Reported / Citable
Background
Attorney Nabil Samaan and his entity, NKS Real Estate Holdings, Inc., built an accessory dwelling unit on a lot in the Fair Oaks area of Sacramento County in 2020 without obtaining a building permit. They submitted a permit application that was incomplete and never corrected, and they began and completed construction without authorization. The County of Sacramento issued three successive notices of violation and stop-work orders. Defendants appealed the first notice to the County Building Board of Appeals, which upheld the County’s actions. They did not pursue further administrative review and proceeded to lease the unit to a tenant.
The County never inspected the structure for code compliance and never issued a certificate of occupancy. In late 2020, the County filed an action for injunctive relief, alleging that the construction violated the California Building Code and the California Residential Code, both adopted under the State Housing Law (Health and Safety Code section 17910 et seq.) and incorporated into Sacramento County ordinances. The County also alleged the unpermitted use was a public nuisance per se under the County Code and Civil Code.
Following a court trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the County on both causes of action and entered a permanent injunction. Defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that constructing and occupying an accessory dwelling unit without the required building permit violates Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted by Sacramento County pursuant to the State Housing Law. The County, in its police-power capacity, had declared by ordinance that such unpermitted construction is a public nuisance, making the violation a nuisance per se under Civil Code section 3479 and well-settled California precedent.
The court rejected each of defendants’ principal arguments. First, the County had standing to bring the nuisance action both under its general police power and under Health and Safety Code section 17980, which authorizes local enforcement agencies to bring abatement actions for substandard or unpermitted housing. Second, the County’s nuisance ordinance did not conflict with state law; the State Housing Law expressly contemplates local enforcement of Title 24 standards through nuisance and abatement actions, and the County’s ordinance imposed substantially the same requirements as state law.
Third, the court rejected the argument that the County could enforce only those violations that endangered occupants or the public. The relevant statutes and ordinances allow enforcement against any unpermitted construction, not only those that pose immediate safety risks. By failing to obtain a permit and undergo inspection, defendants created a structure of unknown safety status, putting occupants and neighbors at risk regardless of whether any specific defect could be identified. Finally, the court rejected the suggestion that completion of construction immunized defendants from enforcement; the building code and abatement statutes apply both to ongoing and completed unpermitted work.
Key Takeaways
- Building an accessory dwelling unit or other structure without a required permit can be a public nuisance per se, allowing local agencies to obtain injunctive relief without proving common-law nuisance elements.
- Local agencies can enforce Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations through nuisance abatement actions even after construction is completed.
- The State Housing Law and the City and County code-enforcement frameworks are designed to work in tandem, not in conflict.
- Failure to obtain a permit creates a per se safety risk because the structure has not been inspected and certified, regardless of whether any specific defect is identified.
- Owners who proceed with construction in defiance of stop-work orders and permit denials cannot avoid enforcement by completing the project or installing tenants.
Why It Matters
This decision is an important reminder for property owners and contractors building accessory dwelling units in California. While the state has aggressively encouraged ADU construction through new statutes streamlining the permit process, owners who proceed without a permit face serious consequences, including injunctive relief, abatement, and potentially demolition. The opinion confirms that local agencies retain robust enforcement tools regardless of the broader policy push to expand housing.
For local government attorneys, the case provides comprehensive support for using nuisance per se theories to address unpermitted construction. For property owners, the message is clear: get the permits, allow inspections, and obtain certificates of occupancy. Self-help construction without permits exposes owners to litigation, loss of investment, and disruption to tenants.