Research database
Every California city’s ADU rules — the schema, the floor, and what we have actually read
The normalisation is the hard part, so we publish the schema. The state floor is the baseline every row is measured against, so we publish that in full. And we publish the wall we hit.
Written by HyreADU Research Desk Primary-source research and data analysis
Audited by HyreADU Research Desk Statutory citation and retrieval-date audit
The finding
Start with the row that surprised us most: in Long Beach there is currently no local ADU ordinance in force. The city states it plainly on its own community development page — “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies” — and explains that “Long Beach currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” For a tracker, that is the most valuable kind of row there is: the state floor is the local rule. Which makes the state floor the first thing this page has to get right, and it is the thing we can verify completely. Whatever a city’s code says, a California local agency must permit a minimum interior size, must not apply standards that defeat an 800 square foot unit, must allow stated detached and attached heights, may require at most one parking space subject to six independent exemptions, and must act ministerially within 60 days.
Every one of those is set out with its section below. The floor has teeth that most trackers do not mention. Section 66316 provides that a non-compliant ADU ordinance “shall be null and void” and the agency applies state standards until it adopts a compliant one.
What this edition does not contain is a normalised table of size, height, setback and parking by jurisdiction — and we would rather explain that than fake it. The retrieval failures behind that are documented further down.
We have read two jurisdictions properly and we say two. So the deliverable here is the schema. Ordinances express the same requirement in incompatible language, and normalising them is the genuinely hard part of this project.
We publish the coding schema, the value vocabularies and the decision rules, so the work is checkable before the rows exist. We name no jurisdiction as non-compliant. Not legal advice.
Read this first
- The tracker has two jurisdiction rows, not several hundred, and that is stated rather than disguised
The ambition for this page is a normalised ordinance table across every California jurisdiction. It is not finished, and a partially filled table presented as a tracker would imply coverage we do not have.
What this edition publishes is the schema the table will use, the state floor every row is measured against, and the two jurisdictions we read.
When a city is absent, the correct reading is “HyreADU has not read this city’s ordinance”, not “this city has no rules”.
- We could not retrieve codified municipal text for any city
library.municode.com returned HTTP 403 to every automated request; mirror hosts timed out across five attempts; city planning pages returned 403; Oakland’s Planning Code PDF exceeded the fetch size limit; and hcd.ca.gov returned 403 with a scheduled-maintenance notice for the whole retrieval.
Every Oakland development standard circulating on commercial ADU sites — sizes, heights, setbacks — is unverified and does not appear in any table on this page.
- We name no jurisdiction as non-compliant, and that is a deliberate standard
Whether a particular clause in a particular ordinance is preempted is a legal conclusion that turns on the whole ordinance, its adoption date, its submission history with HCD and the facts of a parcel.
The right source for that conclusion is HCD’s own written findings under section 66326 — and hcd.ca.gov was unreachable throughout this retrieval. So this page describes the mechanism by which a non-compliant clause is resolved, and describes no city as having one.
- State law is a floor, so a more permissive city is complying
Section 66325(b) preserves local authority “to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.” A city that allows 1,200 square feet where the state floor is 850, or requires no parking at all, is not deviating from the state scheme — it is doing exactly what the scheme contemplates.
The tracker schema records the local value and the direction of difference, never a compliance verdict.
Why this is the hardest page on the site, and why the schema comes first
Every question a Californian actually asks about an ADU — how big, how tall, how far from the fence, how many cars, how long will it take — has two answers.
There is the state answer, which is uniform, knowable and published in one place.
And there is the local answer, which is written by a few hundred separate jurisdictions in a few hundred separate documents, in language that does not agree with itself between neighboring cities.
The hard part is not gathering those documents. It is that they are not comparable.
One city expresses maximum size as a flat square footage; the next as a percentage of the primary dwelling; the next as a floor area ratio applied to the lot; the next as whichever of three tests produces the smaller number.
One measures height to the ridge, another to the mid-point of the roof, another to the top plate. One requires a parking space "unless exempt under state law" without saying which exemptions it means.
