YIMBY Law has filed a lawsuit challenging a July 2025 executive order issued by Governor Gavin Newsom that allows local governments to limit or suspend SB 9 housing development in certain high fire hazard severity zones within Los Angeles burn areas.

The lawsuit comes nearly a year after devastating wildfires destroyed thousands of homes across parts of Los Angeles County, including the Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and surrounding communities. In the wake of those fires, Newsom issued an executive order granting cities and counties discretion to pause or restrict SB 9 projects in designated burn zones, citing concerns about fire safety, evacuation routes, and emergency response capacity.

SB 9, passed by the California Legislature and signed into law in 2021, was designed to modestly expand housing options in single family neighborhoods statewide. The law allows property owners on qualifying lots to split their parcels and build up to two primary homes and two accessory dwelling units on what was previously a single parcel. Supporters argue the law helps reduce regulatory barriers, increase housing supply, and create opportunities for families to build stability in high cost communities that have historically excluded anything other than large single family homes.

Following Newsom’s order, local officials moved quickly to block SB 9 projects in fire affected areas. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued an emergency order prohibiting SB 9 applications in the Pacific Palisades. Other jurisdictions, including Malibu, Pasadena, and parts of Los Angeles County, adopted similar restrictions. Local leaders defending the move said denser development could worsen future evacuations in hillside neighborhoods with narrow roads and limited access points.

YIMBY Law argues the governor’s order goes far beyond what emergency powers allow. The lawsuit contends that the California Emergency Services Act permits temporary actions to address an active disaster, not the suspension of state housing law months after fires have been extinguished. The group also argues that the executive order improperly overrides a law passed by the Legislature, raising separation of powers concerns.

According to YIMBY Law, SB 9 already includes safeguards related to public health and safety, including provisions allowing local governments to deny individual projects that would create a specific and unmitigable safety risk. The group argues that a blanket suspension is unnecessary and undermines the law’s purpose.

Housing advocates say the stakes are especially high for fire survivors who are underinsured or facing soaring construction costs. SB 9 can allow homeowners to split lots, add units for extended family, or generate rental income to help finance rebuilding. Limiting those options, they argue, risks pushing rebuilding toward larger, more expensive homes and locking out families without significant financial resources.

Opponents of SB 9 in burn areas counter that wildfire recovery presents unique challenges and that rebuilding should prioritize safety over housing density. Some residents and local officials say the chaos of recent evacuations demonstrated the limits of existing infrastructure and argue that additional units could increase risk in future fires.

The lawsuit highlights a growing tension in California between statewide housing mandates, local control, and climate driven disaster response. Governor Newsom has generally supported policies to increase housing density, but his executive order marked a notable departure from that approach in wildfire affected communities.

YIMBY Law is asking the court to invalidate the executive order and require local governments to resume processing SB 9 applications under existing state law. The case could have wide implications for how California balances emergency powers, housing policy, and equitable rebuilding as wildfires become more frequent and destructive.