Research synthesis
ADUs and aging in place: the multigenerational case
The demand evidence is AARP’s and the occupancy evidence is CCI’s, cited as theirs. The accessibility half is taken from the code, where the answer is more surprising than the brochures suggest.
Written by HyreADU Research Desk Primary-source research and permit-data analysis
Audited by HyreADU Research Desk Statutory citation audit and claim-scope review
The finding
The demand is documented, and the documentation is AARP’s. In AARP’s 2024 Home and Community Preferences Survey, 75 per cent of adults 50 and over want to remain in their current home as they age, and one in four older homeowners say they would consider building an accessory dwelling unit.
Those are AARP’s findings, cited as theirs, and the full set is tabulated below.
The use is documented too, and that documentation is CCI’s. The UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation’s statewide owner survey found that 16 per cent of California’s new ADUs provide no-cost housing to a relative of the homeowner, and 2 per cent house a friend at no cost.
The code half is where most writing on this subject goes wrong. The federal Fair Housing Act design and construction requirements at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) apply to “covered multifamily dwellings”, which § 3604(f)(7) defines as buildings of four or more units.
A single accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot is not a covered multifamily dwelling, and none of those requirements attach to it. If you want any of them in your ADU, you specify them, because no code will do it for you.
What this page will not do. It will not tell you an ADU is a substitute for care, it will not claim a health or independence outcome, and it will not describe any feature as making a unit safe or accessible.
Where an accessibility standard is named here, it is named with its citation and its scope.
Read this first
ADUs and aging in place touches health, independence and disability, so this page is deliberately narrow about what it will assert. Here is exactly what it is and is not doing.
- No medical, care or health-outcome claims are made anywhere on this page
We do not claim that living in an ADU improves anyone’s health, safety, independence or wellbeing, and we do not claim that it delays or replaces any form of care.
We have no evidence for those claims and would not publish them if we did. What we report is survey-measured preference, survey-measured use, statutory text, and one arithmetic application of a published share.
- No accessibility guarantee, and no feature list dressed up as one
Whether a particular unit can be entered, moved around or used by a particular person is a question about that person and that building. Nothing on this page certifies a design, and no “aging-friendly features” list appears here. Where a standard is named, its citation and its scope are named with it.
- The demand evidence is AARP’s and the occupancy evidence is CCI’s
The 75 per cent, 73 per cent, one-in-four and 4-per-cent-have-one figures are AARP’s, from their Home and Community Preferences Surveys. The 16 per cent no-cost-relative figure and the Figure 9 breakdown are the Center for Community Innovation’s, reviewed by the Terner Center. Cite them, not us.
- Our own arithmetic is an illustration, not a measurement
Applying CCI’s 16 per cent to HCD’s completion total mixes a 2018–19 survey cohort with a 2018–25 completion count, and the geography of production has shifted since the survey was fielded — we quantify that drift on our occupancy page.
Nobody counts family-occupied ADUs. The band on our chart is what a published share looks like drawn on a published count, and it is labeled as that everywhere it appears.
- We could not retrieve the California accessibility code text
California Building Code Chapter 11A and 11B are published under Title 24, which sits behind a publisher paywall we will not quote from.
We name the chapters and describe their scope from the federal standard they implement, and we say plainly where our knowledge stops.
AARP’s ADU Model State Act and Local Ordinance was likewise not retrievable in full text this session.
- Not legal, tax, financial or care advice
Housing a relative can raise questions about property tax, licensure, tenancy, benefits eligibility and estate planning that turn entirely on facts we cannot see. We describe published statutes and published research. Take advice.