Putting those into one column requires deciding what each of them means, and that decision is the actual research.
So the schema is the deliverable, and it comes before the rows. If the normalisation rules are wrong, several hundred rows built on them are wrong, and nobody can tell from looking at the finished table. Publishing the schema first means the method is checkable while the table is small enough to fix.
HyreADU analysis: there is a second reason, and Long Beach is the illustration.
A tracker built on the assumption that every jurisdiction has an ordinance to normalise will have no way to represent a city that has switched its ordinance off.
The schema below has a field for it, because we found a city in that state on the first day of looking. We suspect it is not the only one.
The state floor — the baseline every row is measured against
What a California local agency must permit, whatever its own code says. Fully verified: every value quoted from the section, with the enactment line, retrieved 2026-09-05.
| Field | The state floor | Operative text as retrieved | Section and currency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum size a city may impose | At least 850 sq ft, or 1,000 sq ft with multiple bedrooms. | A maximum size limit must allow at least “[e]ight hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space”, or “[o]ne thousand square feet of interior livable space for an accessory dwelling unit that” provides multiple bedrooms. | § 66321(b)(2). Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 5 (SB 543), eff. 1 Jan 2026. |
| Minimum size a city may impose | None that prohibits an efficiency unit. | A local agency may not enforce “[a] minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit.” | § 66321(b)(1). Same amendment. |
| The 800 sq ft / 4 ft guarantee | No standard may prevent an 800 sq ft unit with four-foot side and rear setbacks. | Agencies may not impose requirements that prevent construction of “an accessory dwelling unit with at least 800 square feet of interior livable space and with four-foot side and rear yard” setbacks meeting other local standards. | § 66321(b)(3). Same amendment. |
| Height — detached | 16 ft; 18 ft within half a mile of transit or on a lot with a multistory multifamily dwelling, plus up to 2 ft for roof pitch. | Height limits a local agency may not go below: “A height of 16 feet” for a standard detached unit; “A height of 18 feet” for a transit-adjacent detached unit, plus two additional feet to align roof pitch; “A height of 18 feet” for a detached unit on a multistory lot. | § 66321(b)(4). Same amendment. |
| Height — attached | 25 ft, or the local zoning height limit if lower; capped at two stories. | “A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance” (whichever is lower), capped at two stories. | § 66321(b)(4). Same amendment. |
| Setbacks | No more than four feet from side and rear lot lines for new construction. | “Setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines” for new construction. | § 66314(d)(7). Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 67, Sec. 109 (AB 1170), eff. 1 Jan 2026. |
| Detached unit size cap in the ordinance provisions | 1,200 sq ft is the ceiling a city may set for a detached unit; an attached unit may not be capped below 50 per cent of the primary dwelling. | “Detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet”; “Attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.” | § 66314(d)(4) and (d)(5). Same amendment. |
| Parking | One space maximum, and six independent routes to zero. | “One parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less”, with § 66322(a)(1)–(6) removing it entirely — within half a mile walking distance of public transit, in a historic district, where the unit is part of the primary residence or an accessory structure, where on-street permits are required but not offered, where a car share vehicle is within one block, or on a simultaneous application with a new dwelling. Demolished covered parking need not be replaced. | §§ 66314(d)(10), 66314(d)(11), 66322. Section 66322 added by Stats. 2024, Ch. 7, Sec. 20 (SB 477), eff. 25 Mar 2024. |
| Approval pathway | Ministerial, no hearing, no discretionary review. | “A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.” Where a local agency has adopted no ordinance at all, § 66320 requires it to approve or disapprove ministerially under § 66317 regardless. | §§ 66317(a)(1), 66320. Both amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520 (SB 543), eff. 1 Jan 2026. |
| Decision deadline | 60 days, then deemed approved. | “The permitting agency shall either approve or deny the application … within 60 days from the date the permitting agency receives a completed application”, and “[i]f the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.” | § 66317(a)(3). Same amendment. |
