Assembly BillChaptered/SignedCivil
AB 1857: Unlawfully restrictive covenants: grocery stores and supermarkets.
What AB 1857 does, verified October 2, 2026
<p>The bill aims to void and render unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition in real property documents that prohibit or restrict the use of such property as a grocery store or supermarket. This applies if a grocery store or supermarket previously operated on the property but has since ceased operations and an approved restrictive covenant modification document has been recorded. The bill allows interested parties to establish the unenforceability of existing restrictive covenants by submitting a modification document to the county recorder, enabling the development of new grocery stores or supermarkets. Additionally, it imposes duties on local officials and includes findings that no state reimbursement is required.</p>
Bill journey
✓IntroducedComplete
✓In CommitteeComplete
✓First Chamber FloorComplete
✓Second ChamberComplete
✓GovernorComplete
6ChapteredCurrent
Last action: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 901, Statutes of 2026. (2026-09-30)Alert me
Author and sponsors
Full contact details, staff, and committees with Connect, $16/moUnlockRecent actions30 total · showing 5
| Sep. 30, 2026 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 901, Statutes of 2026. |
| Sep. 30, 2026 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep. 04, 2026 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Aug. 27, 2026 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 6711.). |
| Aug. 27, 2026 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
Latest bill textChaptered version, September 30, 2026 · 3,775 words
Assembly Bill No. 1857
CHAPTER 901
An act to add Sections 714.8 and 714.8.1 to the Civil Code, relating to land use.
[ Approved by Governor September 30, 2026. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2026. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1857, Aguiar-Curry. Unlawfully restrictive covenants: grocery stores and supermarkets.
Existing law makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts certain land uses, including the installation or use of a solar energy system or construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on certain lots. Existing law authorizes a person who holds or is acquiring an ownership interest of record in property that the person believes is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant, as specified, to record a restrictive covenant modification document. Before recording the document, existing law requires the county recorder to submit the modification document and the original document to the county counsel, who is required to determine whether the original document contains an unlawful restriction.
This bill would make void and unenforceable against an interested party any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket, as defined, if a grocery store or supermarket either previously operated on the property and has ceased operations or is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center and an approved restrictive covenant modification document has been recorded in the public record. The bill would entitle an interested party, as defined, to establish that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable by submitting a restrictive covenant modification document to the county recorder, in accordance with certain procedures, to allow the grocery store or supermarket development to proceed.
The bill would prohibit a person or entity, beginning on January 1, 2027, from creating or recording any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket if a grocery store or supermarket either previously operated on the property and has ceased operations or is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center, except as prescribed.
By imposing additional duties on county officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings and declarations relating to these provisions.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Food insecurity and affordability are converging crises in California. More than one in five Californians is experiencing hunger, while food prices have increased by nearly 30 percent since 2020.
(b) Food insecurity is exacerbated by longstanding racial and economic inequities, with Black and Latino households being over twice as likely to be food insecure compared to White counterparts, 92 percent of Native American households in the Klamath Basin of northern California suffering from food insecurity, and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities in southern California suffering from great rates of food insecurity.
(c) Food insecurity has severe and lasting consequences for public health, child development, and educational and economic outcomes. Even a single experience of hunger during childhood can have lifelong impacts. Food insecurity imposes substantial public costs, including more than $7,000,000,000 annually in health care costs in California, the most in the nation.
(d) California produces more than one-half of the vegetables and approximately three-quarters of the fruits and nuts grown in the United States. Persistent hunger reflects barriers to physical, economic, and cultural access to food, rooted in racial discrimination, disinvestment, land use exclusion, and market manipulation.
(e) Two million seven hundred thousand low-income Californians live in urban and rural areas that maintain low geographical access to grocery stores, with one-half of Black neighborhoods across the United States having neither a supermarket nor a full-service grocery store.
(f) Restrictive covenants contained in deeds, leases, and other land use documents prohibit the use of commercial property for food retail purposes, preventing food retailers from establishing at a site, and therefore operating as private land use barriers that reduce food access, limit consumer choice, suppress competition, and create conditions for the high cost of food.
