warrants.
SB 625 was approved by the Governor on October 10, 2025 and chaptered as Chapter 548, Statutes of 2025. Authored by Senators Aisha Wahab and Kelly Richardson with nine coauthors, it is titled “Housing developments: disasters: reconstruction of destroyed or damaged structures.”1
It adds Civil Code sections 4752 and 4766 and a new chapter to the Government Code at sections 65914.200 through 65914.203.
Covenants that block reconstruction are void
Section 4752(a) provides that a covenant or governing document provision “shall be void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster.”2
Two phrases carry the weight. “Or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting” reaches provisions that do not say no but operate as a no. And “substantially similar” sets the benchmark at what was there before, not at what current architectural standards would require of new construction.
The 110 percent envelope
Section 4752(c)(3) defines “substantially similar reconstruction” with numbers rather than adjectives. The rebuild must comply with the local building code, and:
Interior livable square footage no more than 110 percent of pre-disaster. The exterior footprint either in the same location and dimensions or set back at least four feet from side and rear lot lines. Height no more than 110 percent of the prior height, or 100 percent of the height the governing documents allow, whichever is greater. Plus any objective design standard in effect when the structure was destroyed — provided it does not unreasonably increase cost or effectively prohibit the rebuild.
And the owner gets their fees
Section 4752(b): “A court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action.”
Shall, not may. It is a one-way fee provision running to the owner.
The two clocks
Section 4766 puts deadlines on the association's review of a rebuild application.
Under section 4766(b)(1), the reviewing body must determine whether the application is complete and give the applicant written notice of that determination no later than 30 calendar days after receiving it. Miss that, and the application “shall be deemed to be complete.”
Once complete, section 4766(c) gives the body 45 calendar days to approve in writing or return a full set of comments with a comprehensive request for revisions. On a resubmittal, section 4766(b)(2)(B) bars the body from demanding an item it did not identify as necessary the first time. An appeal gets a final written determination within 60 calendar days under section 4766(e)(2), and once an application is approved, section 4766(f) provides that the body “shall not subject the applicant to any appeals or additional hearings” except for noncompliance with what was approved.
“Body” is defined at section 4766(h)(1) as “an association, architectural review committee, or similar body” — so an association cannot route the application to a differently named committee and escape the clocks.
What counts as a disaster
Section 4752(c)(1) defines it broadly: a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government; a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor; or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official.
That third limb is the widest. A county or city emergency proclamation — for a fire, a flood, a landslide, a storm — is enough to engage the section.
What it changes for boards and managers
The 30-day completeness notice is where associations will fail first, and the default is punishing. It is not a deadline to decide; it is a deadline to say, in writing, whether the application is complete. An architectural committee that receives a rebuild application and simply puts it on the next meeting agenda has missed a statutory step if that meeting is more than 30 days out — and the application is then deemed complete, starting the 45-day review clock on a submission the committee may never have looked at.
The no-new-demands rule closes the usual workaround. An association that has let the completeness clock run cannot recover by requesting additional material on resubmittal. Section 4766(b)(2)(B) limits it to items identified as necessary under the documents in effect when the application first arrived.
The clocks run in calendar days. Not business days, not meeting cycles. A committee meeting quarterly cannot satisfy either deadline without delegated authority to act between meetings, and that delegation has to exist before the application arrives.
The fee provision changes the risk calculus entirely. Most disputes between an owner and an association over architectural approval are economically irrational for the owner to litigate. A mandatory one-way fee award removes that barrier. An association enforcing a covenant against a post-disaster rebuild is exposed to the owner's fees if it loses, with no reciprocal recovery if it wins.
The 110 percent envelope overrides the governing documents, and the height rule has two limbs. Height is capped at 110 percent of the prior structure or 100 percent of what the governing documents allow, whichever is greater. Where the declaration permits more than the destroyed structure used, the owner gets the declaration's figure. A rebuild inside that envelope is not something an association may refuse on the basis of a covenant — and a proposal outside it is not protected by section 4752 at all.
Local emergency proclamations are common. “Disaster” does not mean only a named catastrophic fire. A local emergency proclaimed for a storm event that destroyed a handful of units engages the same statute with the same deadlines and the same fee exposure.
How it sits with the local rebuild rules
SB 625 governs the association's role. The envelope the owner may rebuild into is set separately by the city or county.
In Malibu, Ordinance No. 524 — adopted March 12, 2025 and certified by the Coastal Commission on April 10, 2025 — permits like-for-like reconstruction at up to 110 percent of the prior structure's height, bulk and square footage, and treats a structure within 50 percent of the original footprint as substantially in the same location. Los Angeles County's building plan self-certification pilot covers single-family replacements, garages and ADUs lost in the Eaton or Palisades fires.
The two layers do not automatically agree. A local ordinance allowing 110 percent does not amend the association's covenants, and an association's standards do not move with the ordinance. What SB 625 does is stop the association from using its covenants to block a substantially similar rebuild — and put it on a clock while it decides.
Worth noting for condominium associations specifically: the LA County self-certification pilot is written for single-family replacements, garages and ADUs. Condominium and multifamily reconstruction does not get the same fast track, so the association's own review is a larger share of the total timeline.
What to watch next
Associations in the 2025 fire footprint have a second, narrower tool alongside this one. AB 2692, signed as an urgency statute on August 24, 2026, creates a process for reinstating a terminated declaration — but only in Los Angeles County, and only until it repeals itself on January 1, 2028.
For every other association, the immediate work is procedural: confirm who has authority to issue a completeness determination, confirm they can do it inside 30 calendar days, and confirm the governing documents do not contain a rebuild condition that section 4752 has already voided. A void provision left in the published guidelines still deters owners, and deterring a rebuild is what the statute is aimed at.
Related California HOA Topics
- SB 625, California Legislature — bill status (approved by the Governor October 10, 2025; Chapter 548, Statutes of 2025) ↩
- SB 625, California Legislature — chaptered text and Legislative Counsel's Digest (adding Civil Code §§ 4752, 4766 and Government Code §§ 65914.200–65914.203) ↩
- Civil Code § 4752, California Legislative Information — operative text, including the § 4752(c)(3) 'substantially similar reconstruction' tests ↩
- Civil Code § 4766, California Legislative Information — operative text of the 30-day completeness, deemed-complete, 45-day review and 60-day appeal provisions ↩
- City of Malibu, Regulations, Policies & Guidelines for Rebuilding — Ordinance No. 524, the 110 percent allowance and the 50 percent footprint rule ↩
- Los Angeles County, Building Plan Self-Certification Pilot Program — scope and exclusions ↩
Stay on top of California HOA law
Every week: new California legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.