| On denial | A full written list of what is deficient and how to fix it. | The permitting agency “shall … return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient”. | § 66317(b). Same amendment. |
| Ministerial categories regardless of the ordinance | An 800 sq ft detached unit with 4 ft setbacks; one ADU plus one JADU per lot; multifamily conversions of at least one unit and up to 25 per cent of existing units; up to eight detached units on an existing multifamily lot. | § 66323(a)(1)–(4), which a local agency must ministerially approve. Subdivision (e) requires a minimum rental term longer than 30 days for these categories. | § 66323. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 6 (SB 543), eff. 1 Jan 2026. |
| Owner-occupancy | May not be required for an ADU. | No standard beyond § 66314 “shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement”, except a minimum rental term of 30 days or longer. | § 66315. Added by Stats. 2024, Ch. 7, Sec. 20 (SB 477). See our owner-occupancy study. |
| Impact fees | None below 750 sq ft of interior livable space; proportional above it. | “A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less.” | § 66311.5(c)(1). Renumbered from § 66324 by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 7 (SB 543). See our fees study. |
| Charter cities | Bound. The chapter applies notwithstanding § 65803. | The chapter applies to a charter city notwithstanding Government Code § 65803. | § 66312. |
The California state floor for accessory dwelling units, as it stands after SB 543 and AB 1170 took effect on 1 January 2026. Source: California Government Code Chapter 13, retrieved from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2026-09-05.
HyreADU note: three different sections carry size numbers — § 66321(b)(2) sets the minimum maximum a city may impose (850/1,000), § 66321(b)(3) guarantees an 800 square foot unit at four-foot setbacks, and § 66314(d)(4)–(5) caps what a city may allow for a detached unit at 1,200 square feet and an attached unit at 50 per cent of the primary dwelling.
They are not alternative statements of the same rule and the tracker schema keeps them as separate fields for that reason.
The envelope, and where an ordinance falls out of it
The structure the whole tracker sits inside: what the state guarantees, what a city may add, and what happens when a city goes past the line.
The floor applies even where there is no ordinance at all
Section 66320 addresses the case directly: where a local agency has not adopted an ordinance in accordance with section 66314 and receives an application, “the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to Section 66317.” No ordinance does not mean no route.
Section 66322 makes the same point about parking, applying “[n]otwithstanding any other law, and whether or not the local agency has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units”. The state scheme was built to function in the absence of a local one, which turns out to be more than a theoretical case.
A non-compliant ordinance drops out by its own terms
Section 66316 is unusually direct: if a local agency has an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of the article, that ordinance “shall be null and void” and the agency “shall thereafter apply the standards established in this article”, unless and until it adopts a compliant one. The default is not that the clause survives until challenged.
Section 66325(a) says the same thing from the other direction — “this article shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance” — while subdivision (b) preserves the authority to be less restrictive.
And since 2026 the deadline itself has teeth
Section 66326 requires a local agency to submit an adopted ADU ordinance to HCD within 60 days, allows HCD to issue written findings of non-compliance, and gives the agency 30 days to amend or to adopt findings explaining why it complies.
SB 9 (Arreguín, Stats. 2025, Ch. 510) added the automatic consequence: miss either deadline and the ordinance is null and void.
Note the bill number collision, because it causes real confusion. This SB 9 is the 2025–26 session bill by Senator Arreguín on ADU ordinances. It is not SB 9 (Atkins, Stats. 2021, Ch. 162), the urban lot-split statute. Two different laws, both routinely called “SB 9”, both bearing on a single-family lot.
Which is why Long Beach is the row that matters
Long Beach states on its own page that “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies”, and that the city “currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” New standalone ADU and SB 9 ordinances are in draft; public comment on the draft closed on 23 November 2025, and comment on draft ADU objective design standards for historic resources ran to 31 July 2026, with adoption hearings pending. No new ordinance was adopted as at retrieval.
