AB 851 prohibits unsolicited offers to buy residential property in a set of Los Angeles and Ventura County ZIP codes affected by recent wildfires and requires a written attestation, signed by buyer and seller, before title transfers. The attestation must be attached to the recorded deed and is meant to create a documentary record that the sale was not the product of an unsolicited solicitation.
The bill gives state and local prosecutors enforcement authority, authorizes civil and criminal penalties, and permits sellers to cancel contracts entered into in violation. The measure targets opportunistic outreach to vulnerable owners after disasters and forces changes to how buyers, agents, escrow officers, and recorders document and close sales in the designated neighborhoods.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars unsolicited purchase solicitations in specified ZIP codes and requires buyer and seller to sign a written attestation, which the buyer must attach when recording the deed. It creates enforcement options for state and local prosecutors and sanctions for violators, including licensing consequences for real estate licensees.
Who It Affects
Owners and prospective buyers of residential property in the listed ZIP codes, investors and wholesalers who solicit off‑market purchases, licensed real estate professionals whose outreach could trigger licensing violations, and title/recording offices that will handle attestation attachments.
Why It Matters
By mandating a recorded attestation and civil/criminal penalties, the bill aims to deter predatory, post‑disaster solicitations and produce evidence trails for enforcement. That documentary requirement will change closing checklists and may chill certain outreach strategies that previously relied on unsolicited contact.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 851 creates a narrow but strict rule: in the listed Los Angeles and Ventura ZIP codes, people may not make unsolicited offers to buy residential real estate. The statute defines “unsolicited offer” broadly to include offers communicated by text, email, phone, mail, or “other means,” but it exempts offers made where there is a public indication that the owner is willing to sell (for example, an MLS listing, a for‑sale sign, or a print flyer) and it preserves offers made before the law took effect.
Before title transfers, the buyer and seller must sign a written attestation stating the purchase agreement was not the product of an unsolicited offer. That attestation creates a rebuttable legal presumption favoring the seller — that the accepted offer was solicited — unless someone proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
The buyer must attach the signed attestation to the deed or other conveyance when recording the transfer. The statute clarifies that failing to attach the attestation does not undo the deed’s normal constructive notice or protections for a subsequent bona fide purchaser.The bill gives enforcement authority to the Attorney General and to local public law officers (county counsel, city attorney, or district attorney).
It allows a seller whose contract violated the prohibition to cancel the agreement within a statutory window. The statute also provides civil penalties, criminal misdemeanor exposure, and declares that a licensed real estate professional who makes a written offer in violation will have also violated their licensing law — opening the door to licensing discipline in addition to civil or criminal liability.Practically, the measure forces changes to transactional workflow: escrow officers, title companies, and buyers must ensure the attestation is signed and attached at recording; real estate licensees must retool outreach to avoid crossing the ban; and prosecutors must develop standards for proving an unsolicited approach versus an accepted solicitation.
The bill includes standard legal safety valves — a severability clause and a limited operability and repeal schedule — so its duration and interaction with other laws are explicitly set in the text.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The attestation signed by buyer and seller gives rise to a presumption that the accepted offer was solicited unless someone overcomes that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
The buyer must record the signed attestation as an attachment to the deed or other conveyance when recording title; failure to attach the attestation does not affect constructive notice or the rights of a subsequent bona fide purchaser.
A seller may cancel a purchase agreement entered into in violation of the statute at any time until four months after the date the contract was executed.
Violations expose the offender to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation and to criminal misdemeanor penalties (up to $1,000 fine or up to six months imprisonment); remedies in the statute are nonexclusive.
“Unsolicited offer” covers communications by text, email, telephone, mail, or other means, and the statute exempts offers where there is a public indication the owner is selling (MLS/listing, a for‑sale sign, or a print/flyer advertisement) and offers made before the law took effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on unsolicited purchase offers in specified ZIP codes
This subsection states the core ban: a person shall not make an unsolicited offer to purchase residential real property within the enumerated ZIP codes. The provision is geographically narrow — the ban applies only to the listed ZIP codes — and sets the scope for all other obligations in the bill. For compliance, anyone doing outreach must first determine whether the target property sits in one of those ZIP codes.
Buyer–seller attestation, presumption, and recording
Before title transfers, buyer and seller must execute a written attestation that the purchase agreement was not entered into as a result of an unsolicited offer. The attestation creates a presumption that the accepted offer was solicited unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The buyer must record the attestation as an attachment to the deed or conveyance; the statute also clarifies that failure to attach does not negate constructive notice or impair bona fide purchaser protections. This subsection is the bill’s operational core: it both produces documentary evidence and defines the evidentiary posture for disputes.