What the demand evidence actually says
Four organizations have published something usable on this. Every row below is their measurement, with its date and its scope. None of it is ours.
| Finding, as published | Whose | Sample and date | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| “75 percent” of those 50-plus want to remain in their current home, and “73 percent” wish to stay in their current community as they age | AARP, 2024 Home & Community Preferences | 3,090 adults 18+, fielded summer 2024, published December 2024, DOI 10.26419/res.00831.001 | 2026-09-05 |
| “One in four older homeowners say they would consider building an accessory dwelling unit” | AARP, 2024 survey | Same survey. The clearest published statement of latent ADU interest among older homeowners we located. | 2026-09-05 |
| On ADUs: “4% of respondents have one on their property and 26% would consider one if they had the space” | AARP, Where We Live, Where We Age (2021 edition) | 2,826 Americans 18+, fielded June 2021, published 18 November 2021, ±2.58%, DOI 10.26419/res.00479.001 | 2026-09-05 |
| “Most adults (69%) would consider sharing their home with a relative (other than their spouse) or a friend (54%) as they grow older” | AARP, 2021 edition | Same survey. Home-sharing, which is a different arrangement from a separate dwelling unit on the same lot. | 2026-09-05 |
| “34% of older respondents recognize they may need to make physical changes to their house”; a quarter anticipate an addition or other major renovation | AARP, 2021 edition | Same survey. In the 2024 edition, 71 per cent anticipate changes to make it easier to get into or around the home and 72 per cent are looking to upgrade the bathroom. | 2026-09-05 |
| “By 2030, nearly 10 million Californians will be an older adult, about 25% of the state’s population.” | California Master Plan for Aging (California Department of Aging) | State projection published on the Master Plan for Aging site. Goal 1: “We will live where we choose as we age in communities that are age-, disability-, and dementia-friendly and climate- and disaster-ready.” | 2026-09-05 |
| “16% of ADUs provide no-cost housing to a relative of the homeowner”; with friends, 18 per cent house family or friends at no cost | Chapple, Ganetsos and Lopez (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation), reviewed by the Terner Center | 752 California ADU owners after screening, units permitted or completed 2018–19, fielded 2020, published 22 April 2021 | 2026-09-05 |
HyreADU analysis, and the limit of it. AARP measures stated preference among older adults nationally. CCI measures reported use among Californian ADU owners. They are different populations answering different questions, and one does not validate the other.
What can honestly be said is that a documented preference to stay put and a documented pattern of housing relatives at no cost point the same way — and that neither is a measurement of how many older people live in ADUs, which nobody has published.
Fact, from the statute
Which accessibility rules actually reach an ADU
Which accessibility rules reach an ADU is the table that changes what people do. The design requirements everyone associates with accessible housing are attached to a building type that an accessory dwelling unit is not.
| Standard | What it requires | What it applies to | Does it reach a single ADU on a single-family lot? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Housing Act design and construction requirements — 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) | Verbatim: public and common use portions “readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons”; doors “sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs”; and adaptive design features — “an accessible route into and through the dwelling”, “light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations”, “reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars”, and “usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space”. | “Covered multifamily dwellings.” § 3604(f)(7) defines those as “buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators” and “ground floor units in other buildings consisting of 4 or more units”. 24 CFR § 100.205: first occupancy after 13 March 1991. | No. A detached or attached ADU beside a single-family house is not a building of four or more units. None of the seven requirements attach. |
| California Building Code, Title 24 Part 2 Chapter 11A (housing accessibility) and Chapter 11B (accessibility to public buildings and public accommodations) | We do not quote these. Title 24 is published behind a publisher paywall and we will not paraphrase code text we could not retrieve. | Chapter 11A is California’s housing accessibility chapter and applies to covered multifamily dwellings; Chapter 11B addresses public buildings, public accommodations and public housing. Confirm scope with your building department for your project. | Confirm locally — and do not assume yes. We could not retrieve the chapter text this session and will not assert its application to your unit. Ask the plan checker before you design around an assumption. |
| ANSI/ICC A117.1 Type A and Type B dwelling units | The technical standard that defines what “accessible” and “adaptable” dwelling units contain. Cited here by name only — we could not retrieve the standard text, which is published by the standards body. | Applies where a code or a statute adopts it. Colorado’s ADU statute, for example, defines an “accessible unit” partly by reference to a Type A or Type B dwelling unit under C.R.S. § 9-5-101. | Only where something adopts it. Nothing in California ADU law does, on the statutory text we retrieved. |
| California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 13 — the ADU statute | Governs where an ADU may go, how large it may be, how quickly it must be approved, and what a city may not require. It sets ministerial approval, size floors and caps, and the junior ADU rules. | Every ADU in California. | Yes — but it says nothing about accessibility. We searched the chapter for accessibility provisions and found the statute silent on the subject. That silence is the finding. |
| Colorado C.R.S. § 29-35-102, definitions (HB24-1152) | Verbatim: “‘UNIVERSAL DESIGN’ MEANS ANY DWELLING UNIT DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO BE SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF AGE OR ABILITIES.” And: “‘VISITABLE UNIT’ MEANS A DWELLING UNIT THAT A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY CAN ENTER, MOVE AROUND THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE FLOOR OF, AND USE THE BATHROOM IN.” | Colorado subject jurisdictions under that Part 1. Not California, and included here as a contrast rather than as advice. | Not in California. Colorado is the only ADU statute we retrieved that defines these terms and attaches consequences to them — grant priority for “ACCESSIBLE OR VISITABLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” and a reporting duty on how many are built. |
HyreADU analysis. The practical consequence is not that ADUs are inaccessible; it is that accessibility in an ADU is an owner’s specification decision rather than a code compliance one.
