Chapman Law Review
Abstract
California’s housing crisis, marked by a severe shortage of affordable housing, soaring costs, and rising homelessness, has reached alarming proportions. Despite decades of efforts, the state continues to grapple with a housing market that significantly underserves low- and middle-income residents, forcing many to devote high portions of their income to housing. On paper, California’s Housing Element Law appears to be a valuable tool to address the crisis by requiring cities and counties to plan for housing needs across all economic segments. Widespread noncompliance with the law, however, has prompted both the state Attorney General and private parties to seek judicial intervention.
This Article is the first-ever comprehensive empirical study of Housing Element litigation. It examines the role of litigation as an enforcement tool, analyzing patterns in housing element lawsuits and the judicial remedies imposed under California Government Code section 65755. Despite the law’s clear mandates, the evidence reveals that litigation is often an empty threat: the likelihood of being sued is low, settlements are common, and courts frequently hesitate to impose meaningful penalties. Political incentives for local governments to resist compliance further complicate enforcement.
By uncovering these limitations, this Article addresses why litigation has failed to drive widespread compliance with the Housing Element Law. The Article then evaluates potential reforms, including increased incentives for litigation, mandatory suspensions of development authority, and specialized administrative courts. The Article also explores the idea of dispensing with Housing Element Law altogether in favor of social housing.
Recommended Citation
Jonathan D. Bremen,
Element of Accountability: Strengthening Enforcement of California’s Housing Element Law,
29
Chap. L. Rev.
1
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman-law-review/vol29/iss1/1