Research study
Legalizing an unpermitted ADU — the amnesty programs, and their expiry dates
The state route is stronger than most owners think, the local programs have deadlines, and at least one city is publishing a repealed section number as its legal basis.
Written by HyreADU Research Desk Primary-source research and data analysis
Audited by HyreADU Research Desk Statutory citation and retrieval-date audit
The finding
If the unit was built before 1 January 2020, California law bars your city from refusing to permit it for the two reasons it would otherwise refuse. Government Code section 66311.7 provides that a local agency “shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit … that was constructed before January 1, 2020” either because it “is in violation of building standards” or because it “does not comply with this article … or any local ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units.” The single exception is health and safety. The agency may deny where it finds that “correcting the violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code” — the substandard-building test — and the section does not apply at all to a building already deemed substandard under that section.
The fees are waived. An applicant “shall not be required to pay impact fees or connection or capacity charges”, except where utility infrastructure is required to cure a section 17920.3 condition.
And you cannot be punished for coming forward. Where an inspector finds noncompliance, “the local agency shall not penalize an applicant for having the unpermitted accessory dwelling unit … and shall approve necessary permits to correct noncompliance with health and safety standards.” Cite the current number. This provision was Government Code section 65852.23 until March 2024, then section 66332, and has been section 66311.7 since 1 January 2026.
Oakland’s own legalization page still cites section 66332 — a number that no longer exists. Local programs stack on top, and they have deadlines the state route does not. Oakland runs three tracks with three different cutoff dates and requires applications before 1 January 2030.
Long Beach runs an amnesty at municipal code chapter 21.66 whose codified text we could not retrieve, and whose terms we therefore do not publish as fact. Nothing here is legal advice, and an unpermitted unit is a legal exposure as well as a permitting problem.
Read this first
- Nothing here is legal advice, and an unpermitted unit is a legal exposure
An existing unpermitted dwelling can involve code enforcement, insurance, disclosure on sale, landlord-tenant obligations toward anyone living in it, and in some circumstances liability that a permit does not retroactively cure.
This page describes statutory text and published municipal programs as retrieved on one date. It cannot see your unit, your city’s enforcement posture or your tenancy.
Where money or a tenant is involved, the correct next step is a land-use attorney, not a website.
- We could not retrieve codified municipal text for either city
library.municode.com returned HTTP 403 to every automated request for both Oakland and Long Beach, mirror sites timed out, and Oakland’s Planning Code PDF exceeded the fetch size limit.
Everything we publish about either city comes from the city’s own .gov page, not from the code. Where a term is known only from a search snippet or a secondary source, we label it unverified and do not put it in a table as though it were code.
- Legalizing is not the same as being made compliant
Section 66311.7 stops the agency refusing on ordinance-compliance and building-standard grounds. It does not stop the agency requiring the health and safety conditions in Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 to be cured, and it does not apply at all to a building already deemed substandard under that section.
An owner who reads the amnesty as “the unit is fine as it is” has misread it. The realistic outcome is a permit plus a scope of remedial work.
- Two cities is not a national or even a statewide survey
The contract for this page asked for programs assembled jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Web search was unavailable for this retrieval and the codified-text route was blocked, so we have two local programs: Oakland, verified from the city’s own page, and Long Beach, largely unverified.
The state route is fully sourced. We would rather publish two honest local rows than twenty aggregator-sourced ones.
Why this is a bigger category than the permit statistics suggest
Every California permit dataset counts units that entered the system. The units this page is about never did.
They are the converted garages, the finished basements, the back-house that has had a tenant in it since the 1990s and a meter that says one dwelling.
Nobody knows how many there are, because the defining characteristic of the category is that it is not in the records — a point our permit data directory makes from the other direction.
What changed is that the state decided this was a housing supply question rather than an enforcement question.
The logic of section 66311.7 is that a unit already housing somebody is worth more legalized than demolished, and that the way to get owners to come forward is to guarantee that coming forward is not punished.
Hence the fee waiver, the bar on denial, and the explicit instruction that the agency “shall not penalize an applicant for having the unpermitted accessory dwelling unit”.
HyreADU analysis: the interesting design detail is subdivision (d), which places an affirmative publication duty on the city — it must inform the public about the section “through public information resources, including permit checklists and the local agency’s internet website”, and must publish a checklist of the section 17920.3 conditions that would deem a building substandard.
That is unusual. The Legislature evidently concluded that the main obstacle was not the law but the fact that nobody knew about it, and legislated against the ignorance directly.
