How the Builder’s Remedy Is Challenging Exclusionary Zoning
Parking spaces. Less traffic. Sunlight apartments. ‘Cleaner’ and ‘safer’ streets. NIMBYs have a number of excuses for why public and low-income housing would be better elsewhere. ‘Yes, soaring housing costs are a problem, as is homelessness, but our neighborhood is not going to contribute part of the solution,’ NIMBYs suggest. They may believe in ending homelessness, but only so long as it does not affect them.
As a result of NIMBYism, local governments from across the United States have developed strict zoning laws that limit the number of buildable units. By limiting new housing to single-family homes, cities can restrict the necessary housing supply. With a shorter supply, prices rise. And with higher prices, all Americans, notably middle and low-income Americans, have less of their income to spend on other necessities, like food and clothing.
How NIMBYism Restricts Affordable Housing in California
In Beverly Hills, NIMBYism-fueled restrictive zoning is pervasive. In a mostly upper-income municipality inside the city of Los Angeles, residents have lobbied to keep their picturesque neighborhood. The city’s zoning laws restrict any development over five stories tall for a residential building. And only a few blocks in the city even allow five-story buildings. The government has ensured that low-income families are not allowed to take up residence.
But one gutsy man has been determined to stand against that. A low-income housing developer, Leo Pustilnikov, filed an application in 2023 to build a 19-story apartment building and a hotel. He argued that the development would help alleviate the extreme housing shortage in the neighborhood. In turn, lower housing costs in a low-income housing development could help fight Los Angeles’ homelessness crisis.
But the application stood heavily opposed. First, his application went against the city’s five-story maximum zoning law. But perhaps more significantly, the plan threatened the ‘nice neighborhood-feel’ that Beverly Hills residents tried so hard to protect. The City Council unanimously opposed the project. Residents labeled it a “monstrosity.” But Pustilnikov was determined to push through.
But how could he? And what does his story say about a fight against NIMBYism?
California’s ‘Builder’s Remedy’: A Legal Path Around NIMBYism
Much to the city’s frustration, a 1990 law provides a way out of its stubborn zoning laws. The law was designed to cut through local government standstills in creating more housing. Under this law, called the “builder’s remedy,” developers can build housing that contradicts local zoning rules if cities fail to meet the state’s housing threshold. In this way, voters across California can influence how housing is developed in places like Beverly Hills. When California voters support more housing initiatives, Beverly Hills residents cannot have the final say on whether more housing is built. This law ensures that residents cannot simply restrict others from moving in because of the soaring housing prices.
The law situates itself in a long battle between the state of California and its cities over housing development projects. It is much easier for cities to expand outward, rather than destroying old housing, which is costly and controversial. So, in place of taller, denser housing structures where people live, cities have resorted to building houses outside city boundaries. That way, everyone can keep their picturesque one-family home.
But city expansion has its limits. Urban sprawl causes serious issues with transporting people into the city and worsens traffic, all while making it harder to find space to keep building housing.
Efforts from the State of California against NIMBYism
As a result, the state of California has pushed cities to build denser housing within city centers, albeit imperfectly and inconsistently.
For the past ten years, for example, the California state government has adopted several small changes that have strengthened the builder’s remedy law. Some of those changes included requiring urban areas to adopt housing plans with far more units than originally required. Cities have also increasingly had fewer rights to refuse development projects.
Moreover, in August, Governor Gavin Newsom formed a new cabinet-level agency to reduce red tape and create more housing opportunities. And most recently, in October 2025, California’s legislature passed SB 79. The new law allows developers to build mid-rise apartments near major transit hubs, challenging the city’s efforts to limit denser housing in key city centers.
But one long-term strategy from the state has been manipulated by cities. For years, the state of California has demanded that cities publish a detailed document, called a “housing element,” every eight years with the state. In the housing element, cities are expected to define how they will accommodate the necessary level of housing. The element must also address how the city will meet affordability demands for low- and middle-income households. The state of California and regional governments ultimately decide the required amount of housing.
But cities have worked around such a report. They have put future housing in inaccessible areas. In this way, they can expect developers not to propose denser housing projects, since they are restricted to building solely in unprofitable development areas. Local voters have, in turn, backed this loophole, supporting policies that would limit the low-income housing in their neighborhoods. And thus, the cycle of NIMBYism has continued.
Moreover, until 2022, the builder’s remedy law went mostly under the radar. Developers seemingly did not know about the law or were unwilling to use it. Cities continued to create housing plans that would never provide room for more housing.
How Developers Are Using California Law to Push Back on NIMBYism
But in 2019, a law professor at the University of California drew developers’ attention.
He wrote in a Tweet on January 1, 2019, “CA housing folks: Why haven’t builders exploited the state law exempting 20%-affordable projects from zoning/plan in cities that don’t accommodate enough?”
The professor argued that developers had been missing out on a law that could be earth-shattering for NIMBYism. And with the rise in housing needs, the state of California’s new housing requirements were set to far exceed what cities had willingly accepted.
For Beverly Hills, the city’s previous housing element required it to plan for only three new housing units. In other words, Beverly Hills was only required to supply three more individuals or families with housing– an unconscionably low number. But in 2023, the state required it to build over 3,000 units– 1,000 times the number of housing units it had originally been required to build.
As a result of increased housing targets, developers knew they could sue cities that did not comply. Since 2022, developers across California have responded by filing dozens of plans to build 10-20-story buildings in areas with similar zoning restrictions. Mr. Pustilnikov’s Beverly Hills project has led this effort, along with his nine other development projects across Los Angeles County.
Success in Fighting California’s NIMBYism
In court, these developers have had sizable victories. In August 2025, Mr. Pustilnikov won his case against the city of Beverly Hills to develop his housing project. Other projects have also won in courts, despite contradictory city zoning laws. And now, cities have begun approving taller buildings that were once impossible to build.
While Mr. Pustilnikov’s case targets only a small slice of the housing affordability crisis in California, his strategy offers hope. Despite the lack of progress in developing better housing policies, he’s shown that this old law can offer a way out.
Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland in California’s State Assembly, explains that a law like the builder’s remedy would never be passed today. “We have gotten in our own way,” creating a system “that makes it impossible to build the housing we need,” cites Ms. Wicks. A sponsor of several pro-housing policies, Ms. Hicks believes “the politics to pass anything resembling builder’s remedy would [now] be way too difficult.”
Time will tell whether developers continue to succeed. Not enough cases have gone to court. The law has yet to be used enough to prove it can significantly increase California’s housing supply.
As a result, more developers like Mr. Pustilnikov need to be willing to challenge cities. And more state legislators need to follow the builder’s remedy by adopting similar workarounds. But the law surely offers a hopeful sign that housing solutions are possible, despite political stalemates.