AB 2320 redirects appropriated funds intended for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness who are medically vulnerable from COVID-19 or other communicable diseases into the Multifamily Housing Program and explicitly authorizes adaptive reuse as an eligible category. The bill broadens the list of allowable activities—acquisition, conversion of nonresidential buildings, master leasing, new construction, capitalized operating subsidies, and purchasing affordability covenants—and empowers the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to set program guidelines.
The measure prioritizes speed and flexibility: it deems projects funded under the section consistent with local plans and shields HCD’s guidelines from the state’s usual rulemaking process. That approach is designed to accelerate conversions of hotels, motels, and other structures into permanent or interim housing, but it also shifts key choices about eligibility, timelines, and oversight to state-level guidance.
At a Glance
What It Does
Makes funds for medically vulnerable people experiencing or at risk of homelessness available through the Multifamily Housing Program and expands eligible project types to include conversion, acquisition, master leasing, and—starting January 1, 2027—adaptive reuse. It authorizes capitalized operating subsidies and allows grants to a wide set of public entities.
Who It Affects
State and local housing agencies, cities and counties, councils of government, MPOs, developers and owners of hotels/motels/commercial properties, and service providers that operate noncongregate and permanent supportive housing.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces local discretionary review with state-level presumptive approval and creates a fast-track financing channel for converting nonresidential buildings into housing—shifting both control and risk toward HCD while changing cost controls and reporting expectations for sponsored projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill channels money appropriated for housing medically vulnerable people who are homeless or at risk into the Multifamily Housing Program and spells out a broad menu of uses. HCD may award funds as grants to cities, counties, joint agencies (including councils of government and metropolitan planning organizations), and other public entities for acquisition or rehabilitation of motels, hotels, hostels, apartments, adult residential facilities, residential care facilities for the elderly, manufactured housing, commercial properties, and other buildings that can be converted to housing.
The statute also authorizes master leasing, conversion of nonresidential units to residential, new construction, purchase of affordability covenants, relocation payments for people displaced by rehab, and capitalized operating subsidies.
Adaptive reuse is explicitly added as an eligible category for awards made on or after January 1, 2027. The bill defines adaptive reuse as retrofitting and repurposing existing buildings to create new residential rental units and makes two clarifications: it excludes projects that merely rehabilitate existing residential units, and it allows adaptive reuse of hotels or motels only when they are not currently serving as residences or when they are Project Homekey sites.
The measure treats adaptive reuse as a distinct category and exempts those projects from any per‑unit cost caps that would otherwise apply.To guide allocations, the bill instructs HCD to consider geographic need, an applicant’s ability to fund ongoing operating reserves, the creation of permanent housing, and the potential for leveraging state, federal, or local funds for capitalized operating reserves. HCD may operate a continuous, over‑the‑counter application and award process until funding is exhausted.
The statute sets hard deadlines for expenditure and completion tied to the award date, creates a process for applicants to request extensions subject to director discretion, and requires HCD to include detailed metrics in its annual report to the Legislature about spending, unit production, locations, numbers housed, capitalized subsidies, decision metrics, and lessons learned.Two features materially change how projects are approved and overseen. First, any project using these funds is deemed consistent with applicable local plans and zoning and is not subject to conditional use permits or other discretionary local approvals.
Second, HCD may adopt expenditure and administration guidelines that are exempt from the state’s Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 of the Government Code), allowing the department to issue rules without the normal notice-and-comment procedures. The bill also authorizes limited administrative spending: up to 5 percent of ARPA funds and up to 5 percent of General Fund money appropriated under this section may be used for program administration, as federal law permits.
Finally, HCD’s guidelines may expand the population served beyond the federal homeless definitions named in the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires that at least 8% of these funds be available specifically for projects serving homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness (per 24 CFR 578.3).
Projects funded under this section are treated as a permitted use and are exempt from local conditional use permits, discretionary permits, and other local discretionary reviews.
HCD’s expenditure and program guidelines for this funding are exempted from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5, Section 11340 et seq.), allowing the department to adopt them without standard state rulemaking procedures.
Up to 5% of ARPA funds and up to 5% of any General Fund monies appropriated for this section may be used to cover program administration costs, subject to federal authorization for ARPA funds.
Adaptive reuse is defined to exclude projects that rehabilitate existing residential units, may include nonresidential hotels/motels and Project Homekey sites, and is singled out as a separate project category that is not subject to per‑unit cost caps.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Eligible uses and eligible applicants
Lists the universe of activities HCD may fund under the Multifamily Housing Program for medically vulnerable homeless or at‑risk populations: acquisition and rehabilitation of a wide range of property types (hotels, motels, hostels, apartments, adult residential facilities, RCFEs, manufactured housing, commercial buildings), master leasing for noncongregate housing, conversion from nonresidential to residential uses, new construction, purchasing affordability covenants, relocation costs arising from rehabilitation, and capitalized operating subsidies. It also expands eligible grantees beyond cities and counties to include regional and local public entities such as councils of government and MPOs, increasing who may apply and receive awards.
