AB 1693 authorizes local building departments to accept certification of tenant-improvement plans for retail establishments from a "qualified professional certifier" (a licensed architect or professional engineer meeting experience and insurance thresholds) at the applicant’s expense. The bill sets a 20-business-day clock for local review, creates a deemed-approval if the department fails to act, and requires random audits of certified plans.
This changes who can legally vouch that interior work complies with building, health, and safety codes and adds audit-and-discipline mechanisms while permitting cities and counties to add registration, training, and fees. The goal is faster store openings and reduced backlog for retail build-outs, but it shifts compliance front-line responsibility onto private professionals and creates new administrative tasks for local governments and oversight boards.
At a Glance
What It Does
Allows applicants for retail tenant-improvement permits to hire a licensed architect or engineer to certify that plans comply with applicable building, health, and safety codes; establishes a 20-business-day local review deadline and a deemed-approval rule if the local department does not act. Requires weekly random audits of certified projects.
Who It Affects
Independent and family-owned retailers, commercial landlords and tenants doing interior build-outs, licensed architects and professional engineers who may provide certifications, and local building departments responsible for audits and limited reviews.
Why It Matters
Shifts primary plan-review responsibility from municipal plan checkers to private certifiers for qualifying retail projects, promising speed at the potential cost of shifting enforcement burden and altering liability dynamics for professionals, applicants, and local governments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a narrowly scoped alternative pathway for interior build-outs of retail spaces. It defines a "qualified professional certifier" as a California-licensed architect or professional engineer with at least five years’ commercial experience and minimum professional liability insurance of $2 million per occurrence.
An applicant seeking a permit for a retailer’s tenant improvement may request that the local building department accept a certification from such a professional that the plans and specifications comply with all applicable state and local building, health, and safety codes.
When certification is used, the certifier must sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury affirming compliance; a second affidavit must confirm that the tenant is a retailer as defined in the bill. Once a complete application with those affidavits is filed, the local building department has 20 business days to approve or deny.
If the department does not act in that window, the certified plan is automatically deemed approved for permitting purposes (assuming fees and documents are in order). If the department denies the initial submission within 20 days, applicants may resubmit corrected plans; further reviews are limited to the deficiencies noted and must be resolved within 10 business days per resubmission.To preserve public-safety oversight, every local building department must randomly audit at least 20 percent of certified tenant-improvement submissions each week.
Audits must start within five business days after permit issuance and include a plan review for compliance; material noncompliance discovered in an audit triggers a plan-check correction notice within 10 business days of audit initiation. Certification does not replace required construction inspections (for example, fire, structural, or health checks) during or after construction.
The bill also names disciplinary remedies: false certification can lead to action by the California Architects Board or the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists.Finally, the measure preserves local control to an extent: cities and counties may adopt ordinances that add registries, training prerequisites, reasonable fees (to cover implementation costs), and local penalties — including the power to decertify or fine a certifier in that jurisdiction for willful noncompliance or repeated false attestations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A qualifying certifier must be a California-licensed architect or professional engineer with at least five years’ commercial building experience and minimum professional liability insurance of $2,000,000 per occurrence.
Local building departments must approve or deny certified retail tenant-improvement applications within 20 business days; if they fail to act the certified plan is deemed approved for permitting purposes.
If an initial application is denied within the 20-day period, applicants can resubmit corrected plans and the department’s review of subsequent resubmissions is limited to the originally identified deficiencies and must conclude within 10 business days.
Each local building department must randomly audit no less than 20% of certified tenant-improvement submissions per week, with audits initiated within five business days after permit issuance and correction notices issued within 10 business days if material noncompliance is found.
Cities and counties may require certifier registration, training, and fees not exceeding reasonable implementation costs, and may impose local penalties including decertification for willful noncompliance or two instances of attesting to noncompliant plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on retail importance and need for expedited review
This opening section states the Legislature’s reasons for the change: retailers are economically and culturally important and existing plan-review delays can harm them. It explicitly links AB 1693 to a prior expedited-review statute for restaurants (Chapter 470 of 2025), signaling legislative intent to replicate a similar acceleration model for retail tenant improvements.
Definitions – who and what qualify
Defines three critical terms: "qualified professional certifier" (licensed architect or engineer with ≥5 years’ commercial experience and at least $2M per-occurrence liability insurance), "retailer" (entity making direct retail sales to the public), and "tenant improvement" (interior change to an existing building). These definitions set the eligibility gate for the alternative review route and limit it to interior retail build-outs rather than new construction or nonretail work.