HyreADU analysis: for anybody building in Long Beach today, the practical consequence is that the state floor table above is the operative rule set, not a background against which a local rule sits.
It also means the tracker needs a field that most tracker designs would not have — a status field with a value for “no operative local ordinance” — and that is why the schema below has one.
Two local nuances survive independently of the ordinance status, both from the same city page: for a JADU, owner-occupancy is required “only if the JADU shares a bathroom” with the main home — a narrower formulation than the blanket state JADU rule; and a Historic District triggers a Certificate of Appropriateness while the Coastal Zone triggers a Local Coastal Development Permit.
The coding schema
The deliverable of this edition. Twelve normalised fields, the value vocabulary for each, and the decision rule we apply when an ordinance expresses the requirement in a form the field does not directly accept. Published before the rows so the method can be checked while it is still cheap to change.
| Field | Value vocabulary | Normalisation rule | State floor for comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| ordinance_status | operative · inoperative_state_law_applies · none_adopted · in_draft · unread | The field most tracker designs omit. Coded inoperative_state_law_applies only on a statement by the jurisdiction itself, quoted on the row. Absence of a retrievable ordinance is coded unread, never none_adopted. | n/a — this field describes the local document, not a standard. |
| max_size_sqft | Integer, plus basis: flat · pct_of_primary · far · lesser_of | Where a city states a percentage or a floor area ratio, we record the expression and its basis rather than converting to a single number, because a conversion needs a primary dwelling size the ordinance does not supply. A lesser_of ordinance records every limb. | 850 sq ft (1,000 multi-bedroom) minimum maximum; 1,200 sq ft detached ceiling. §§ 66321(b)(2), 66314(d)(5). |
| size_measure | interior_livable · gross_floor_area · unstated | Recorded separately because the state thresholds are expressed in interior livable space (§ 66313(e)) and many ordinances are not. A city using gross floor area at the same number is imposing a tighter limit. | interior_livable. |
| max_height_ft and height_measure | Number; ridge · midpoint · top_plate · unstated | Two fields, never one. Sixteen feet to the ridge and sixteen feet to the top plate are different buildings, and ordinances split roughly evenly between the conventions. | 16 ft detached, 18 ft near transit, 25 ft attached. § 66321(b)(4). |
| setback_side_ft and setback_rear_ft | Number; plus conversion_exempt boolean | Recorded separately for side and rear even where the ordinance states one figure, because state law states them together and cities frequently do not. The conversion flag records whether existing structures are exempted. | No more than 4 ft. § 66314(d)(7). |
| parking_spaces and parking_exemptions | 0 · 1; array of transit_half_mile · historic_district · within_primary · permit_area · car_share · simultaneous_application | The exemption array records which of the six the ordinance names explicitly. An ordinance that says only “except as exempted by state law” is coded as naming none, with a note — because an applicant at that counter cannot tell which exemptions the city thinks apply. | 1 space maximum; all six exemptions apply regardless of the ordinance. §§ 66314(d)(10), 66322. |
| owner_occupancy | not_required · required_adu_text_present · required_jadu_only · jadu_shared_sanitation_only | A city whose printed code still requires owner-occupancy for an ADU is coded required_adu_text_present — a statement about the text, not a compliance verdict. We do not code a clause as void. | May not be required for an ADU. § 66315. |
| design_review | none · objective_standards · historic_overlay · coastal_overlay · discretionary_text_present | Overlays are recorded separately from base design review because they attach to a subset of parcels. Long Beach’s Certificate of Appropriateness and Local Coastal Development Permit are overlay values, not base values. | Objective standards only; ministerial approval. §§ 66314(b)(1), 66317(a)(1). |
| approval_pathway and stated_timeline_days | ministerial · ministerial_with_conditions · discretionary_text_present; integer | The stated timeline is what the ordinance or the published handout claims, recorded separately from the statutory 60 days. A divergence between the two is worth recording, and it is not a compliance finding. | Ministerial; 60 days then deemed approved. § 66317. |
