California · Davis-Stirling Act · in force 1 January 2026

Rebuilding after a disaster, and the clock the association is now on.

SB 625 added two sections to the Act. The first makes any restriction void to the extent it blocks rebuilding what was there before. The second gives the architectural committee 30 days, then 45, then 60 — and says what happens when it misses them.

Both sections are new law. Neither existed when most associations last revised their architectural guidelines, and neither can be contracted around: § 4752 voids the restriction itself, and § 4766 governs the review whatever the governing documents say about it.

What counts as a disaster

§ 4752(c)(1) gives three routes, and any one of them is enough:

1. A state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government.
2. A state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor under Government Code § 8625.
3. A local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official under Government Code § 8630.

A county proclamation is as good as a federal declaration here. And the section attaches to a structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster; it sets no window between the disaster and the rebuilding, and nothing in it limits the disaster to one that happened after 1 January 2026. What the date governs is the review, not the fire.

Substantially similar reconstruction — the five tests

The protection is not a general right to rebuild as you please. It attaches to a defined proposal, and § 4752(c)(3) defines it with five tests, all of which must be met:

1. The local building code. A proposal counts as compliant if the building permit is deemed approved by the local agency — so a permit the city sat on does not become the association's reason to refuse.
2. Interior livable square footage ≤ 110 percent of what existed when the structure was damaged or destroyed.
3. The exterior footprint — either the same location and the same exterior dimensions as before, or setbacks of at least four feet from the side and rear lot lines. Two alternatives, not two requirements.
4. Height ≤ 110 percent of the previous height, or 100 percent of what the governing documents allow — whichever is greater. An association with a generous height limit cannot use the old roofline to impose a stricter one.
5. Any objective design standard that was in effect when the structure was destroyed — but only so far as it does not unreasonably increase the cost of building, effectively prohibit it, or extinguish the ability to rebuild at all.

The review clock

§ 4766 applies whenever a substantially similar reconstruction goes to a body — which § 4766(h)(1) defines as the association, an architectural review committee, or any similar body, so renaming the committee changes nothing. All the periods are in calendar days, not business days.

1. 30 daysto decide in writing whether the application is complete — § 4766(b)(1).
2. 45 daysonce it is complete, to approve it or return a full set of comments with a comprehensive request for revisions — § 4766(c).
3. 60 daysto give a final written determination on an appeal — § 4766(e)(2).

If the application is incomplete, the body must say so and simultaneously hand over a list of the missing items and a description of how to cure them — not a refusal with the reasons to follow. The owner may then resubmit.

The two provisions with teeth

Silence approves the application

§ 4766(b)(3): if the body does not make a timely determination, the application is deemed to be complete. Not denied, not tolled — complete, which starts the 45-day clock running on the merits. An association that lets the committee go quiet over a summer has made its decision by doing nothing.

The rules freeze on the day you file

The standards that apply are the body's lawfully adopted standards in effect at the time the application was first submitted — § 4766(c)(1) and (c)(2) both say so. And on a resubmission, § 4766(b)(2)(B) bars the body from requiring an item that the documents did not identify as necessary when the application first went in.

Read together, the two close the obvious evasion: adopt a new guideline while the application is pending and apply it to that application. The guideline may be perfectly valid going forward. It does not reach backwards to the file already on the table.

Approval ends it

§ 4766(f)(1): once the body approves, it shall not subject the applicant to any appeals or additional hearings. A neighbour who dislikes the result has no second bite through the committee. The one exception in (f)(2) is the applicant's own departure from what was approved — which is enforcement of the approval, not reopening of it.

Where the appeal goes

§ 4766(e)(1) sends the appeal to the process under § 4765 — the Act's general architectural review section — and adds the 60-day limit on the written determination. So the ordinary rules about who may decide, and the right to be heard before a decision, carry over; what SB 625 adds is a deadline on the answer.