AB 671 creates a voluntary, expedited pathway for interior tenant-improvement (TI) permits for restaurants by allowing applicants to engage a “qualified professional certifier” to attest that plans meet applicable building, health, and safety codes. Local building departments must accept these certifications, decide the permit within a short statutory window or let it be deemed approved, and perform post-issuance audits.
The law shifts regulatory risk: certifiers face disciplinary exposure and civil liability for negligent reviews, applicants must indemnify local agencies, and local governments retain audit and enforcement responsibilities plus limited authority to impose local registration, training, or penalties. The measure aims to speed openings for small restaurants, but it reshapes who bears review risk and how local oversight is resourced.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes applicants to hire a licensed architect or engineer to certify that restaurant TI plans comply with all applicable codes; local building departments must approve or deny certified applications quickly or the plans are deemed approved for permitting.
Who It Affects
Small and independent restaurant operators seeking TI permits, licensed architects and engineers who may serve as certifiers, and city or county building and health enforcement agencies that must audit certified projects and adopt local implementation rules if desired.
Why It Matters
It formalizes private certification as an alternative to conventional municipal plan checks, creates new insurance and liability expectations for certifiers, and imposes audit and indemnity mechanics that change where legal and financial risk sits in the permit pipeline.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute establishes a new, optional route for tenant improvements inside existing buildings when the project is a restaurant (excluding defined fast food and other categories specified elsewhere). Rather than waiting for a full municipal plan check, an applicant may hire a qualified professional certifier — an architect or engineer who meets the law’s experience and insurance criteria — to review and certify that the submitted plans and specifications comply with the applicable building, health, and safety standards in effect at application time.
The certification must be supported by affidavits executed under penalty of perjury.
Once a complete application with required affidavits is filed, the local building department has a limited, ministerial role: it must approve or deny the application within 20 business days; failing that, the certified plan is deemed approved for permitting purposes (provided fees and documents are in). If the department denies the initial complete submission, the applicant may correct only the deficiencies identified and resubmit; each resubmission must be decided within 10 business days and the review is limited to the stated deficiencies.The law builds in post-issuance oversight rather than an extended pre-issuance plan check.
Local building departments must randomly audit a minimum of 20 percent of certified tenant-improvement submissions each week. Audits begin within five business days after permit issuance and must trigger a plan check correction notice within 10 business days if auditors find material noncompliance.
Separate mandatory construction inspections — fire, structural, health, and others — remain required during and after construction.Accountability is split. The statute makes false statements in certification grounds for discipline by the relevant licensing board and declares certifiers civilly liable for damages from negligent plan review.
Applicants must indemnify the local agency for property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the program. The statute also shields public entities and employees from liability for discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to issuing or denying permits under this chapter.
Cities and counties may add local registration, training, fees (to cover reasonable implementation costs), and penalties — including decertification or fines — for certifiers operating in that jurisdiction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A “qualified professional certifier” must be a licensed architect or professional engineer with at least five years’ commercial building design or plan-review experience and carry professional liability insurance of at least $2,000,000 per occurrence.
Local building departments must approve or deny a complete certified TI permit application within 20 business days, and if they fail to do so the certified plan is deemed approved for permitting purposes.
If an initial application is denied, the applicant may resubmit corrected plans limited to the cited deficiencies; the department’s review of each resubmission is limited to those deficiencies and must conclude within 10 business days.
Local building departments must audit no less than 20% of all certified tenant-improvement submissions per week, start audits within five business days after permit issuance, and issue a plan check correction notice within 10 business days if the audit finds material noncompliance.
The bill makes certifiers civilly liable for negligent plan review, permits disciplinary action (including for false certification), requires applicants to indemnify local agencies for damages, and concurrently limits public-entity liability for discretionary or ministerial acts under this chapter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
False certification as disciplinary ground for architects
Adds a standalone provision making any false statement in a certification submission under the new chapter grounds for disciplinary action by the California Architects Board. Practically, architects acting as certifiers now face board discipline specifically tied to these certifications in addition to existing professional standards.
Amendment: false certification as disciplinary ground for engineers
Expands the Board for Professional Engineers’ disciplinary grounds to include false statements made by licensees serving as qualified professional certifiers under the new chapter. This mirrors the architects’ provision and integrates certification misconduct into the engineer licensure enforcement regime.
Findings and definitions
The chapter opens with legislative findings that frame restaurant TIs as a statewide economic concern and defines key terms: ‘qualified professional certifier’ (architect or engineer with 5+ years’ experience and $2M per-occurrence insurance), ‘restaurant’ (retail food establishment that is not a defined fast food outlet), and ‘tenant improvement’ (interior changes to existing buildings). These definitions set the eligibility boundaries for the program and the baseline professional qualifications required to participate.
