Architects · Builders · Inspectors · Homeowners
A 110-square-foot shed still needs a location review
Assumed facts. San Francisco; a new one-story detached storage shed, with no sleeping use. Assume the floor area is 110 square feet; height and yard placement still need to be established.
- Building Code §106A.2 item 1 exempts qualifying detached storage sheds up to 120 square feet from a building permit. Its opening paragraph expressly preserves compliance with other code and ordinance requirements.
- Planning Code §136(c)(23) separately addresses detached structures in the required-open-area table, including a 10-foot height limit and a combined 120-square-foot footprint. Its allowance is tied to the table location and use conditions.
What this resolves—and what remains. The size assumption supports checking the building-permit exemption; it does not establish that the proposed yard location or construction complies. Review the site plan, applicable table column, fire requirements, utilities, and any other approvals before deciding.
San Francisco code publisher: 2026 S-96; §136(c)(23) amendment effective September 5, 2025.
Agents & brokers · Property managers · Owners · Attorneys
Selling or leasing a pre-1978 home: identify the disclosure layer
Assumed facts. A sale or new lease of a 1965 dwelling. Whether it meets the federal target-housing definition and whether the transaction is exempt have not yet been established.
- 40 CFR §§745.101 and 745.103 define coverage and exemptions. If the transaction is covered, §745.107 requires the pamphlet, known lead information, and available records before the buyer or tenant becomes contractually obligated.
- The purchase inspection opportunity in §745.110 is a separate requirement: normally 10 days, with written agreement to a different period or written waiver possible. It is not a mandatory seller inspection and is not a tenant inspection-period rule.
What this resolves—and what remains. Check coverage first, then collect disclosures and use the sale or lease requirements appropriate to the transaction. Federal lead disclosure does not resolve separate state/local disclosure, habitability, or renovation obligations.
40 CFR Part 745, Subpart F; eCFR title current through September 29, 2026 at review.
Property managers · Homeowners · Attorneys
An HOA rental cap is different from a short-term rental ban
Assumed facts. A California common interest development proposes a 10% rental cap. The owner wants a year-long lease; title-acquisition and restriction-adoption dates must be checked.
- Civil Code §4741(b) prevents a governing-document rental limit below 25% of separate interests. A proposed 10% cap conflicts with that floor; the statute does not require an association to impose a 25% cap.
- Section 4741(c) separately permits restrictions on rentals of 30 days or less. Sections 4741(d)–(e) address ADUs and owner occupancy; §4740 adds acquisition-date protections that require the actual title and governing-document history.
What this resolves—and what remains. Do not use the short-term-rental exception to justify the assumed year-long lease restriction. The next review needs the exact CC&Rs, counting method, acquisition dates, and any applicable local rental rules.
Civil Code §4741 amendment effective January 1, 2022; §4740 amendment effective January 1, 2021.
Owners · Buyers · Attorneys
A deed change does not answer the reassessment question by itself
Assumed facts. A California owner proposes adding another person to title. The parties’ relationship, beneficial interests, percentages, and transfer date are not yet known.
- Revenue and Taxation Code §60 starts with the transfer of a present real-property interest, including beneficial use, substantially equal in value to the fee interest. Reviewing the deed label alone misses those elements.
- The Board of Equalization identifies §§61–69.6 and Rules 462.001–462.500 as the provisions that further define changes and exclusions. The applicable exclusion, if any, must be matched to the actual transfer facts.
What this resolves—and what remains. There is not enough information to promise exclusion or calculate a new tax bill. Establish the ownership before and after the transfer, then verify the applicable exclusion, filing requirements, and county assessor record.
RTC §60 and BOE change-in-ownership guidance checked October 1, 2026; no particular exclusion is assumed.
Attorneys · Buyers · Owners
A recorded default notice is only one part of a foreclosure timeline
Assumed facts. A California deed-of-trust foreclosure, with a recorded notice of default. This is not a county tax sale. Loan coverage, servicing history, and loss-mitigation applications remain to be checked.
- Civil Code §2924(a)(2)–(4) sets a three-month interval and notice-of-sale sequence, including a limited early-recording provision. Those provisions alone do not establish a valid sale date for a particular loan.
- For covered servicing, 12 CFR §1024.41(f) restricts the first foreclosure notice or filing, generally until more than 120 days of delinquency, with stated exceptions. Loss-mitigation protections can also affect referral or sale.
What this resolves—and what remains. Build separate state-notice and federal-servicing timelines. Verify coverage, notices, applications, postponements, and any stay before evaluating a proposed sale; do not treat the two waiting periods as interchangeable.
California Civil Code §2924 and 12 CFR §1024.41 reviewed October 1, 2026. Apply the versions governing the relevant notices and servicing events.