Builder's Remedy 2.0: What AB 1893 Means for LA Developers in 2026

For the past three years, the Builder's Remedy has been California's most controversial — and most effective — tool for overcoming local opposition to housing. The provision strips cities of their authority to deny qualifying housing projects based on zoning inconsistencies when the city lacks a compliant housing element. It turned obscure state housing law into a powerful weapon for developers willing to use it.

Now the rules have changed. Assembly Bill 1893, effective January 1, 2025, rewrote the Builder's Remedy with new requirements, new limitations, and new protections. The result is a more structured — and in some ways more predictable — pathway for developers, but one that requires careful navigation.

For anyone tracking entitlements in Los Angeles, this matters now. Over 100 California jurisdictions remain out of compliance with state housing element law, and more may lose compliance in 2026 as HCD enforces rezoning deadlines. The Builder's Remedy window is not closing — it's evolving.

What the Builder's Remedy Does

The Builder's Remedy is a provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5) that applies when a local jurisdiction has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. When the provision applies:

• The city or county cannot deny a qualifying housing development project based on inconsistency with local zoning or general plan land use designations

• The project must include at least 20% affordable units (under the old rules) to qualify

• The developer effectively bypasses local planning authority — a powerful tool against NIMBY opposition

The provision has been used successfully in cities across California, including several high-profile projects in LA County jurisdictions that missed housing element deadlines. Los Angeles County Superior Court decisions in early 2024 confirmed that HCD certification is required for compliance (cities cannot "self-certify"), and that filing an SB 330 preliminary application vests the Builder's Remedy for the duration of project processing.

What AB 1893 Changes

AB 1893 (Wicks) substantially rewrites the Builder's Remedy framework. The key changes fall into five categories:

1. Grandfathering and Conversion

• Projects with applications "deemed complete" before January 1, 2025 are grandfathered under the prior HAA rules

• "Deemed complete" means either an SB 330 preliminary application or a full development application has been submitted

• Grandfathered projects may convert to AB 1893 rules if desired — even if the revision changes unit count by more than 20% (which would otherwise break SB 330 vesting)

• This creates flexibility for developers to adjust density to meet AB 1893's new caps while retaining vesting

2. New Density Maximums

AB 1893 imposes the greater of the following density caps on Builder's Remedy projects (before any density bonus):

• 35 additional units per acre if the site is within ½ mile of a major transit stop, or is a "very low vehicle travel area" or "high/highest resource census tract"

• The density specified in the jurisdiction's Housing Element

• 3x the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law (whichever is greater)

• 50% greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate for the jurisdiction under state law (e.g., 45 units/acre in a metropolitan jurisdiction)

This is a significant change. Under the old rules, Builder's Remedy projects had no codified density cap. AB 1893 imposes a ceiling — but the ceiling is still high in most LA locations, especially near transit.

3. New Density Minimums

AB 1893 also imposes density floors:

• On sites within ½ mile of a commuter rail or heavy rail station, density cannot be less than the local minimum

• On other sites with minimum density requirements, density cannot be less than the lower of the local minimum or 50% of the state-deemed minimum (e.g., 15 units/acre in a metropolitan jurisdiction)

This ensures Builder's Remedy projects deliver meaningful density — preventing developers from using the tool simply to avoid local process on low-density projects.

4. Reduced Affordability Requirements

This is where AB 1893 becomes more developer-friendly:

• For mixed-income projects, the affordability requirement drops from 20% lower income to 13% lower income, 10% very low-income, or 7% extremely low-income

• Projects of 10 units or fewer on sites smaller than one acre with at least 10 dwelling units per acre have no affordability requirement

• Local affordability requirements are capped at 20%, and the income level cannot be deeper than lower income unless the local requirement predates January 1, 2024

• If compliance with a local requirement would render the project infeasible, the local agency must make written findings supported by a preponderance of evidence — a high bar

The affordability reduction is substantial. A 1,000-unit project that previously required 200 affordable units (20%) now requires only 130 lower-income units (13%), or fewer if targeting deeper affordability tiers.