Certification pathway, affidavit requirements, and expedited timelines
Authorizes local building departments, upon applicant request and at the applicant’s expense, to accept a certification from a qualified professional certifier that plans comply with applicable building, health, and safety codes. The certifier must submit an affidavit under penalty of perjury; an additional affidavit must attest that the project fits the statutory restaurant/TI definitions. The department must decide within 20 business days or the plan is deemed approved. If denied, resubmissions are limited to identified deficiencies and must be decided within 10 business days.
Post-issuance audits, inspections, and scope limits
Requires local building departments to randomly audit at least 20% of certified TI submissions each week, initiate audits within five business days after permit issuance, and provide a correction notice within 10 business days if material noncompliance is found. The statute preserves mandatory construction inspections (fire, structural, health, etc.) and clarifies it does not limit local health department authority; it also excludes certain TIs already subject to Retail Food Code Article 1 review from this chapter.
Discipline, local controls, and fees
Directs licensing boards to treat false statements in certifications as discipline-triggering conduct and explicitly permits cities or counties to adopt additional qualifications, registration, training requirements, fees (not exceeding reasonable implementation costs), and penalties — including local decertification or fines — for certifiers. Local building departments may continue to charge ordinary permit fees.
Liability allocation and indemnity
Places civil liability for negligent plan review squarely on the qualified professional certifier, requires applicants to indemnify the local agency for property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under this chapter, and, notwithstanding a referenced Government Code section, bars liability for public entities and employees for discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions related to issuance or denial of permits under this program. This reallocates financial responsibility away from local agencies toward private certifiers and applicants.
Conforming Retail Food Code amendment: deemed approvals and resubmissions
Adds a parallel procedure to the California Retail Food Code for tenant-improvement plans for restaurants: plans are deemed approved for permitting purposes if not approved or denied within 20 business days; denied plans may be corrected and resubmitted, with each resubmission limited to the original deficiencies and decided within 10 business days. This aligns health-plan approval timing with the Building Code pathway created in the Government Code.
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 small restaurant proprietors — faster permitting and the ability to control timing by hiring private certifiers can reduce hold-ups and costs associated with long municipal plan-check queues.
- Licensed architects and professional engineers with commercial experience — new fee-generating work as qualified professional certifiers and discretion to manage plan-review workflow subject to local allowances.
- Some local building departments — potential to reduce pre-issuance review workload and shift resource allocation toward targeted audits and inspections instead of full plan checks for every TI.
Who Bears the Cost
- Qualified professional certifiers — must meet insurance and experience thresholds and face civil liability for negligent plan review and disciplinary exposure for false certifications, likely increasing professional risk and insurance costs.
- Applicants (restaurant owners/tenants) — pay for certifier services and may face indemnity obligations to protect local agencies from claims, shifting financial exposure to the project sponsor.
- Local agencies — must stand up audit programs (20% weekly minimum), track certifications, issue correction notices on a tight schedule, and manage potential political and legal fallout from deemed approvals—tasks that require staff time and administrative coordination.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 671 forces a trade-off between speed and centralized public oversight: it accelerates restaurant openings by substituting private, insured certifiers for lengthy municipal plan checks, but doing so transfers inspection risk and enforcement burdens to certifiers and applicants and depends on resource-intensive post-issuance audits to protect public safety—a design that benefits economic actors seeking speed while creating new costs and liability for private professionals and administrative burdens for local governments.
The statute reallocates pre-issuance review toward private professionals while relying on local governments for frequent post-issuance audits; that design presumes municipalities have the staffing and data systems to reliably run 20% weekly random audits and to act quickly on correction notices. In practice, smaller jurisdictions may find the audit burden administratively and fiscally heavy even though the bill permits them to charge fees to cover reasonable costs.
The indemnity and civil-liability structure shifts significant risk to private certifiers and applicants, which may raise professional-liability insurance premiums and increase the cost to reopen or remodel for smaller operators.
The bill’s interaction with CEQA and other environmental review is ambiguous in practice. The legislative digest discusses CEQA applicability for discretionary approvals, but the codified sections do not explicitly create a CEQA exemption; that gap could lead to litigation over whether certain certified approvals were ministerial and therefore CEQA-exempt.
Similarly, the chapter excludes tenant improvements already subject to Retail Food Code Article 1 review, but the boundary between those projects and projects eligible for certification may be fact-specific and contentious. Finally, allowing local jurisdictions to adopt different registration, training, or decertification rules risks a patchwork of standards that undermines the bill’s goal of statewide consistency despite the express finding that the matter is of statewide concern.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.