Nothing is enforcing bathroom blocking, door widths or a step-free entry on a backyard unit.
If those matter for the household you have in mind, they belong in the drawings and the contract, because they will not arrive by default.
This is a description of what the cited law requires; it is not design advice and it is not a promise about any particular unit.
One legislature wrote it down
Colorado is worth being concrete about, because it shows what a statute looks like when it takes accessible ADUs seriously. The Colorado text establishes that the California silence is a choice and not an inevitability.
Fact, from the enrolled text. Colorado’s House Bill 24-1152, codified at C.R.S. §§ 29-35-101 to -105, defines an “accessible unit” at § 29-35-102(1) as a housing unit that “SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL ‘FAIR HOUSING ACT’, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 3601 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED”, or “INCORPORATES UNIVERSAL DESIGN”, or “IS EITHER A TYPE A DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9-5-101 (10), OR A TYPE B DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9-5-101 (12).” It then defines universal design and visitability in the terms quoted in the table above.
Fact. Those definitions are load-bearing rather than decorative. The statute lists “ENACTING LOCAL LAWS THAT INCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF ACCESSIBLE AND VISITABLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” among the strategies by which a local government becomes a certified ADU-supportive jurisdiction; it directs the state department to weigh “ACCESSIBLE OR VISITABLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” in awarding fee-reduction grants; and it requires reporting on “THE NUMBER OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS … THAT ARE VISITABLE OR ACCESSIBLE”.
Fact. California’s ADU chapter contains no equivalent. Chapter 13 of Title 7, Division 1 of the Government Code — the chapter created by SB 477 in 2024 and amended since — sets ministerial approval timelines, size floors and caps, parking and setback limits, and the junior ADU rules.
On the text we retrieved it does not define accessibility, does not incentivise it, and does not require anyone to report on it.
HyreADU analysis. Two states with strong ADU statutes made different choices about whether accessibility is part of what an ADU statute is for.
Colorado attached grant priority and a reporting duty; California attached neither. We are not asserting that Colorado’s approach produces more accessible units — nobody has measured that, and Colorado’s reporting requirement is precisely the mechanism that would make such a measurement possible later.
What can be said now is that in California the question is left entirely to the owner and the designer.
Our state ADU law comparison covers the six state statutes we retrieved in full, and our model ordinance study covers what model texts we could and could not obtain.
HYRE calculation
How many ADUs house a relative? An illustration, carefully labeled
Fact. California jurisdictions reported 178,495 ADU permit units and 102,356 ADU completions between 2018 and 2025 in HCD’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report Table A2, on our de-duplicated project-event count. HCD’s file was last updated 4 September 2026.
Fact. CCI found that 16 per cent of California’s new ADUs provide no-cost housing to a relative of the homeowner, and that 18 per cent house family or friends at no cost.
HyreADU calculation. 102,356 × 0.16 = 16,377. At the 18 per cent family-or-friend figure, 18,424. That is the order of magnitude of California ADU completions since 2018 that would be housing a relative or friend at no cost if CCI’s 2018–19 cohort share held across the whole period.
Everything wrong with that number, stated plainly. It applies a survey share measured among owners of 2018 and 2019 units to completions running through 2025.