The state route, provision by provision
Government Code section 66311.7 in full, in the order it appears, quoted from the text as retrieved on 2026-09-05. This is the strongest thing on the page and it applies statewide.
| Subdivision | What it does | Operative text as retrieved |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | The core protection. Two grounds of denial removed. | “Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), a local agency shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit or an unpermitted junior accessory dwelling unit that was constructed before January 1, 2020, due to either of the following: (1) The accessory dwelling unit … is in violation of building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) … of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The accessory dwelling unit … does not comply with this article or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333), as applicable, or any local ordinance regulating accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units.” |
| (b) | The single exception: substandard-building conditions. | “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a permit … if the local agency makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code.” |
| (c) | The hard limit on the whole section. | “This section shall not apply to a building that is deemed substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code.” |
| (d) | An affirmative duty on the city to publicise the route — and to tell owners they may inspect privately first. | The agency “shall inform the public about the provisions of this section through public information resources, including permit checklists and the local agency’s internet website”, including “(1) A checklist of the conditions specified in Section 17920.3 … that would deem a building substandard” and “(2) Informing homeowners that, before submitting an application for a permit, the homeowner may obtain a confidential third-party code inspection from a licensed contractor to determine the unit’s existing condition or potential scope of building improvements.” |
| (e) | The fee waiver. | A homeowner applying for a permit for a previously unpermitted unit constructed before 1 January 2020 “shall not be required to pay impact fees or connection or capacity charges except when utility infrastructure is required to comply with Section 17920.3 … and when the fee is authorized by subdivision (e) of Section 66311.5.” |
| (f) | The no-penalty rule, and an obligation to approve the corrective permits. | “If the inspector finds noncompliance with health and safety standards, the local agency shall not penalize an applicant for having the unpermitted accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit and shall approve necessary permits to correct noncompliance with health and safety standards.” |
California Government Code § 66311.7 as retrieved from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2026-09-05. Enactment line: “Added by renumbering Section 66332 by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 9. (SB 543) Effective January 1, 2026.”
HyreADU note: subdivision (a) has no application deadline and no expiry. The 1 January 2020 date is a construction cutoff, not a filing cutoff.
An owner of a unit built in 2015 has the same right in 2035 as in 2026 — which is exactly the opposite of how the Oakland local tracks work, and the distinction most likely to be lost.
Where this provision has lived
Three section numbers in under two years. This matters because the ordinances, staff reports and city webpages that cite it have not all kept up — and one of them is a city running an amnesty program.
-
Until 25 March 2024
Government Code § 65852.23The original home of the unpermitted-unit provision, alongside the rest of ADU law in the 65852 series. Any source citing this number has not been revised since March 2024.
-
25 March 2024
Renumbered to § 66332 by SB 477SB 477 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 7) was an urgency statute effective on chaptering. It repealed §§ 65852.150, 65852.2, 65852.22, 65852.23 and 65852.26 and created Chapter 13, §§ 66310 to 66342. AB 2533 — the bill that expanded this route and which Oakland names as its legal basis — was enacted into that numbering.
-
10 October 2025
SB 543 is chapteredSB 543 (McNerney, Stats. 2025, Ch. 520) renumbered a second time within Chapter 13. Section 9 of the bill is the one that moves this provision.
-
1 January 2026
Now Government Code § 66311.7The current and correct citation, per the enactment line on the section itself: “Added by renumbering Section 66332 by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 9. (SB 543) Effective January 1, 2026.” SB 543 renumbered the fee section in the same operation, from § 66324 to § 66311.5 — which matters here because § 66311.7(e) cross-references it.
-
Retrieved 5 September 2026
Oakland still publishes § 66332The City of Oakland’s own “Legalize Your Unpermitted ADU or JADU” page names Government Code § 66332 (AB 2533) as the legal basis for its AB 2533 track. That section number was renumbered eight months before this retrieval.
The program is not affected — the substance moved intact — but a reader checking the citation will find nothing at § 66332, and may conclude the program has been repealed. It has not.
Oakland: three tracks, three cutoffs, one deadline
The best-documented local program we could verify, and the one worth understanding in detail because its structure is the structure other cities copy. Everything in this block comes from the city’s own page, retrieved 2026-09-05.
Track one — Planning Code amnesty: built or occupied before 1 January 2021
The most generous cutoff of the three, and a year later than the state route. Its value is what it forgives: the city describes the planning amnesty as waiving “any existing violations of the Planning Code (setbacks, height, size, lot coverage, location, or any other planning or zoning requirements)”.
