Your city can't make you live on-site to build an ADU — and hasn't since 2024

You'll still hear that California is "about to" stop cities from requiring you to live on-site to permit an accessory dwelling unit. It already did. AB 976 banned owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs effective January 1, 2024 — this is settled law, not a pending bill.

What AB 976 did

It made the prohibition permanent by removing an earlier sunset that would have let cities reimpose owner-occupancy mandates after January 1, 2025. The rule now lives in Government Code §66315 (after a 2024 recodification of the state's ADU statutes).

No additional standards… shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.

California Government Code §66315

Why it matters if you're an investor

The practical upshot: you can build an ADU and rent out both the main house and the ADU without living on the property. That changes the math on an ADU from "housing for a family member" to a straightforward income play. A 2025 law (SB 9) extends the same owner-occupancy ban to junior ADUs with independent sanitation, effective January 1, 2026.

Some cities have been slow to update their codes — California's housing department has flagged non-compliant ADU ordinances, including Pasadena's. If a local ordinance still lists an owner-occupancy requirement, that provision is unenforceable under current state law.

Not pending. Law since 2024.

My read for clients: if a planner tells you that you have to live on-site to permit an ADU, push back — politely, with the code section in hand. And if you've been sitting on an ADU idea because you didn't want to be tied to the property, that obstacle is gone. Want me to run the numbers on a specific lot? That's exactly the kind of thing I'll dig into.