(g) Historic redlining and racial segregation have shaped the geographic distribution of food retailers in California. Restrictive covenants function as a structural barrier to food access by reinforcing these patterns of disinvestment, resulting in Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) neighborhoods being disproportionately more likely to live in food deserts compared to their White counterparts.
(h) Restrictive covenants in housing deeds, which were used to prohibit non-White families from owning homes, were rendered judicially unenforceable by the United States Supreme Court in 1948. California law now prohibits the enforcement of such covenants and requires their identification and disavowal in property records.
(i) In 2023, the State of California declared that every human being has the right to access sufficient affordable and healthy food, affirming the state’s responsibility to remove barriers that prevent Californians from obtaining affordable and healthy food.
(j) It is therefore a matter of statewide concern to eliminate private land use restrictions that impede access to food. The Legislature finds that voiding restrictive covenants that prohibit or limit grocery and supermarket uses is a reasonable and necessary exercise of the state’s power to protect public health, promote equity, and advance the welfare of all Californians.
SEC. 2.
Section 714.8 is added to the Civil Code, immediately following Section 714.7, to read:714.8.
(a) This section shall be known as, and may be cited as, the Grocery Store Access Act.(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Grocery store” or “supermarket” means a retail store in this state that sells a broad range of perishable and nonperishable household food products for offsite consumption, such as fresh meat, poultry, seafood, fresh produce, dairy products, frozen foods, canned foods, dry foods, baked goods, and beverages.
(2) “Grocery store” or “supermarket” does not include either of the following:
(A) An establishment primarily engaged in retailing automotive fuels, including gasoline, diesel fuel, gasohol, or alternative fuels, in combination with a limited line of groceries, whether operated in a convenience store or food mart setting or a gasoline station setting, and whether or not the establishment also provides automotive repair services.
(B) An establishment primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of groceries generally including milk, bread, soda, and snacks, such as a convenience store or food mart, other than an establishment operating fuel pumps.
(c) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket shall be void and unenforceable against an interested party if both of the following conditions are met:
(1) A grocery store or supermarket, as defined in subdivision (b), either:
(A) Previously operated on the property and has ceased operations.
(B) Is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (i).
(2) An approved restrictive covenant modification document has been recorded in the public record as provided for in this section.
(d) (1) An interested party shall be entitled to establish that an existing restrictive covenant is unenforceable pursuant to subdivision (c) by submitting a restrictive covenant modification document pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code that modifies or removes any existing restrictive covenant language that restricts or prohibits the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket, to the extent necessary to allow the grocery store or supermarket development to proceed under the existing declaration of restrictive covenants.
(2) (A) The interested party shall submit to the county recorder a copy of the original restrictive covenant and any documents the interested party believes necessary to meet either of the conditions in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c). Those documents shall be submitted prior to, or simultaneously with, the submission of the request for recordation of the restrictive covenant modification document, and may include, but are not limited to, business license records, health department permits, Alcoholic Beverage Control Act license records, or county assessor records. The interested party shall mail, by certified mail to the current property owner, a copy of those documents, together with a copy of this section and a written explanation that the modification has been applied for recordation by the county counsel pursuant to this section. That notice shall be deemed given if it is actually received by the current property owner or if it is mailed by certified mail to the address for notice identified in the restrictive covenant. If no address for the current property owner is identified in the restrictive covenant and the interested party cannot, after reasonable diligence, ascertain a mailing address for the current property owner, the failure to provide notice under this subparagraph shall not invalidate the recordation of the modification.
(B) Before recording the restrictive covenant modification document, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12956.2 of the Government Code, the county recorder shall, within five business days of receipt, submit the documentation provided to the county recorder by the interested party pursuant to subparagraph (A) and the modification document to the county counsel for review. The county counsel shall determine whether the original restrictive covenant document restricts the property in a manner prohibited by subdivision (c), whether the interested party has submitted documents sufficient to meet either of the conditions in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), whether any notice required under this section has been provided, whether any exemption provided in subdivision (g) applies, and whether the restriction may no longer be enforced against the interested party and that the interested party may record a modification document pursuant to this section.