Allocation priorities and underwriting considerations
Directs HCD to, where possible, allocate funds with attention to geographic need, the applicant’s ability to fund operating reserves, creating new permanent housing, and the potential to leverage other state, federal or local funding for capitalized operating reserves. These criteria push HCD to balance equity across regions against project financial sustainability and leveraging potential when setting priorities.
Youth set‑aside
Mandates that no less than 8 percent of the funds be available for projects serving homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness, tying part of the allocation explicitly to that subpopulation and signaling a directed policy priority within the broader program.
Guidelines, APA exemption, and administrative spending
Authorizes HCD to adopt program guidelines for spending and administration and explicitly exempts those guidelines from Chapter 3.5 (the state’s Administrative Procedure Act), allowing the department to issue and change rules without the normal notice-and-comment process. The section also authorizes using up to 5 percent of ARPA funds and up to 5 percent of General Fund appropriations for program administration, subject to federal law limitations on ARPA money.
Reporting requirements
Requires HCD’s annual report to include quantitative and qualitative data: amounts spent by use, property locations, number of usable housing units produced or planned, number of individuals housed or likely to be housed, units with capitalized operating subsidies and their locations, an explanation of funding decisions and metrics used, lessons learned, and proposed program changes. Reports must comply with the state’s standard reporting format under Section 9795.
Preemption of local discretionary review
Declares that any project using these funds is consistent with local plans and zoning, is an allowed use in the zoning where located, and is not subject to conditional use permits, discretionary permits, or other discretionary approvals. This creates a statewide fast‑track for funded projects and limits local land‑use leverage over these conversions.
Timelines, definitions, and adaptive reuse treatment
Sets application and award mechanics (continuous over‑the‑counter application) and prescribes spending and completion deadlines tied to award dates: awards before July 1, 2026 must be expended within eight months; awards on or after July 1, 2026 must meet construction completion and capital/occupancy deadlines (24 months for new construction, gap financing, and adaptive reuse; 14–15 months for other projects, with slight differences between construction and occupancy deadlines). Applicants may request extensions under guidelines; the director has discretion to approve after a full review. The statute defines adaptive reuse (retrofit/repurpose to create new rental units, excluding rehabilitation of existing residential units), allows inclusion of certain hotel/motel and Project Homekey sites, and treats adaptive reuse as a distinct category not subject to per‑unit cost caps.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Medically vulnerable people experiencing or at risk of homelessness — gains faster pathways into interim and permanent housing targeted at reducing communicable disease risks.
- Homeless youth — benefits from a statutory minimum allocation (at least 8% of funds) reserved for projects serving this population.
- Local and regional public agencies (cities, counties, councils of government, MPOs, RTPAs) — gain new grant-eligible program access and streamlined approval authority to sponsor projects.
- Owners/operators of hotels, motels, and other commercial buildings — receive new market for selling or converting properties into residential units through acquisition or adaptive reuse financing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Housing and Community Development — takes on expanded administrative and program design responsibilities, including implementing expedited rules and monitoring compliance with detailed reporting requirements.
- Local planning and permitting bodies — lose discretionary review authority over funded projects, reducing their ability to shape siting, conditions, or mitigation.
- State budget/fiscal managers — may need to underwrite ongoing obligations where HCD capitalizes operating subsidies and administers funds with potential extension requests and project overruns.
- Developers of traditional affordable housing subject to per‑unit cost caps — may face competitive pressure from adaptive reuse projects that are exempt from per‑unit cost limitations, affecting bidding for scarce sites and funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension in AB 2320 is between speed/flexibility to convert existing buildings into housing for medically vulnerable people and the need for oversight, cost containment, and local land‑use input; accelerating placements reduces time-to-housing but shifts fiscal and siting risks to state administrators and potentially to neighborhoods and future budgets.
The bill aggressively prioritizes speed and flexibility, but that design creates multiple implementation trade‑offs. Exempting HCD’s program guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act and preempting local discretionary review accelerates project approvals but reduces transparency, public input, and local ability to require mitigation or community benefits.
Those departures from normal processes could lead to faster placements but also invite legal challenges, community resistance, or project siting mistakes that compromise long‑term neighborhood outcomes.
Removing per‑unit cost caps for adaptive reuse and allowing capitalized operating subsidies makes marginally higher‑cost conversions feasible, but it also risks higher per‑unit expenditures and lower units produced per dollar. Tight statutory deadlines for expenditure, construction completion, and occupancy favor projects that can move quickly (simple conversions or single‑owner deals) and disadvantage complex adaptive reuse projects that require environmental remediation, seismic upgrades, or layered financing.
Finally, allowing HCD to expand the population served by guideline confers useful flexibility but raises equity questions: absent clear prioritization metrics, funds originally targeted to medically vulnerable populations could be dispersed more broadly, diluting the statute’s public‑health rationale.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.