| impact_fee_treatment | exempt_under_750 · proportional_over_750 · flat_fee_text_present · unread | Coded from the fee schedule where retrievable. flat_fee_text_present records what the schedule says; per the standard on this page, it is characterized against HCD guidance rather than declared unlawful by us — and in this edition no fee schedule was retrievable at all. | No impact fee at or below 750 sq ft; proportional above. § 66311.5(c)(1). |
| jadu_provisions | ordinance_adopted · none · owner_occupancy_shared_sanitation · owner_occupancy_blanket_text | A separate field from the ADU columns throughout, because a JADU is a different unit under a different rule and collapsing them is the most common error in this subject. | JADU ordinance must require owner-occupancy only where sanitation is shared, since 1 Jan 2026. § 66333, as amended by AB 1154. |
| preapproved_plans | programme_published · plans_downloadable · otc_issuance · none_found | Three separate facts that are routinely conflated: having a program, publishing the plan sets, and issuing over the counter. Long Beach codes programme_published and otc_issuance but not plans_downloadable — no plan-set URL was on the page. | n/a — no state requirement. See our pre-approved plans study. |
| source_url, ordinance_number, adoption_date, retrieved_date | URL; string; date; date | Every row carries all four or it does not ship. This requirement is why the tracker has two rows and not two hundred: we could not obtain an ordinance number or adoption date for either jurisdiction, because codified text was unreachable. | n/a — provenance fields. |
The HyreADU ADU ordinance coding schema, version 1, published 2026-09-05. The state floor column is sourced to the California Government Code as quoted in the state floor table on this page.
The design principle, stated so it can be argued with: every field records what the document says, and no field records whether the document is lawful.
Compliance findings under section 66326 belong to HCD, and a preemption conclusion belongs to a court.
A schema that mixes “what the ordinance says” with “whether it is valid” produces a dataset that cannot be used for either purpose.
The two rows we have
Coded against the schema above. Every unverified cell says so rather than carrying a number from a secondary source.
| Field | Long Beach | Oakland |
|---|---|---|
| ordinance_status | inoperative_state_law_applies — “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies”; the city “currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” New standalone ADU and SB 9 ordinances in draft; comment closed 23 November 2025; historic-resources objective design standards comment ran to 31 July 2026; adoption hearings pending; no new ordinance adopted at retrieval. | operative, on the basis that Planning Code § 17.103.080 (“One-Family Dwelling with Secondary Unit Residential Facilities”, Ch. 17.103, Art. VI) is referenced by the city. Section text not retrievable. |
| max_size_sqft / size_measure | Not verified. With the local ordinance inoperative, the operative limits are the state floor. | Not verified. Figures of 850 sq ft studio/1BR and 1,000 sq ft 2+BR circulate on commercial sites; they are aggregator-sourced and are not published here as Oakland standards. |
| max_height_ft / height_measure | Not verified. | Not verified. Figures of 20 ft behind the house and 16 ft beside it circulate; unverified, not published as fact. |
| setback_side_ft / setback_rear_ft | Not verified. | Not verified. Figures of 4 ft, never less than 3 ft, and 5 ft garage-top circulate; unverified. |
| parking | Not verified locally. State § 66322 applies regardless of the ordinance. | Not verified locally. State § 66322 applies regardless. |
| owner_occupancy | jadu_shared_sanitation_only, and stated more narrowly than the state rule: none for ADUs, and for JADUs required “only if the JADU shares a bathroom” with the main home. Exact code quote not retrievable. | Not verified either way. § 66315 bars a local ADU owner-occupancy mandate regardless. |
| design_review | historic_overlay and coastal_overlay: a Historic District triggers a Certificate of Appropriateness; the Coastal Zone triggers a Local Coastal Development Permit. | Not verified. |