(C) Pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code, the county counsel shall return the documents and inform the county recorder of the county counsel’s determination within 15 days of submission to the county counsel. If the county counsel is unable to make a determination, the county counsel shall specify the documentation that is needed in order to make the determination. If the county counsel has authorized the county recorder to record the modification document, that authorization shall be noted on the face of the modification or on a cover sheet affixed thereto, and the county recorder shall notify the interested party of the county counsel’s determination without delay so that the notice described in subparagraph (D) may be given.
(D) Upon being notified that the county counsel has authorized the county recorder to record the modification document, the interested party may mail, by certified mail to anyone who the interested party knows has an interest in the property or in the restrictive covenant, a copy of the modification document, together with a copy of this section and a written explanation that the modification has been applied for and approved for recordation by the county counsel pursuant to this section. That notice shall be deemed given if the notice is actually received by the intended recipient or if the notice is mailed by certified mail both to an address for notice indicated in the restrictive covenant, if any, and to the intended recipient’s address as shown in the last equalized assessment roll, if that address reasonably can be ascertained from the assessment roll. The interested party may also publish notice pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code identifying that a modification document pursuant to this section has been submitted to the county recorder and approved for recordation by the county counsel, and that the modification document is available for public inspection in the office of the county recorder. The notice shall also identify the property by assessor’s parcel number and mailing address. If no mailing address has been assigned for the property, then the property shall be identified instead by its nearest intersection. If the interested party elects to publish notice in this manner, then notice shall be deemed given to anyone whose interest does not appear of record or for whom an address for notice does not appear of record and cannot reasonably be ascertained from the assessment roll. Notice as described in this subparagraph is optional, and failure to provide it shall not, in any manner, invalidate a restrictive covenant modification document recorded pursuant to this section.
(E) The county recorder shall not record the modification document if the county counsel finds any reason why the modification document is not appropriate under the terms of this section.
(F) A modification document shall be indexed in the same manner as the original restrictive covenant document being modified. It shall contain a recording reference to the original restrictive covenant document, in the form of a book and page or instrument number, and date of the recording. The effective date of the terms and conditions of the modification document shall be the same as the effective date of the original restrictive covenant document, subject to any intervening amendments or modifications, except to the extent modified by the recorded modification document.
(3) If an interested party causes to be recorded a modification document pursuant to this section that modifies or removes a restrictive covenant that is not authorized by this section, the county shall not incur liability for recording the document. The liability that may result from the unauthorized recordation shall be the sole responsibility of the interested party who submitted the unauthorized modification document for recordation.
(4) A restrictive covenant that was originally invalidated by this section shall become and remain enforceable while the property subject to the restrictive covenant modification is utilized in any manner that violates the terms of the restrictions required by this section.
(5) If the property is utilized in any manner that violates the terms of the restrictions required by this section, the city or county may, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, record a notice of that violation. If the interested party complies with the applicable restrictions, the interested party may apply to the agency of the city or county that recorded the notice of violation for a release of the notice of violation, and, if approved by the city or county, a release of the notice of violation may be recorded.
(6) The county recorder may charge a standard recording fee to an interested party who submits a modification document for recordation pursuant to this section.
(e) This section shall only apply to restrictive covenants that restrict or prohibit the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket.
(f) (1) Any suit filed by a party that is deemed to have been given notice as described in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), which challenges the validity of a restrictive covenant modification document pursuant to this section, shall be filed within 60 days of that notice.
(2) In any suit filed to enforce the rights provided in this section or defend against a suit filed against them, a prevailing interested party, and any successors or assigns, shall be entitled to recover, as part of any judgment, litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, provided that any judgment entered shall be limited to those costs incurred after the modification document was recorded as provided by subdivision (b).
(3) This subdivision shall not prevent the court from awarding any prevailing party litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees otherwise authorized by applicable law, including, but not limited to, subdivision (d) of Section 815.7.
(g) (1) Provided that the restrictions are otherwise compliant with all applicable laws, this section does not invalidate local building codes, fire codes, health and safety regulations, or other rules regulating commercial uses of property, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(A) The size, height, setback, or design of commercial structures.
(B) Parking, traffic circulation, loading, or access requirements.
(C) Signage, lighting, noise, or hours of operation.