The survey sample was Bay Area-heavy and production has since shifted south and inland — we measure that drift on our occupancy page, where the Bay Area share of permits across the ten jurisdictions we track falls from 11.9 to 7.1 per cent between the two windows.
Occupancy is also not fixed at completion: a unit that houses a tenant in year one can house a parent in year five, and the same unit is counted once in the completion series and never again.
And the underlying completion count is what jurisdictions reported to HCD, with the reporting variation that implies.
Recommendation. Use the figure the way we use it — as an order of magnitude that shows family housing is a substantial minority use of a large and growing stock, not as a count.
If you need a count, the honest answer is that nobody has one, and the way to get one is to re-run the owner survey.
The completion series behind the chart
| APR year | ADU permit units | ADU completions | CCI 16% share of completions, applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 12,050 | 3,186 | 510 |
| 2019 | 12,992 | 5,957 | 953 |
| 2020 | 13,116 | 8,065 | 1,290 |
| 2021 | 21,163 | 10,147 | 1,624 |
| 2022 | 26,224 | 14,043 | 2,247 |
| 2023 | 29,309 | 17,676 | 2,828 |
| 2024 | 31,515 | 20,652 | 3,304 |
| 2025 | 32,126 | 22,630 | 3,621 |
| 2018–2025, de-duplicated | 178,495 | 102,356 | 16,377 |
HyreADU calculation from the HCD Annual Progress Report Table A2 extract. The de-duplicated row is lower than the sum of the annual rows because a project reported across multiple APR years is counted once; the method is set out in our permits versus completions study.
The fourth column is a published share applied to a published count and is an illustration, not a measurement.
The line between housing a relative and operating a care facility
Where housing a relative becomes operating a care facility is the question families most often ask us to answer, and the one where getting it wrong matters most. The answer here comes from the licensing statute, and it is not legal advice.
What California licenses
Fact. Health and Safety Code § 1569.2 defines a “residential care facility for the elderly” as, in the statute’s words, “a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over … where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, or personal care are provided”.
The same section defines “care and supervision” as an arrangement in which “the facility assumes responsibility for … ongoing assistance with activities of daily living without which the resident’s physical health, mental health, safety, or welfare would be endangered.”
The family exemption
Fact. Health and Safety Code § 1569.145 lists arrangements exempt from that licensure requirement.
Among them is “[a]n arrangement for the care and supervision of a person or persons by a family member”, alongside an exemption for arrangements by close friends where the friendship preceded the caregiving relationship and the services are provided on a non-business basis in a home chosen by the person receiving them.
The section also exempts, among others, housing limited to accommodation services for people who do not need care, and it expressly limits the exemptions where the person providing care has been appointed conservator.
HyreADU analysis. On that statutory text, a homeowner housing their own parent in an ADU on their lot is in the ordinary case housing a family member, not operating a licensed facility.
The line moves when the arrangement stops being familial and non-commercial — care and supervision provided to people who are not family, or for compensation as a business.
We are describing the statute, not applying it to your circumstances. If your arrangement involves paid caregivers, unrelated residents, a conservatorship or any compensation, get advice from someone who can look at the facts.
What an ADU is not
An ADU is a dwelling unit. It is not a care setting, it is not supervision, and its existence does not change anyone’s care needs in either direction.
It is also worth noting what does not apply: Health and Safety Code § 13113, the institutional sprinkler mandate sometimes raised in ADU discussions, governs facilities “for the care of people who are elderly” housing more than six guests or patients on a 24-hour basis.
It has nothing to do with a family member living in a backyard unit — our fire code study works through why.
The questions to put to a designer, and who answers them
Since no code will specify these for a single ADU, they become contract questions. We frame them as questions rather than as a features list, because the right answer depends on a person and a building and we know neither.
- What does the route from the street to the door actually do?
- The Fair Housing Act’s adaptive design list begins with “an accessible route into and through the dwelling” — for covered multifamily buildings. For your ADU nobody is checking. Ask what the level changes, gradients, thresholds and surfaces are between the curb, the parking, the main house and the ADU door, and get them on the drawings rather than discovered at final inspection.
- Are the doorways and circulation dimensioned, or assumed?
