In summary, recent California laws were intended to address the critical housing shortage by promoting the construction of much-needed homes. However, according to YIMBY Law, these laws have fallen short of their intended impact.
It was envisioned that one law would transform abandoned shopping centers across the state into bustling apartment complexes. Another law aimed to repurpose underutilized church parking lots into affordable housing units. A third law was poised to revolutionize single-family zoning as we know it.
Fast forward to 2025, and these recent California laws, along with others designed to boost housing construction, have failed to significantly increase the state’s housing supply. This disappointing conclusion comes from an unexpected source: a new report from YIMBY Law, a non-profit organization advocating for development and affordable housing solutions.
The analysis, released today, examined five state laws enacted since 2021 that aimed to remove regulatory barriers for building apartment complexes and dense residential developments in historically restricted areas.
Challenges and Roadblocks
Among the laws scrutinized were SB 9 of 2021, allowing homeowners to split single-family homes into duplexes, effectively ending exclusive single-family zoning across California. Despite this, only 140 units were constructed under this law in 2023, as reported by the analysis.
Another law, AB 2011, enacted in 2022, sought to streamline the conversion of office parks, shopping malls, and parking lots into apartment buildings. However, only two projects were approved under this law in 2023, with a total of eight by 2024. Notably, no projects utilized SB 6, a similar bill passed in the same year but with stricter labor requirements.
The report also highlighted SB 4 of 2024, known as “Yes in God’s Backyard,” allowing churches, places of worship, and schools to repurpose their land for affordable housing. Unfortunately, no projects were found to have implemented this law.
“It’s disheartening,” remarked Sonja Trauss, the executive director of YIMBY Law. While acknowledging the novelty of some of these laws, Trauss attributed their initial ineffectiveness to burdensome legislative processes that diluted the original intent.
Barriers to Success
One major challenge identified by YIMBY Law and the broader Yes In My Backyard movement was the inclusion of requirements mandating developers to hire union workers or pay higher wages. Additionally, affordability mandates compelled developers to sell or rent units below market rates. Furthermore, local government opposition and a lack of enforcement of state laws hindered successful implementation.
In response to these obstacles, the state legislature passed a “clean-up” bill last year to nullify certain local restrictions. However, numerous impediments to construction in California, such as high interest rates, a shortage of construction workers, and rising material costs, continue to make residential development financially unattractive.
Despite efforts to boost housing production, the report echoes previous findings that legislative initiatives often fall short due to preconditions and omissions. Legal scholars Chris Elmendorf of UC Davis and Clayton Nall of UC Santa Barbara noted that California’s success in promoting complementary housing units remains an exception rather than the rule.
In their research, Elmendorf and Nall highlighted the unique success of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in California, which saw over 28,000 units permitted in 2023. Trauss emphasized the lengthy revision process required for ADU legislation to become effective.
The YIMBY Law report, based on data from city and county permits submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, acknowledges the limitations of imperfect data on actual construction activities and the efficacy of these laws.
As lawmakers grapple with these challenges, Assembly Housing Committee Chair Matt Haney emphasized the importance of evaluating existing “pro-production” laws to determine their effectiveness and address shortcomings for meaningful change.
In conclusion, the journey to reform California’s housing laws remains complex, requiring collaborative efforts to overcome barriers and enact impactful legislation that addresses the state’s critical housing needs.