| minimum rental term | Not verified locally. § 66323(e) requires a term longer than 30 days for the ministerial categories regardless. | A 30-day minimum at Planning Code § 17.103.080(A)(2) is attributed by three independent sources; no literal statutory sentence retrieved. Under 30 days is “Transient Habitation”, a different use. See our short-term rental study. |
| unpermitted-unit amnesty | LBMC Ch. 21.66, “Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program”. Chapter exists; terms, ordinance number and adoption date all unverified. | Verified from the city’s own page. Three tracks: Planning Code amnesty (built or occupied before 1 Jan 2021), Building Code enforcement delay (before 1 Jan 2020), AB 2533 (before 1 Jan 2020). Apply before 1 Jan 2030. The city cites Gov. Code § 66332 — renumbered to § 66311.7 on 1 Jan 2026. See our legalization study. |
| preapproved_plans | programme_published and otc_issuance. The Pre-Approved ADU (PAADU) program offers over-the-counter same-day issuance under Information Bulletin IB-068. Not plans_downloadable: no plan-set URL was on the page. | Not verified. |
| ordinance_number / adoption_date | Not obtained. Municode returned 403. | Not obtained. Municode returned 403; the Planning Code PDF exceeded the fetch size limit. |
| source_url / retrieved_date | longbeach.gov/lbcd/adus/ and longbeach.gov/lbcd/building/lbpaadu/ · 2026-09-05 | The city’s ADU legalization page · 2026-09-05 |
The two jurisdiction rows in this edition, coded against the schema. Long Beach and Oakland, retrieved 2026-09-05. Cells marked not verified are blank in the dataset, not filled from secondary sources.
HyreADU note on Oakland: the development standards circulating for Oakland on commercial ADU sites are internally plausible and may well be correct.
They are also undated, unsourced to the code, and unverifiable by us on this date.
A tracker whose value is that every cell carries an ordinance number and an adoption date cannot start by importing cells that have neither.
The method, so a row can be reproduced or challenged
What we do for each jurisdiction, in order. Steps four and five are the ones that distinguish a tracker from a summary.
- 1 Find the codified ordinance, not the departmental handout
A planning department’s ADU brochure is a summary written by a person and it goes stale first.
The row is coded from the municipal code itself — most California codes sit on American Legal, Municode, QCode or Code Publishing — and the ordinance number and adoption date come from the code history line, not from the brochure.
- 2 Record the ordinance status before recording any standard
Long Beach is why. If the local ordinance is inoperative, every standard field is not merely unknown but inapplicable, and the state floor is the operative rule. Coding standards first and status later produces rows that look complete and describe nothing.
- 3 Code the measurement basis alongside every number
Size in interior livable space or gross floor area; height to the ridge, mid-point or top plate; setbacks stated jointly or separately. Two cities with the same figure and different bases are materially different, and the difference is invisible in any table that stores only the figure.
- 4 Record what the ordinance says, never whether it is valid
Where a code still requires owner-occupancy for an ADU, the value is
required_adu_text_present. That is a fact about the document.Whether the clause is preempted depends on the whole ordinance, its submission history with HCD and the facts of a parcel, and the authoritative account is HCD’s own written findings under § 66326 — not ours.
- 5 Leave the cell empty rather than filling it from an aggregator
This is the rule that keeps the dataset worth something and it is the reason this edition has two rows. A commercial ADU site’s summary of a city’s setbacks may be right.
It carries no ordinance number, no adoption date and no way to check, so it cannot occupy a cell in a dataset whose entire claim is per-record provenance.
- 6 Re-check on ordinance amendment, and date every re-check
The state floor moved twice in under two years — SB 477 in March 2024, SB 543 and AB 1154 on 1 January 2026 — and every local ordinance is now being amended against a floor that changed underneath it. A row without a retrieval date is not a row.
What we could not verify
Any codified municipal ADU standard, in any city. library.municode.com returned HTTP 403 to every automated request; the *-ca.elaws.us mirrors timed out across five attempts; city planning pages returned 403; and Oakland’s Planning Code PDF exceeded the fetch size limit.
This is the reason the tracker has a schema and not a table, and it is stated at the top of the page as well as here.