- The federal list asks for doors “sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs” and kitchens and bathrooms “such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space”. Those are the standard’s words for covered dwellings. In an ADU they are only ever what you specified. Ask for dimensions on the plan set.
- Is the bathroom wall blocked for later grab bar installation?
- Reinforcement in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars is one of the four adaptive design features in § 3604(f)(3)(C). It is inexpensive during framing and expensive afterwards. It is also, in a single ADU, entirely optional as a matter of law. This is an observation about sequencing and cost, not a safety claim.
- Does the size envelope allow a single-level layout at all?
- State law sets a floor a city cannot go below — 850 square feet, and 1,000 for a unit with more than one bedroom — with a 1,200 square foot cap for a detached unit, under Government Code §§ 66321(b)(2)(A) and 66314(d)(5). A junior ADU is capped at 500 square feet of interior livable space and must sit inside the walls of the house. Those numbers constrain what any layout can do; our size distribution study shows what people actually build within them.
- If a junior ADU is the plan, who has to live where?
- A JADU can share a bathroom with the main house, which is why it comes up in multigenerational conversations. It also still carries an owner-occupancy requirement where sanitation is shared, narrowed but not removed — Government Code § 66333(b). Which unit the owner sleeps in becomes a compliance question. Our junior ADU study sets out the full rule set.
- What happens to the property tax assessment?
- A new ADU is new construction for assessment purposes and the existing house is generally not reassessed. Whether any exclusion or transfer applies to your situation is a question for the county assessor and a tax adviser, not for us. Our property tax study sets out the mechanism and its sources.
What we could not verify
Four things, named so the next edition knows where to start. One: the AARP Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance full text was not retrievable this session — we name the publication as AARP lists it and quote nothing from it.
Two: California Building Code Chapter 11A and 11B text sits behind the Title 24 publisher paywall; we describe scope and quote nothing.
Three: ANSI/ICC A117.1 is likewise a published standard we could not retrieve, and appears here only as a name that Colorado’s statute references.
Four: the contract for this page called for a join to the American Community Survey age-of-householder distribution; the Census data API required a key and Census QuickFacts returned HTTP 403 on every attempt, so no ACS age table appears here.
We did not substitute an unsourced figure, and the age-of-householder join remains undone.
Questions
Can I build an ADU for my elderly parents?
Does an ADU have to be accessible or wheelchair-usable?
How many older people live in ADUs?
Is an ADU an alternative to assisted living?
Do I need a license to have my parent live in my ADU?
What size does an ADU need to be for someone with mobility needs?
Do older homeowners actually want ADUs?
Does any state law encourage accessible ADUs?
Will building an ADU for a parent affect my property taxes?
Written and audited by
HyreADU Research Desk
Primary-source research, data analysis and fact checking
We are a research desk, not a builder. We read the permit extract, the statute, the HCD return or the fee schedule ourselves, and publish each figure with its source and retrieval date.
Where a number cannot be traced to a primary source, we leave it out and say what we could not verify. Our store-based claims cover California only.
- CA
- the only state this desk will make store-based claims about
- 5
- jurisdictions with extracted ADU permit evidence
- 735
- CSLB-verified companies in the California store
- 0
- national claims from a one-state store
How this desk works
- Primary sources only. Permit counts come from the city or county that issued the permit. Production counts come from HCD’s Annual Progress Report. Rents come from HUD or the Census. We do not cite an article that cites a source; we download the source and compute the figure ourselves.
- This is a California site. The company store is 734 California firms and one New Mexico firm. Permit evidence exists for five named jurisdictions: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San José and unincorporated Marin. A number from that store is titled to those places, never to the United States.
- A permit is not a completion, and a license is not an ADU grade. California licenses no ADU classification. Being named on an ADU permit is evidence of engagement in that jurisdiction, not of quality, completion, or work anywhere else. Owner-builder permits are excluded from contractor counts.
- Calculation is labeled as calculation. Figures we derive are never presented as something HCD, HUD, the Census or a city published. Terner Center research is cited as Terner’s, never restated as ours.
- We do not design, permit or build ADUs, and we take no payment for placement, ranking or a favorable mention. Pages that look like rankings are not: they publish public-record counts and let the reader decide.