That list is the reason an amnesty exists at all. An unpermitted back-house built in 1998 almost certainly sits in a place the current code would not allow, and without a planning waiver the only compliant outcome is demolition.
Track two — Building Code enforcement delay: before 1 January 2020
A different instrument entirely: not forgiveness, but time. The city describes a delay running five years from approval, or until 1 January 2035, whichever comes first, and excluding conditions that present an immediate danger to health and safety.
This is the track for a unit that can be legalized but cannot be brought fully up to building code immediately — it converts an enforcement action into a work schedule.
HyreADU analysis: the whichever-comes-first structure means the value of this track declines every year. An approval in 2026 buys five years; an approval in 2032 buys under three.
Track three — AB 2533: before 1 January 2020, and this is the fee track
The state route, applied locally. Oakland describes it as waiving impact fees and connection or capacity charges except where utility infrastructure is required for health and safety — which is subdivision (e) of section 66311.7, almost word for word.
The citation problem lives here. Oakland names Government Code § 66332 as the basis. As of 1 January 2026 the provision is § 66311.7. We flag it because a homeowner who checks the citation and finds nothing may conclude the program is dead. It is not; the section was renumbered, not repealed.
And over all three: apply before 1 January 2030
The city states an application deadline before 1 January 2030 — 1,214 days after this retrieval.
This is the fact most worth acting on from this page, because the state route it sits on top of has no deadline at all.
An owner who waits keeps the section 66311.7 protections and loses the Planning Code waiver, which is the one that forgives the setback the unit is actually violating.
HyreADU recommendation: if the unit is in Oakland and predates 2021, the sequencing question — apply now under the local amnesty, or later under the state route — has a deadline attached to one branch and not the other.
That is a question for a land-use attorney with the parcel in front of them, and it is worth asking before 2030 rather than in 2029.
The programs side by side
Three routes, with what each one forgives, what it costs and when it closes. The confidence column is doing real work: read it before you read the row.
| Route | Eligibility cutoff | What it forgives | Fees | Application deadline | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California — Gov. Code § 66311.7 | Unit constructed before 1 January 2020. | Denial on building-standard grounds and on ADU-ordinance non-compliance grounds. Not health and safety: § 17920.3 conditions must still be cured, and the section does not apply to a building already deemed substandard. | Waived. “Shall not be required to pay impact fees or connection or capacity charges”, except where utility infrastructure is needed to cure a § 17920.3 condition and the fee is authorized by § 66311.5(e). | None in the statute. The 2020 date is a construction cutoff, not a filing cutoff. | High. Full section text retrieved from leginfo 2026-09-05. |
| Oakland — Planning Code amnesty | Built or occupied before 1 January 2021. | The city’s words: “any existing violations of the Planning Code (setbacks, height, size, lot coverage, location, or any other planning or zoning requirements)”. | Not stated on the page for this track. | Before 1 January 2030. | Medium-high. From the city’s own page. The local ordinance number was not verified — municode returns 403 to automated fetch. |
| Oakland — Building Code enforcement delay | Before 1 January 2020. | Delays enforcement rather than forgiving. Five years from approval or until 1 January 2035, whichever is first. Excludes immediate health and safety dangers. | Not stated on the page for this track. | Before 1 January 2030. | Medium-high. From the city’s own page. |
| Oakland — AB 2533 track | Before 1 January 2020. | The state protections, applied locally. | Impact fees and connection/capacity charges waived, except where utility infrastructure is required for health or safety. | Before 1 January 2030. | Medium-high on substance. The city cites Gov. Code § 66332, which was renumbered to § 66311.7 on 1 January 2026. |
| Long Beach — LBMC Ch. 21.66, “Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program” | Not verified. A search snippet indicates occupancy for more than 30 continuous days before 31 December 2016, plus an affordability covenant. | Not verified. | Not verified. | Not verified. | Low. Do not rely on this row. The chapter exists; its terms, its ordinance number and its adoption date could not be retrieved. Codified text is on municode, which returns 403 to automated fetch. |
Unpermitted ADU legalization routes, retrieved 2026-09-05. State row sourced to the Government Code; Oakland rows to the City of Oakland’s own legalization page; Long Beach row flagged low confidence and published as an unresolved lead rather than a finding.