Certification pathway, affidavits, and timed reviews
Permits a local building department, upon applicant request, to accept a certifier’s statement that plans comply with applicable codes. The certifier must submit an affidavit under penalty of perjury; a second affidavit must confirm the occupant qualifies as a retailer. The statute creates a 20-business-day deadline for local action and a deemed-approval rule if that deadline is missed, while limiting subsequent plan checks to identified deficiencies and setting a 10-business-day window for each resubmission review.
Random audits and retained inspection requirements
Mandates random audits of at least 20% of certified submissions weekly and requires audits to begin soon after permit issuance (within five business days). Audits involve plan review for code compliance; if auditors find material noncompliance, the department must issue a correction notice within 10 business days. Importantly, the bill clarifies that certification does not eliminate mandatory on-site construction inspections (fire, structural, health), preserving traditional field oversight.
Professional discipline for false statements
Specifies that false statements in certifications are grounds for discipline by the relevant state licensing board: the California Architects Board for architects and the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists for engineers. The provision ties statutory penalties to existing professional regulatory frameworks rather than creating a new enforcement body.
Local authority to impose additional requirements
Grants cities and counties express authority to add jurisdiction-specific requirements — such as mandatory registration, training prerequisites, and fees limited to the reasonable cost of implementation — and to impose penalties including local decertification or administrative fines for willful noncompliance or repeated false attestations. That preserves a measure of municipal control but also allows a patchwork of local prerequisites and charges.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Independent and family-owned retailers: Faster permit turnaround and an alternate review pathway can shorten vacancy time and accelerate revenue generation for small retail tenants and new entrepreneurs.
- Commercial landlords and property managers: Quicker tenant improvements reduce lease-up periods and carrying costs for retail spaces, improving asset utilization and return on investment.
- Licensed architects and professional engineers: Creates a new revenue stream for private certifiers who meet the experience and insurance thresholds and are willing to assume certification liability.
- Contractors and fit-out firms: Reduced plan-check back-and-forth can speed project schedules and lower holding costs during tenant improvement projects.
- Municipal plan-check operations (in theory): The option to accept private certifications can reduce backlog pressure by allowing local staff to focus on audits and higher-risk projects rather than routine plan checks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants/retailers: Must pay for a qualified professional certifier and may face additional expenses if certifications are audited and corrections are required.
- Qualified professional certifiers: Face increased professional liability risk and the cost of meeting the $2M per-occurrence insurance minimum, plus potential reputational, disciplinary, or local decertification consequences.
- Local building departments: Must run weekly random audits (at least 20% of submissions), manage shortened review windows, issue timely correction notices, and administer local registration or training programs if adopted.
- Small or resource-constrained jurisdictions: Even though the bill permits local fees, smaller cities and counties may still face administrative burdens implementing audits, registries, and enforcement without upfront staffing or systems.
- State licensing boards: Will likely see increased demands for investigations and disciplinary proceedings when audits or complaints allege false or negligent certifications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is speed versus public oversight: AB 1693 aims to accelerate retail tenant build-outs by trusting private, insured professionals to certify code compliance, but that speed comes at the cost of shifting much of the pre-construction verification burden away from public plan checkers — raising questions about audit sufficiency, variable local standards, and who ultimately bears the financial and safety risks if a certified plan proves noncompliant.
AB 1693 reallocates the front line of plan compliance from municipal reviewers to private professionals while relying on a modest audit regime and professional-discipline tools to preserve safety. That model raises practical implementation questions: will a 20% weekly audit rate detect enough problems to deter poor certifications, and do local departments have the staff, technical capacity, and funding to run consistent audits and follow up on corrections?
The bill allows local fees to cover costs, but smaller jurisdictions may still struggle during the initial transition.
The deemed-approval trigger is a powerful expediter for applicants, but it also creates risk if a local office is backlogged or an audit program lags; automatic approval removes the immediate administrative gatekeeping that traditionally prevents construction on deficient plans. The bill relies heavily on professional-liability insurance and licensing-board discipline as backstops, but those mechanisms operate after the fact and may not substitute for pre-construction safeguards.
The measure also leaves gaps around civil liability and remediation steps when material noncompliance is discovered post-issuance (for example, whether municipalities or owners retain indemnities, bonding, or stop-work authority beyond standard inspection-related remedies).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.