HCD’s ordinance-review correspondence. hcd.ca.gov returned HTTP 403 with a “scheduled maintenance” notice throughout this retrieval. Those letters are the authoritative record of which provisions HCD considers non-compliant, and they are the correct way to report a compliance problem in a named city. Because we could not open them, this page names no city as non-compliant.
Any ADU Handbook edition later than January 2025. Same cause. The January 2025 edition, which we hold, predates AB 1154, SB 9 (2025), SB 543 and AB 1170 — that is, it predates every amendment that produced the current state floor. Where the Handbook and a later statute could differ, this page follows the statute.
Long Beach’s ordinance number and adoption date, and whether chapter 21.66 is affected by the ordinance being inoperative. The inoperative status is quoted from the city itself and is well corroborated; the surrounding detail is not.
Oakland’s development standards entirely. Named twice above because it is the single largest block of tempting unverified material we declined to publish.
A count of California jurisdictions. We did not verify how many cities and counties write an ADU ordinance, and this page therefore states no denominator. A coverage percentage requires a denominator we have not sourced, so no coverage percentage appears here.
Questions
What are the ADU rules in my city?
Does Long Beach have an ADU ordinance?
What is the smallest maximum size a California city can impose on an ADU?
What happens if my city’s ADU ordinance conflicts with state law?
Why does the tracker only have two cities?
How do you decide whether a city’s ordinance is legal?
Do the state rules apply to charter cities?
How often do these rules change?
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 Government Code Chapter 13 sections retrieved from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov 2026-09-05; jurisdiction findings from each city’s own .gov pages, retrieved 2026-09-05; no codified municipal text was retrievable. 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
- California Government Code § 66321 — size and height floors , Retrieved 2026-09-05. (a) a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements, subject to (b). (b)(1) no minimum square footage requirement “that prohibits an efficiency unit”. (b)(2) maximum must allow at least “[e]ight hundred fifty square feet of interior livable space”, or “[o]ne thousand square feet of interior livable space” for a unit with multiple bedrooms. (b)(3) no requirement preventing “an accessory dwelling unit with at least 800 square feet of interior livable space and with four-foot side and rear yard” setbacks. (b)(4) heights: 16 feet detached; 18 feet transit-adjacent plus two feet for roof pitch; 18 feet on a multistory lot; 25 feet or the local limit, whichever lower, capped at two stories, for attached. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 5 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66314 — required contents of a local ADU ordinance , Retrieved 2026-09-05. (b)(1) objective standards “that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit”; (b)(2) local agencies may reduce or eliminate parking; (d)(4) attached unit “shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling”; (d)(5) detached unit “shall not exceed 1,200 square feet”; (d)(7) “Setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines”; (d)(10) “One parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less”; (d)(11) demolished parking need not be replaced. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 67, Sec. 109 (AB 1170), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66317 — ministerial approval and the 60-day deadline , Retrieved 2026-09-05. (a)(1) “A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.” (a)(3) “The permitting agency shall either approve or deny the application … within 60 days”, and “[i]f the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.” (b) on denial the agency shall “return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient”. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 3 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66320 — where no ordinance has been adopted , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Where a local agency “has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with Section 66314” and receives an application, “the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to Section 66317.” The provision that makes the Long Beach position workable. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 4 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66323 — the ministerial approval categories , Retrieved 2026-09-05. (a)(1) one ADU and one JADU per lot, with expansion “of not more than 150 square feet”; (a)(2) one detached new-construction ADU with “four-foot side and rear yard setbacks” and an optional “total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet”; (a)(3) multifamily conversions, at least one and “up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units”; (a)(4) detached units on multifamily lots, up to eight where units exist and two where proposed; (e) a local agency “shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit … be for a term longer than 30 days.” Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 6 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66322 — the parking exemptions, which apply with or without an ordinance , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Applies “[n]otwithstanding any other law, and whether or not the local agency has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units”. (a)(1) within “one-half of one mile walking distance of public transit”; (a)(2) historic district; (a)(3) part of the primary residence or an accessory structure; (a)(4) on-street permits required but not offered; (a)(5) car share within one block; (a)(6) simultaneous application with a new dwelling. (b) bars denial for correcting nonconforming zoning or building code violations not threatening health and safety. Added by Stats. 2024, Ch. 7, Sec. 20 (SB 477), effective 25 March 2024. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66313 — definitions, including livable space and public transit , Retrieved 2026-09-05. (a) accessory dwelling unit; (d) junior accessory dwelling unit, “no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space … contained entirely within a single-family residence”; (e) livable space; (g) local agency, “a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered”; (h) nonconforming zoning condition; (i) objective standards; (k) permitting agency; (m) public transit, “including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station”; (n) tandem parking. Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 2 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66316 — a non-compliant ordinance is null and void , The preemption default. A local agency with an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of the article shall have that ordinance “null and void” and shall thereafter apply the state standards “unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this article.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66326 — HCD ordinance review, with SB 9 (2025) automatic voiding , 60-day submission to HCD, HCD written findings of non-compliance, 30-day agency response. Amended by SB 9 (Arreguín), Stats. 2025, Ch. 510, adding automatic voiding of the ordinance for a missed deadline. Distinct from SB 9 (Atkins), Stats. 2021, Ch. 162, the urban lot-split statute. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- City of Long Beach — Accessory Dwelling Units, Community Development , The source of the strongest finding on this page. Retrieved 2026-09-05. “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies.” “Long Beach currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” New standalone ADU and SB 9 ordinances in draft, public comment closed 23 November 2025; draft ADU objective design standards for historic resources comment ran to 31 July 2026, adoption hearings pending; no new ordinance adopted at retrieval. Owner-occupancy: none for ADUs; for JADUs required “only if the JADU shares a bathroom” with the main home. Historic District triggers a Certificate of Appropriateness; Coastal Zone triggers a Local Coastal Development Permit. LBMC Ch. 21.66 “Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program” exists; its terms were not retrievable. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- City of Long Beach — Pre-Approved ADU (PAADU) Program , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Over-the-counter same-day issuance; Information Bulletin IB-068; plan check contact PlanCheck.Counter@longbeach.gov. No downloadable plan-set URL was present on the page, which is why the row codes programme_published and otc_issuance but not plans_downloadable. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- City of Oakland — Legalize Your Unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior ADU (JADU) , The only Oakland material we could verify from the city itself. Retrieved 2026-09-05. Three amnesty tracks with cutoffs of 1 January 2021 (Planning Code amnesty), 1 January 2020 (Building Code enforcement delay) and 1 January 2020 (AB 2533); application deadline before 1 January 2030; enforcement delay five years from approval or to 1 January 2035, whichever first. Cites Gov. Code § 66332, renumbered to § 66311.7 effective 1 January 2026. Oakland development standards — size, height, setbacks — were not retrievable and are not published on this page. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
If your city has no ordinance, the state floor is your rule set
A city with no ADU ordinance is not a hypothetical — one of the two jurisdictions in this tracker is in exactly that position and says so on its own website.
Take the state floor table to the counter and ask, in writing, which standards the agency will apply and whether HCD has issued findings on the ordinance.
HyreADU does not design, permit or build accessory dwelling units and does not practice law. This page is informational and is not legal advice. It describes California statutory text and jurisdictions' own published pages as retrieved on 5 September 2026.
It names no jurisdiction as non-compliant, because compliance findings under Government Code section 66326 belong to the Department of Housing and Community Development, whose site was unreachable throughout this retrieval.
This edition contains two jurisdiction records, not a statewide table; a city’s absence means we have not read it. No codified municipal development standard appears anywhere on this page, because none could be retrieved, and unverified figures circulating elsewhere are deliberately excluded rather than reproduced.
Ordinances change, and the state floor they are written against changed twice between March 2024 and January 2026. The useful next step is the permitting agency, in writing, and — where money is at stake — a licensed land-use attorney.