HyreADU calculation: 1,214 days between this retrieval and 1 January 2030, and 3,040 days between this retrieval and the 1 January 2035 backstop on Oakland’s enforcement delay.
The order to do this in
Assembled from what the statute itself directs and what the Oakland program structure implies. Step two is in the statute for a reason.
- 1 Establish, with evidence, when the unit was built or first occupied
Every route on this page turns on a date, and the dates differ by a full year between the state route (before 1 January 2020) and Oakland’s planning amnesty (before 1 January 2021).
Useful evidence includes historic aerial imagery, utility account history, old listings and appraisals, tax records, and dated tenancy documents. This is the single fact that decides which doors are open.
- 2 Get a confidential third-party inspection before you file anything
The statute itself directs cities to tell homeowners this. Section 66311.7(d)(2) requires the agency to inform homeowners that “before submitting an application for a permit, the homeowner may obtain a confidential third-party code inspection from a licensed contractor to determine the unit’s existing condition or potential scope of building improvements.” It exists so you can find out what the remedial scope is before the city does, and it is the least-used provision in the section.
- 3 Read the section 17920.3 checklist, because it is the whole exception
Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 defines the substandard-building conditions that are the only ground on which the permit can still be denied, and the only work you can still be required to do.
Section 66311.7(d)(1) requires your city to publish a checklist of them. Ask for it by name if it is not on the website — the city is under a statutory duty to make it available.
- 4 Ask the city, in writing, which route it is processing you under
Where a local amnesty and the state route both apply, they forgive different things and expire on different schedules. In Oakland the planning waiver and the fee waiver are on separate tracks. Getting the answer in writing is what makes it possible to check later whether the fee waiver in section 66311.7(e) was actually applied.
- 5 Check the fee waiver actually landed on the invoice
Subdivision (e) is unambiguous: no impact fees, no connection or capacity charges, with one narrow utility-infrastructure exception. Fee schedules and permit software do not always know that. Comparing the invoice against the statutory text is a five-minute exercise that occasionally saves five figures.
- 6 Get advice before you disclose anything about a tenanted unit
If someone is living in the unit, legalization intersects with tenancy law, relocation obligations and rent regulation — see our rent control study, which is about exactly the question of whether a newly legalized older unit is treated as new construction. That is a lawyer’s question and this page does not answer it.
Three things this page is not saying
We are not saying the unit is safe or lawful to occupy as it stands. Section 66311.7 governs whether a permit may be denied.
It says nothing about whether a unit currently housing somebody meets the conditions in Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, and it does not apply at all to a building already deemed substandard under that section.
Do not read a permitting protection as a safety clearance. No page can assess wiring, gas, egress, structure or fire separation, and we will not attempt it.
We are not saying Long Beach’s program works the way the internet says it does. Chapter 21.66 exists. Its terms, as circulating in search snippets and secondary commentary, include a 31 December 2016 occupancy cutoff and an affordability covenant.
We could not open the codified text and we are not going to launder a snippet into a fact by putting it in a table without a warning attached.
We are not saying Oakland’s program is defective because its citation is stale. The substance survived the renumbering intact — SB 543 moved the section, it did not repeal the protections.
The practical risk is narrower and worth naming precisely: a homeowner or a lawyer who looks up section 66332 in 2026 finds nothing there, and may conclude the basis for the program has gone.
What we could not verify
Any codified municipal text, for either city. library.municode.com returned HTTP 403 on every automated attempt for both Oakland and Long Beach. Mirror hosts timed out across five attempts. Oakland’s Planning Code PDF exceeded the fetch size limit.
No verbatim municipal code language appears on this page, and none of the Oakland terms above carries a local ordinance number, because we could not confirm one.
Long Beach chapter 21.66 in its entirety. We can confirm the chapter exists and is titled “Unpermitted Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program”.
Everything else — the eligibility cutoff, the covenant requirement, the fee treatment, the ordinance number, the adoption date, whether it is currently operative — is unverified.
That last point matters more in Long Beach than elsewhere: the city states on its own ADU page that “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies” and that it “currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” Whether that affects chapter 21.66 we do not know, and we are not going to guess.
Whether Oakland has corrected its citation since retrieval. We record what the page said on 5 September 2026. Cities fix these.
Every other California jurisdiction. Web search was unavailable for this retrieval, so we could not enumerate local amnesty programs beyond the two we already had leads on. San Francisco, Los Angeles, San José and the unincorporated counties are unattempted here. The absence of a city from this page means we did not reach it.
Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 itself. We cite it because section 66311.7 does, in four separate subdivisions, and it is the hinge on which the whole exception turns.
We did not retrieve its text on this date and quote none of it. Reading it is the first thing to do in the next edition, and the first thing an owner should do now.
Questions
Can my city refuse to permit an ADU that was built without a permit?
Do I have to pay impact fees to legalize an unpermitted ADU?
Will I be fined for having built it without a permit?
What is the deadline to apply?
What is the right Government Code section to cite for unpermitted ADUs?
What are Oakland’s three tracks?
Does Long Beach have an amnesty program?
Does legalizing the unit mean I can rent it out immediately?
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 § 66311.7 retrieved in full from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov 2026-09-05; Oakland program terms from the City of Oakland’s own legalization page, retrieved 2026-09-05; Long Beach chapter 21.66 could not be retrieved. 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 § 66311.7 — permits for unpermitted ADUs built before 1 January 2020 , Retrieved in full on 2026-09-05. Subdivisions (a) through (f) as quoted on this page, including the bar on denial, the § 17920.3 exception, the publication and confidential-inspection duties, the impact fee and connection charge waiver, and the no-penalty rule. Enactment line: “Added by renumbering Section 66332 by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 9. (SB 543) Effective January 1, 2026.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66311.5 — ADU fees, impact fees and connection charges , Cross-referenced by § 66311.7(e). Retrieved language includes the bar on any impact fee for an ADU of 750 square feet of interior livable space or less, and the rule that an ADU “shall not be considered … a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities”. Enactment line: “Added by renumbering Section 66324 by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 7. (SB 543) Effective January 1, 2026.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- SB 543 (McNerney, 2025) — Accessory dwelling units. Stats. 2025, Ch. 520 , Chaptered 10 October 2025, operative 1 January 2026. Section 9 renumbers § 66332 to § 66311.7; section 7 renumbers § 66324 to § 66311.5. The source of the citation discrepancy documented on this page. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- SB 477 (Senate Committee on Housing, 2023–24) — recodification. Stats. 2024, Ch. 7 , Urgency statute, effective 25 March 2024. Repealed Gov. Code § 65852.23, among others, and created Chapter 13 (§§ 66310–66342), in which the unpermitted-unit provision first became § 66332. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- City of Oakland — Legalize Your Unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior ADU (JADU) , The source of every Oakland term on this page. Retrieved 2026-09-05. Names Gov. Code § 66332 (AB 2533) plus a local Planning Code amnesty as the legal basis. Three eligibility tracks: Planning Code amnesty for units built or occupied before 1 January 2021; Building Code enforcement delay for units before 1 January 2020; AB 2533 for units before 1 January 2020. Application deadline before 1 January 2030. Planning amnesty waives “any existing violations of the Planning Code (setbacks, height, size, lot coverage, location, or any other planning or zoning requirements)”. AB 2533 track waives impact fees and connection/capacity charges except where utility infrastructure is required for health and safety. Enforcement delay runs five years from approval or until 1 January 2035, whichever is first, excluding immediate health and safety dangers. The local ordinance number is not stated on the page and could not be verified. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- City of Long Beach — Accessory Dwelling Units (Community Development) , Cited for context on Long Beach’s current posture rather than for the amnesty terms. Retrieved language: “Long Beach Municipal Code 21.51.276 no longer applies,” and “Long Beach currently applies state ADU law directly, as a local ordinance is still in development.” The page also states that owner-occupancy is required for a JADU “only if the JADU shares a bathroom” with the main home. It does not set out the chapter 21.66 amnesty terms. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
The date the unit was built decides everything else
Before 1 January 2020 opens the state route with no deadline. Before 1 January 2021 opens Oakland’s planning amnesty, which closes on 1 January 2030. Establish the date first, get the confidential inspection the statute tells your city to tell you about, then take it to a lawyer.
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 published municipal program pages as retrieved on 5 September 2026, and it cannot tell you whether any particular unit qualifies for any particular route.
An unpermitted dwelling can carry code enforcement, insurance, disclosure and landlord-tenant consequences that a permit does not retroactively cure, and this page makes no assessment of whether any unit is safe or lawful to occupy — no page can assess electrical, gas, structural, egress or fire-separation conditions and we do not attempt it.
Codified municipal text could not be retrieved for either city named here; where a term is unverified we say so on the row.
The useful next step is the permitting agency in writing, the section 17920.3 checklist your city is required to publish, and a licensed land-use attorney.