- Nothing here is legal, tax or financial advice. Zoning, underwriting and appraisal practice vary by jurisdiction, lender and appraiser. The useful next step on a specific lot is the planning counter and a licensed professional.
Data as of AARP 2024 and 2021 Home and Community Preferences Surveys, CCI owner survey and the California Master Plan for Aging as cited; HCD Annual Progress Report Table A2 extract, HCD file last updated 4 September 2026; federal and state statute retrieved 2026-09-05. Authorship on this site is organizational: the analysis belongs to the desk rather than to a named individual, and we do not publish credentials we do not hold.
Our editorial policy sets out how we source, date and correct what we publish.
Sources & retrieval dates
- AARP, 2024 Home and Community Preferences Survey — “Building for the Future: Creating Homes and Communities for Aging Well” , Published December 2024, DOI 10.26419/res.00831.001. Sample 3,090 adults age 18 and over, fielded summer 2024. Findings cited on this page: 75 per cent of those 50-plus want to remain in their current home; 73 per cent wish to stay in their current community; 44 per cent of those 50-plus expect to relocate at some point; “One in four older homeowners say they would consider building an accessory dwelling unit”; 71 per cent anticipate changes to make it easier to get into or around the home; 72 per cent are looking to upgrade the bathroom. AARP’s findings, cited as theirs. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- AARP, “Where We Live, Where We Age: Trends in Home and Community Preferences” (2021 Home and Community Preferences Survey) , Published 18 November 2021, DOI 10.26419/res.00479.001. Sample 2,826 Americans ages 18 and over, fielded June 2021, confidence interval ±2.58 per cent. Findings cited: about three-quarters of those 50-plus would like to stay in their current homes or communities for as long as possible; on ADUs, “4% of respondents have one on their property and 26% would consider one if they had the space”; “Most adults (69%) would consider sharing their home with a relative (other than their spouse) or a friend (54%) as they grow older”; 34 per cent of older respondents recognize they may need to make physical changes to their house. AARP’s findings, cited as theirs. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) — discrimination in the sale or rental of housing , The scope finding at the center of this page. Subsection (f)(3)(C) sets the design and construction requirements for “covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after September 13, 1988”, listing the accessible route, door width, environmental control, bathroom wall reinforcement and usable kitchen and bathroom requirements quoted on this page. Subsection (f)(7) defines covered multifamily dwellings as “buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators” and “ground floor units in other buildings consisting of 4 or more units”. An accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot falls outside that definition. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- 24 CFR § 100.205 — Design and construction requirements , HUD’s implementing regulation. Applies to covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after 13 March 1991, with the rule that a dwelling is deemed for first occupancy on or before that date if it was occupied by then or if the last building permit or renewal was issued on or before 15 June 1990. Sets the accessible building entrance requirement, the site impracticality tests, and the design and construction requirements for dwellings with accessible entrances. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Health and Safety Code § 1569.2 — Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, definitions , Defines “residential care facility for the elderly” as “a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over … where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, or personal care are provided”, and “care and supervision” as an arrangement in which “the facility assumes responsibility for … ongoing assistance with activities of daily living without which the resident’s physical health, mental health, safety, or welfare would be endangered.” Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 86, Sec. 179 (SB 1171), effective 1 January 2017. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Health and Safety Code § 1569.145 — exemptions from residential care facility licensure , The exemption relied on in the licensure section of this page: “[a]n arrangement for the care and supervision of a person or persons by a family member”, with family member defined to include spouses, children, parents and various extended relatives, plus a separate exemption for close friends where the friendship preceded the caregiving relationship and services are provided on a non-business basis in a home chosen by the recipient. Other exemptions include health facilities and clinics, housing limited to accommodation services for people without care needs, and certain federally funded or low-income housing with optional supportive services. The section limits the exemptions where the person providing care has been appointed conservator. Amended by Stats. 2009, Ch. 82, Sec. 3 (AB 123), effective 1 January 2010. