Safety, Wellness, and Youth Committee
June 18, 2025

27 C. RETROACTIVE COMPLIANCEZoning codes typically allow uses that began lawfully before a new zoning provision was adopted or amended to continue after these new requirements are imposed, with the concept of legal nonconforming existing uses found in almost all zoning codes. For example, a local government may change zoning requirements to disallow auto repair uses in the downtown area. An existing auto repair shop would continue to be allowed to continue to operate because at the time when the use began it was an allowable use.96Local governments should generally treat existing group homes similarly when amending their zoning codes. Retroactive application of new zoning provisions should be avoided, especially if it will displace persons with disabilities from the homes they have chosen. Any exception to the well-established practice of allowing legal non-conforming uses to continue should be supported by substantial analysis and evidence showing that it is required to protect public health, safety, and welfare. This analysis and evidence should include specific local data and evidence, not merely anecdotal reports about problems that have arisen at some group homes or generalized descriptions of the public health, safety, and welfare interests that the new amendments are designed to serve. D. SPACING REQUIREMENTS Spacing requirements restrict group homes from locating within a specific distance of other group homes. Local governments should be very wary about imposing spacing requirements that extend beyond the limited requirements the Legislature has deemed necessary to prevent the overconcentration of certain licensed facilities to ensure their residents are integrated into their communities. The Legislature has found spacing requirements justified only for specific types of licensed facilities. Community care facilities, intermediate care facilities serving persons with developmental disabilities who require intermittent but recurring skilled nursing care, and pediatric day health and respite care facilities that provide services to children with particularly acute or chronic healthcare needs and their parents or guardians must be separated by at least 300 feet. Congregate living health facilities serving persons with terminal or life-threatening illnesses or with catastrophic or severe disabilities 96 See, e.g., Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 552; Edmonds v. Los Angeles County (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 651. 28 acquired through trauma or nondegenerative neurologic illness must be separated by at least 1,000 feet.97Further limiting these spacing requirements, the Legislature has specified that they: apply to some types of licensed facilities, but not to others. For example, the spacing requirements apply only to some types of intermediate care facilities but not to AOD facilities or to residential care facilities for the elderly; apply to proposed, new facilities, not existing ones; only require separation of facilities with similar licenses; and allow closer spacing based on local needs and conditions.98Contrary to these carefully crafted limitations on spacing requirements, some local governments have imposed spacing requirements on recovery residences, including those already in operation. These spacing requirements are very unlikely to withstand scrutiny under state housing laws. Among other things: They are at odds with the Legislature’s narrowly crafted spacing requirements in section 1267.9. They can conflict with local governments’ obligations to, for example, remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support such housing, avoid policies that displace persons with protected characteristics, and affirmatively support their right to live where they choose.99They are very hard to justify based on the narrow exceptions that state fair housing laws allow for facial discrimination. Justifications based on the goal of avoiding overconcentration are difficult to establish and require substantial and detailed statistical evidence establishing that an overconcentration of recovery residences has reached the point where it is, for example, creating an institutionalized living environment or perpetuating segregation within specific 97 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 1267.9, subd. (b) (setting spacing requirements for these types of community care residential facilities), 1502 (defining facilities that are subject to 300-foot spacing requirements), 1250 (defining facilities subject to 1000-foot spacing requirements). 98 Health & Saf. Code, § 1267.9. 99 See, supra, at pp. 9-12. 29 neighborhoods or communities. Merely comparing the number of recovery residences in one city with the number in others generally will not suffice.100They can lack the flexibility required to reasonably accommodate recovery residences and their occupants’ disability-related needs. The Legislature has repeatedly rejected attempts to impose spacing requirements on recovery residences. As recently as 2018, for instance, the Legislature declined to adopt SB 786, a bill that would have imposed a 300-foot spacing requirement on recovery residences.101The legislative history shows that the Legislature considered the lack of clear data showing that this spacing requirement would benefit persons recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. The Legislature also considered concerns that this spacing requirement would discriminate on the basis of disability, impede opening new recovery residences, reduce access to much needed recovery and treatment services, and stigmatize recovery residences and their occupants.102 In sum, local governments should avoid imposing spacing requirements that extend beyond those specified in Health and Safety Code section 1267.9.103 100See, supra, at pp. 15-16. Spacing requirements like this also need to withstand scrutiny under other standards for assessing intentional discrimination or discriminatory effects. See, supra,at pp. 12-19.101Sen Bill No. 786 (2017-2018 Reg. Session). This bill is one of many times that the Legislature has declined to enact, or the Governor has vetoed bills attempting to regulate recovery residences. See, e.g., Sen. Com. on Health, analysis of Sen. Bill 786 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) at 7-8 (listing several other bills with similar provisions that the died in the Legislature between 2006 and 2007); California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation (October 2016) at 14-16 (listing over 20 bills affecting recovery residences introduced between 1998 and 2016 that the Legislature did not pass or the Governor vetoed).102Sen. Com. on Health Analysis of Sen. Bill 786 at 6, 8-9. 103Recent federal court decisions rejecting challenges under federal and California laws to spacing requirements for recovery residences have not considered the important differences between state and federal laws. See, e.g., Yellowstone Women’s First Step House, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8. 2015) 2015 WL 13764131 at *7-8, affirmed in part and vacated in part, 2021 WL 4077001 (9th Cir. Sep. 8, 2021) (unpublished, nonprecedential decision). These differences include, for example, the affirmative duties that California’s Housing Element Law imposes on local governments and the broader rights and remedies for persons with disabilities under California’s fair housing laws. See, supra,at pp. 22-23.