YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, and Californians for Homeownership Sue San Francisco for Violating State Housing Law with Family Zoning Plan
/SAN FRANCISCO – YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) and Californians for Homeownership today announced they are filing a lawsuit over San Francisco’s recently adopted Family Zoning Plan, arguing that the plan violates California housing law, contradicts San Francisco’s own adopted Housing Element, and fails to deliver the housing capacity the city promised to allow.
“The Family Zoning Plan is, unfortunately, not a real upzoning, it’s merely a new local density bonus,” said Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY Law. “It doesn't meet the requirements of the Housing Element law, and it won’t sufficiently address San Francisco’s persistent housing shortage. This lawsuit is about ensuring San Francisco actually zones for the housing it so badly needs. State housing law is not optional, and San Francisco’s failure to meet Housing Element commitments will make it impossible for people to live here.”
In 2023, San Francisco adopted and received state certification for its Sixth Cycle Housing Element, committing the city to rezone sufficient land to enable more than 36,000 new homes by 2031. That commitment was a core condition of the state’s approval of the Housing Element. But when the city enacted its rezoning––called the Family Zoning Plan––in December 2025, it failed to meet those requirements and instead adopted a framework that produces far fewer homes and adds new constraints on housing construction.
San Francisco’s own City Economist, Ted Egan, released a report finding that the Family Zoning Plan would not produce enough housing to meet state mandates.
San Francisco is among the most expensive places to live anywhere in the country. The Family Zoning plan, as written and passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, will not do enough to make it easier to build housing and bring down housing costs.
The Family Zoning Plan violates state law in several key ways:
It fails to deliver required housing capacity: San Francisco’s Housing Element required the city to base rezoning on an analytical model that accounts for whether sites are likely to actually be developed. The city instead used a model that abandoned that approach and relied on unsupported assumptions, resulting in zoning that falls far short of the required 36,000 new homes.
It creates new, illegal constraints on housing: State Housing Element law explicitly prohibits adding new governmental constraints that would reduce housing feasibility. The Family Zoning Plan introduces new restrictions—including limits on unit size, parking, and curb cuts—that could directly undermine housing production.
It fails to properly rezone for lower-income housing: State law requires sites designated for lower-income housing to meet minimum density standards and limit non-residential uses. The Family Zoning Plan allows zoning that does not meet those requirements, violating both state law and the city’s own commitments.
It attempts to override state housing laws: The city’s “Housing Choice – San Francisco” program will bar projects from using state housing laws such as the State Density Bonus, SB 9, and AB 2011. Local governments cannot opt out of state housing law, and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate those provisions of the “Housing Choice – San Francisco” program.
The lawsuit seeks court orders requiring San Francisco to bring its zoning code into compliance with state housing law and its adopted Housing Element, and to invalidate provisions that illegally attempt to preempt state housing statutes.
This lawsuit represents the first time all three of California’s pro-housing non-profit housing law enforcers have worked on a lawsuit together, underscoring both the importance of San Francisco’s Housing Element to the economic and social wellbeing of the state, and also the inadequacy of San Francisco’s plan.
"San Francisco is one of the most economically dynamic and highest-opportunity cities in the world," said Nick Eckenwiler, Staff Attorney at the California Housing Defense Fund. "Unfortunately, city government continues to pursue restrictive zoning policies that raise housing costs to untenable levels, limiting who can live there and causing displacement and rising rents all over the Bay. San Francisco's housing shortage doesn't just make life harder and more expensive for San Franciscans––it affects all of us."
YIMBY Law and Californians for Homeownership are also pursuing a lawsuit against Los Angeles as that city similarly passed a local density bonus program in lieu of a real upzoning.
“Housing Element law requires cities to show they have local zoning in place to meet their regional housing needs, and that cannot be done through a local bonus program,” said Matt Gelfand, Supervising Counsel at Californians for Homeownership. “Our cases against Los Angeles and San Francisco both seek the adoption of local policies that genuinely increase housing production, measured against the baseline of existing state density bonus law. Under state law, each city bears the burden of proving in court that their rezoning programs will produce the needed housing.”