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- Colorado House Bill 24-1152, enrolled text — C.R.S. §§ 29-35-101 to -105 , Source of the universal design and visitability definitions quoted on this page, at § 29-35-102: “‘ACCESSIBLE UNIT’ MEANS A HOUSING UNIT THAT: (a) SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL ‘FAIR HOUSING ACT’, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 3601 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED; (b) INCORPORATES UNIVERSAL DESIGN; OR (c) IS EITHER A TYPE A DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9-5-101 (10), OR A TYPE B DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 9-5-101 (12)”; “‘UNIVERSAL DESIGN’ MEANS ANY DWELLING UNIT DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO BE SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF AGE OR ABILITIES”; “‘VISITABLE UNIT’ MEANS A DWELLING UNIT THAT A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY CAN ENTER, MOVE AROUND THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE FLOOR OF, AND USE THE BATHROOM IN.” Also the source of the accessible-and-visitable ADU incentives, grant weighting and reporting duty described on this page. Retrieved as a PDF and text-extracted. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- Karen Chapple, Dori Ganetsos and Emmanuel Lopez, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, 22 April 2021) , Source of the family-use share used on this page, cited as CCI’s: 16 per cent of California’s new ADUs provide no-cost housing to a relative of the homeowner; with friends, 18 per cent house family or friends at no cost; among the roughly half of owners not renting the unit out, 34 per cent said a friend or relative was staying there for free. Survey of owners of ADUs permitted or issued a certificate of occupancy in 2018 or 2019, drawn from HCD Annual Progress Report addresses with a Bay Area supplement, fielded 2020, 752 responses after the owner screen. Reviewed by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Retrieved and text-extracted 5 September 2026; a re-fetch the same day returned HTTP 403. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Master Plan for Aging (California Department of Aging) , Source of the state projection quoted on this page: “By 2030, nearly 10 million Californians will be an older adult, about 25% of the state’s population.” Goal 1 of the plan, quoted: “We will live where we choose as we age in communities that are age-, disability-, and dementia-friendly and climate- and disaster-ready.” The state’s figures and words, cited as theirs. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element Annual Progress Report — Table A2 , Source of every permit and completion figure on this page. Full Table A2 extract, HCD file last updated 4 September 2026: 281,321 ADU rows giving 169,249 unique ADU permit events and 98,500 unique ADU completion events across 511 jurisdictions, and a de-duplicated 178,495 permit units and 102,356 completions across 2018–2025. All applications of survey shares to those counts are HyreADU calculations and are labeled as illustrations, not as counts of family-occupied units. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 13 — Accessory Dwelling Units (§§ 66310–66342) , The California ADU statute, created by SB 477 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 7), which repealed the former §§ 65852.150, 65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.23 and 65852.26, and amended since including by AB 1154 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 507) and SB 543 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 520). Cited on this page for the size floors and caps at §§ 66321(b)(2)(A) and 66314(d)(5), the junior ADU definition at § 66313(d) and owner-occupancy at § 66333(b) — and for a negative finding: on the chapter text retrieved, the statute contains no accessibility definition, incentive or reporting requirement. Older citations to § 65852.2 are a repealed numbering. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- AARP Livable Communities — Accessory Dwelling Units resource page , Cited only to establish that AARP publishes the titles named on this page, including “Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance”, “The ABCs of ADUs”, “Accessory Dwelling Units: A Step-by-Step Guide to Design and Development” and “Expanding ADU Development and Occupancy”. The full text of the Model State Act was not retrievable this session and nothing is quoted from it. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
Nothing in the code will specify this for you
If a family member is the reason for the unit, the entry route, circulation and bathroom decisions have to be written into the drawings, because no accessibility standard reaches a single ADU. Start with what the envelope allows.
HyreADU does not design, permit or build accessory dwelling units, does not practice law, and does not provide medical, care or accessibility advice.
This page makes no medical or health-outcome claim and gives no accessibility guarantee. It does not present an ADU as a substitute for care of any kind.
Demand findings are AARP’s and occupancy findings are the UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation’s, cited as theirs rather than restated as ours.
Statutory text was retrieved on 5 September 2026 and is described, not applied to any property or family: California Building Code Chapters 11A and 11B and the ANSI/ICC A117.1 standard are named but not quoted, because their text is published behind paywalls we could not retrieve.
The application of a survey share to HCD completion counts is a HyreADU illustration and is not a count of family-occupied units. This page is informational and is not legal, tax, financial, care or design advice.