5. Streamlined Ministerial Approval

AB 1893 allows Builder's Remedy projects to combine with other state housing laws that provide ministerial (non-discretionary, no CEQA) approval:

• SB 35 combination: A Builder's Remedy project combined with SB 35 is deemed to comply with objective local standards — non-compliance is disregarded

• AB 2011 combination: A Builder's Remedy project combined with AB 2011 is deemed to comply with AB 2011 density requirements

This creates a powerful stacking opportunity: a project can use the Builder's Remedy to override zoning, then invoke SB 35 for ministerial approval and CEQA exemption.

New Developer Protections

AB 1893 also strengthens protections against local obstruction:

• Disapproval by delay: If a local agency "fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay," that conduct now constitutes disapproval under the HAA — even without a formal vote

• No special requirements: Builder's Remedy projects cannot be subject to additional requirements (e.g., increased fees) based on use of the remedy

• Deemed consistent: Qualifying projects are deemed consistent and conforming with all applicable plans, programs, and ordinances — they cannot be treated as nonconforming

• No legislative approval required: No general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval can be required

These protections directly address the tactics some jurisdictions have used to stall Builder's Remedy applications — including refusing to process applications, imposing new fees, or requiring discretionary approvals.

What This Means for LA Developers

The Compliance Landscape

The City of Los Angeles has a certified housing element — the Builder's Remedy does not currently apply within city limits. But the remedy remains available in jurisdictions that:

• Never achieved HCD certification

• Had certification revoked due to failure to complete required rezonings

• Will lose compliance in 2026 as HCD enforces the three-year rezoning deadline under Government Code § 65583(c)(1)(A)

According to HCD, over 100 California jurisdictions remain out of compliance. In LA County alone, several smaller cities and unincorporated areas have faced or will face compliance challenges. Developers tracking Builder's Remedy opportunities should monitor HCD's compliance dashboard and enforcement actions closely.

Strategic Implications

• Transit adjacency matters more than ever: The 35 units/acre bonus for sites within ½ mile of major transit stops makes transit-adjacent sites significantly more valuable for Builder's Remedy projects

• Affordability math has changed: The reduced affordability requirements (13% vs. 20%) improve project economics — but only for projects that meet AB 1893's density and site requirements

• SB 35 + Builder's Remedy is the new power combo: Projects that can stack both tools get zoning override plus ministerial approval — the fastest path to a building permit in California housing law

• Grandfathered projects have flexibility: Developers with applications deemed complete before January 1, 2025 can choose whether to stay under old rules or convert to AB 1893 — depending on which framework benefits the specific project

Risks

• Density caps may limit project scale: The new maximums, while generous in most cases, may constrain projects that were previously unlimited

• Industrial proximity prohibition: AB 1893 prohibits Builder's Remedy projects on sites abutting parcels used for heavy industrial or Title V industrial uses in the past three years — a new constraint in some locations

• Local litigation risk: Some jurisdictions will continue to fight Builder's Remedy applications, and while the 2024 Superior Court decisions favor developers, appellate precedent is still developing

The Bottom Line

The Builder's Remedy remains one of California's most powerful tools for housing developers — and AB 1893 makes it more structured, more predictable, and in some ways easier to use. The reduced affordability requirements and new protections against local obstruction are significant wins for developers. The new density caps and minimums impose constraints, but the ceilings are high enough to accommodate substantial projects in most LA-area locations.

For developers operating in jurisdictions outside the City of Los Angeles, the Builder's Remedy should be on every site acquisition checklist. The question is no longer whether the tool works — the courts have confirmed it does. The question is whether your specific project meets AB 1893's requirements, and whether the jurisdiction's compliance status creates an opening.

For a detailed analysis of how state housing law is intersecting with local entitlement trends across the Los Angeles CPC pipeline, see our Los Angeles Zoning Trends & Entitlements Report.