Summary of Select 2024 California Real Estate and Land Use Cases Impacting Real Estate Developers

On January 21, 2025, Coblentz litigation partner Skye Langs presented for the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Real Property section on the following real estate and land use cases from 2024:

Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Commission (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 833. A Class 32 categorical exemption (also known as the “infill exemption”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for streamlined approval of certain projects that the legislature has predetermined will not have a significant impact on the environment. Among the conditions required for this exemption to apply, the project must be “substantially surrounded by urban uses.” The project opponents argued that this requires a certain population density and type of development, based on different defined terms located elsewhere in the CEQA statute and regulations. The Court disagreed. It interpreted the terms according to their ordinary meaning and concluded that the project qualified for the exemption.

Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43. In 2023, the Court of Appeal reversed the approvals for a student housing project planned for People’s Park in Berkeley, finding that the EIR did not adequately evaluate noise from future residents or alterative locations for the project. The California Supreme Court accepted review, and while the case was pending, the legislature enacted AB 1307, which provides that (1) for residential projects, the effects of noise from project occupants and their guests on human beings are not a significant environmental impact for purposes of CEQA, and (2) public universities are not required to consider alternatives to the location of a residential or mixed-use housing project if the project meets certain criteria. In light of AB 1307, the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that occupant noise is not a CEQA impact for “residential projects,” regardless of whether the environmental review was done on a project-specific or programmatic level.

West Adams Heritage Association v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 395. In another case involving residential housing near a university campus, the Court of Appeal originally held that the project did not qualify for the CEQA infill exemption because residents using the project’s rooftop decks would cause a significant noise impact. However, after the Make UC a Good Neighbor decision, the California Supreme Court instructed the Court of Appeal to vacate and reconsider its earlier decision. Upon reconsideration, the Court once again reversed the project approvals, this time on the grounds that the City had failed to make required findings about the project’s consistency with an applicable redevelopment plan. It did so even though the project opponent had failed to identify any element of the project that was, in fact, inconsistent with any applicable land use plan or policy.

Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors sponsored environmental review in connection with a comprehensive update to its land use plan and zoning ordinances for the Santa Monica Mountains North Area.  The update aimed to protect the biological, scenic, and rural character of the region, and to align its land use plans with those of the adjacent lands regulated by the Coastal Commission.  While the plan initially contemplated heavy regulation of new vineyards in the area, the Board ultimately approved a complete ban on any new vineyards in the area.  The Court of Appeal upheld the ban, holding that it was within the scope of the project evaluated in the EIR, and it did not create any new or increased environmental impacts that were not already considered.  The project description was not unstable, and recirculation of the EIR was not required.

Holguin Family Ventures, LLC v. County of Ventura (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 157. A winery operating on land zoned exclusively for agricultural use obtained zoning clearances in the 1980s, which allowed for a very small winery production facility and tasting room. When the County updated its zoning ordinance, the winery’s existing use was grandfathered in as a legal non-conforming use that could not expand or change without a permit. After a new owner purchased the property, it obtained permits to expand its agricultural facilities. The County later discovered that the new facilities were actually being used for wine tasting, events, and a gift store. The County issued notices of violation, which the owner appealed, arguing that it had a vested right to expand its operations. The Court disagreed, finding that its vested rights were limited to the legal nonconforming uses for the property based on its historic operations, as documented by the County and the prior owners in 2008.

Romero v. Shih (2024) 15 Cal.5th 680. This California Supreme Court case holds that an implied easement can be exclusive, and effectively exclude the servient tenement owner from most practical uses of the easement. The relatively high standards for finding an implied easement, and the fact that they require an intent to convey a portion of property to another, are sufficient to alleviate any fears such easements will be used to bypass the strict statutory requirements for adverse possession.