Licensing consequences for covered written offers
A person licensed under Division 4 (real estate licensing) who makes a written offer on their own behalf or while conducting licensed activity in violation of the ban is deemed to have violated their licensing law. That creates a parallel enforcement pathway: license enforcement (discipline, fines, revocation) can proceed alongside civil or criminal actions, exposing licensees to multiple sanctions for the same conduct.
Enforcement, seller rescission, and penalties
The Attorney General, a county counsel, city attorney, or district attorney may bring civil actions to enforce the statute. Subdivision (e) gives sellers a time‑limited rescission right: they may cancel a purchase agreement entered into in violation until four months after contract execution. The subsection also establishes a civil penalty (up to $25,000 per violation), criminal misdemeanor liability (fine up to $1,000 and/or up to six months imprisonment), and states that these remedies are nonexclusive — meaning they can be pursued alongside other legal remedies.
Definitions and exceptions
The statute defines “person” broadly to include business entities and defines “unsolicited offer to purchase” to cover communications by text, email, phone, mail, or other means. Two exceptions narrow the reach: an offer is not “unsolicited” if, at or before the offer, a public indication exists that the owner is willing to sell (examples: MLS listing, for‑sale sign, or printed advertisement/flyer), or if the offer predates the statute’s enactment. Those exceptions are fact‑driven and will be central to any enforcement or defense strategy.
Severability, operability, and repeal
The bill includes a standard severability clause so that invalidation of one part does not necessarily undo the rest. It also sets the statute to become operative 30 days after the act’s effective date and includes an explicit repeal date for the article. These scheduling provisions shape the statute’s practical lifespan and the timeframe for compliance and enforcement planning.
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
- Homeowners in the listed ZIP codes — the attestation, presumption, and rescission right give sellers a procedural shield against opportunistic off‑market solicitations during a period of heightened vulnerability.
- Local public prosecutors and consumer protection offices — the statute supplies a clear statutory hook for enforcement actions and private remedies that public lawyers can use to pursue predatory buyers.
- Community and recovery organizations — by constraining unsolicited purchase campaigns, the law reduces pressure on displaced or distressed owners who might otherwise accept below‑market offers during recovery.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investors, wholesalers, and buyers who rely on off‑market solicitations — they must stop or substantially alter outreach practices in the targeted ZIP codes and face significant civil and criminal exposure if they violate the ban.
- Licensed real estate brokers and agents conducting outbound marketing — the statute can trigger licensing discipline if a covered written offer violates the ban, forcing changes in solicitation and lead‑generation workflows.
- Title companies, escrow officers, and county recording offices — they will need to accept and attach attestations, adjust closing checklists, and may face additional operational burdens or disputes when an attestation’s presumption is challenged.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting vulnerable wildfire‑affected owners from opportunistic, unsolicited buyout solicitations and preserving an open market where buyers and licensed professionals can lawfully solicit, negotiate, and transact; the bill’s recorded‑attestation approach protects sellers but does so by placing documentary and legal burdens on buyers, licensees, and the closing process, with unresolved questions about proof, enforcement overlap, and circumvention.
The law combines a bright‑line geographic ban with an evidentiary device (the recorded attestation) to discourage predatory solicitation, but the mechanics create important implementation questions. The attestation’s presumption in favor of the seller shifts the burden onto an alleged violator to rebut with clear and convincing evidence — a high standard — yet the statute leaves open how courts will evaluate common factual scenarios (for example, where the seller previously discussed selling with a neighbor or shared a social media post).
That gap could produce expensive discovery fights and fact‑intensive litigation about whether a communication was truly “unsolicited.”
Administrative friction is likely. The buyer bears the recording duty, but the statute explicitly preserves bona fide purchaser protections even if the attestation is not attached; that creates a split between documentary policy (attach the attestation) and practical title risk (rights remain intact).
Escrow and title workflows must absorb the attestation step, including settling on a standard form and deciding who confirms the attestation’s truth. Parallel enforcement routes — civil penalties, criminal misdemeanor exposure, and licensing actions — create overlapping sanctions that regulators and prosecutors must coordinate to avoid duplicative punishment or inconsistent outcomes.
Finally, the statute’s geographic precision invites circumvention risks (targeting adjacent ZIP codes) and raises equity questions about why relief is limited to the listed areas rather than tied to objective measures of disaster impact.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.