(D) Health department permitting, food safety, or sanitation requirements applicable to food retail establishments.
(2) This section shall not be interpreted to authorize any use of property that is not otherwise consistent with the local general plan, zoning ordinances, and any applicable specific plan, conditional use permit, or other land use entitlement that applies to the property. Nothing in this section exempts a grocery store or supermarket from obtaining any permit, license, or approval otherwise required by state or local law.
(h) For the purpose of this section, an “interested party” shall mean any of the following:
(1) The owner or current lessee of the property.
(2) A person or entity that holds a right to acquire the property under an option agreement, purchase and sale agreement, or similar agreement.
(3) A person or entity that has submitted a complete application for a business license, conditional use permit, or other land use entitlement to a city or county for the purpose of operating a grocery store or supermarket.
(4) A party under contract to lease the property for the purpose of operating a grocery store or supermarket.
(i) This section does not apply to, and shall not be construed to invalidate or render unenforceable, any of the following:
(1) An exclusive-use provision, radius restriction, or similar covenant contained in a lease or sublease between a landlord and a tenant, to the extent that the provision restricts the landlord from leasing other premises within the same commercial project or shopping center to a competing grocery store or supermarket, provided that at least one grocery store or supermarket, as defined in subdivision (b), is in actual operation within the commercial project or shopping center at the time enforcement of the provision is sought.
(2) A covenant or restriction that limits the number of grocery store or supermarket tenants within a single commercial project or shopping center, but does not prohibit all grocery store or supermarket use of the property, provided that at least one grocery store or supermarket is in actual operation within the commercial project or shopping center at the time enforcement of the provision is sought.
(3) A restriction agreed to by a governmental entity as part of a development agreement, disposition and development agreement, or similar public land use entitlement, to the extent it regulates the mix or density of retail uses within a specific development.
(4) A covenant, condition, or restriction that relates to purely aesthetic objective design standards, fees or assessments for the maintenance of common areas, or other obligations that do not have the purpose or effect of prohibiting or restricting the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket.
(j) The invalidity or unenforceability of any restrictive covenant pursuant to this section shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions of the instrument in which the restrictive covenant is contained. All such remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
(k) This section shall not be interpreted to modify, weaken, or invalidate existing laws protecting affordable and fair housing and prohibiting unlawful discrimination in the provision of housing, or any applicable zoning, building, or land use regulation of a city, county, or city and county.
SEC. 3.
Section 714.8.1 is added to the Civil Code, to read:714.8.1.
(a) (1) Beginning on January 1, 2027, no person or entity shall create or record any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, lease, or other recorded or unrecorded instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the use of that property as a grocery store or supermarket if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.(2) A grocery store or supermarket, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 714.8, either:
(A) Previously operated on the property and has ceased operations.
(B) Is no longer in actual operation within a commercial project or shopping center pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b).
(b) This section does not apply to, and shall not be construed to invalidate or render unenforceable, any of the following:
(1) An exclusive-use provision, radius restriction, or similar covenant contained in a lease or sublease between a landlord and a tenant, to the extent that the provision restricts the landlord from leasing other premises within the same commercial project or shopping center to a competing grocery store or supermarket, provided that at least one grocery store or supermarket, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 714.8, is in actual operation within the commercial project or shopping center at the time enforcement of the provision is sought.
(2) A covenant or restriction that limits the number of grocery store or supermarket tenants within a single commercial project or shopping center, but does not prohibit all grocery store or supermarket use of the property, provided that at least one grocery store or supermarket is in actual operation within the commercial project or shopping center at the time enforcement of the provision is sought.
(3) A restriction agreed to by a governmental entity as part of a development agreement, disposition and development agreement, or similar public land use entitlement, to the extent it regulates the mix or density of retail uses within a specific development.
(4) A covenant, condition, or restriction that relates to purely aesthetic objective design standards, fees or assessments for the maintenance of common areas, or other obligations that do not have the purpose or effect of prohibiting or restricting the use of the property as a grocery store or supermarket.
SEC. 4.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.Text of AB 1857 as chaptered, from the official record. Connect Plus keeps every version and highlights what changed.Compare versions