AB 874 forces local governments to change how they collect development impact fees for projects that commit 100% of units to affordable households. For qualifying rental and ownership developments, the bill requires local agencies to offer either fee waivers or structured deferral loans tailored to the project type.
The proposal matters to planners, municipal finance officers, affordable-housing developers, and lenders because it shifts upfront cost barriers that often block 100%-affordable projects. It also reallocates timing and risk of fee collection, with potential consequences for local capital planning and project underwriting.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires local agencies to provide at least one option—either set impact fees to $0 or offer a deferral loan—to projects that reserve all units for income-qualified households. The statute prescribes basic loan features and repayment approaches for rental and ownership projects.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are developers building 100% affordable rental or for-sale projects, local agencies that levy impact fees, and the lenders or investors underwriting those projects. Indirectly affected are tenants, income-qualified homebuyers, and municipal capital programs relying on fee revenue.
Why It Matters
By making fee relief mandatory for a narrow class of projects, the measure changes a common local barrier to affordable housing. It forces local governments to choose between immediate revenue and tools that improve project feasibility, which could alter the pipeline and financing of affordable developments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 874 applies only to projects that reserve every unit for designated income bands defined in the Health and Safety Code; manager units for rentals are not counted toward the 100 percent requirement. For those projects the statute removes local discretion to simply continue existing fee practices: agencies must offer developers at least one of two relief options.
The rental and ownership tracks are carved differently to reflect typical financing and resale dynamics.
For rental projects the bill contemplates a long-term deferred-fee loan tied to the project’s cash flow. The statute says repayment may be structured using a residual receipts method substantially consistent with the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Uniform Multifamily Regulations.
That approach means repayments come from project cash flow after operating expenses and reserves rather than fixed monthly payments, which aligns the obligation with the economics of subsidized rental housing but also requires ongoing accounting and monitoring by the fee-collecting agency.For ownership projects the bill spreads the fee relief across income-qualified homebuyers: the local agency’s deferred-fee loan is allocated on a per-unit basis and becomes payable either at resale or at the loan term’s end. That structure is aimed at protecting initial affordability while creating a mechanism to recover fees when the home exits the income-qualified status.
In both tracks the statute caps interest and fixes maximum loan durations, thereby limiting carrying costs for developers and homebuyers but also extending the period during which the agency holds a repayment claim.The measure narrowly defines "development impact fee," excluding fees for code enforcement, inspections, and certain education-related levies, so those charges remain collectible under existing law. The text also expressly operates "notwithstanding Section 66007," meaning it is intended to impose these options despite the general rules in the Mitigation Fee Act.
Practically, local agencies will need to adopt new administrative agreements, track long-lived receivables, and consider how deferred-fee obligations interact with existing bond covenants, grants, and lender requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For qualified rental projects the bill allows a development impact fee deferral loan with a maximum 55-year term and repayment due at loan maturity, using a residual receipts method tied to HCD’s Uniform Multifamily Regulations.
For qualified ownership projects the statute requires a per-income-qualified-homebuyer deferral loan equal to the project’s total fees divided by the number of units, with repayment due at resale or after a 30-year term.
The law caps the simple interest rate on any deferral loan at 3 percent per annum during the loan term.
The bill explicitly excludes fees collected for code enforcement, inspection services, and certain education-related charges from its definition of "development impact fee.", ‘Qualified’ projects must reserve 100% of units for lower- or moderate-income households as defined in specified Health and Safety Code sections; rental manager units are excluded from the 100% calculation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Options for qualified residential rental projects
This subsection obligates local agencies to offer either a full waiver of impact fees or a structured deferral loan for projects that reserve all units for lower-income renters. The loan option specifies that the loan amount equals the local fees for the project and that repayment can be tied to residual receipts—an operator- or project-level cash-flow test—so agencies will need processes to audit operating statements and calculate residual distributions over many years.
Options for qualified residential ownership projects
For for-sale projects the agency must either set fees to zero or provide an individual deferral loan for each income-qualified buyer, with the aggregate developer-level fee split across units. The per-buyer loan is payable at resale or at the end of the loan term, which creates a delayed recovery mechanism intended to preserve initial affordability while still allowing agencies to recoup funds later.
Definition and exclusions for 'development impact fee'
The statute defines development impact fees narrowly to fund capital improvements and explicitly excludes charges tied to enforcement, inspections, and certain education levies. That limits the bill’s coverage so routine permit and enforcement fees remain collectible in the ordinary course, reducing the scope of mandatory relief.
Who counts as a 'qualified' project and income thresholds
The bill links qualification to existing Health and Safety Code income definitions for lower- and moderate-income households and to statutory definitions of affordable rent and housing cost. By tying qualification to those cross-referenced definitions, the statute relies on existing income-band determinations but forces local agencies to verify unit-level restrictions and maintain compliance records throughout the loan terms.
Statutory override of Mitigation Fee Act practices
The measure expressly operates notwithstanding Section 66007 of the Mitigation Fee Act, signaling that local fee ordinances must accommodate these options even if current local rules or past fee calculations differ. That override will require local legal review to reconcile existing ordinances, developer agreements, and any bond or grant covenants that assume fee income.
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
- Developers of 100%-affordable projects: Lower or deferred upfront fees reduce financing gaps and make projects easier to underwrite, improving financial feasibility for nonprofit and for-profit developers focused on deeply affordable housing.
- Income-qualified renters and homebuyers: The relief aims to lower initial rent or purchase costs by removing an immediate developer pass-through, increasing access to affordable units targeted at lower- and moderate-income households.
- Community housing sponsors and mission-driven lenders: Organizations that lend to or sponsor affordable projects gain more predictable project viability and may be able to structure deals with lower initial capital requirements.
- State housing goals and planning agencies: By reducing a common local cost barrier, the law is likely intended to increase the volume of 100% affordable projects meeting state housing targets, aiding regional planning objectives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local agencies and municipal budgets: Waiving or deferring fees reduces current revenue for capital improvements and forces agencies to manage long-term receivables, affecting cash flow and capital planning.
- Other developers not meeting the 100%-affordability test: Projects that mix market-rate units with affordable units may be at a competitive disadvantage because they do not qualify for mandatory relief.
- Bondholders and public finance programs: Delayed fee receipts can complicate debt service modeling and may conflict with existing covenants that assume immediate fee income unless agencies restructure financing or obtain waivers.
- Private lenders and investors: Lenders must account for deferred-fee liens and residual-receipt repayment mechanisms in underwriting, adding complexity and potential recovery risk in distressed scenarios.
- Local administrative staffs: Planning, housing, and finance departments will need to create loan documents, monitor long-term compliance, and audit residual receipts, imposing ongoing workload and likely IT or staffing costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is between unlocking more 100%-affordable housing by removing upfront fee barriers and preserving predictable, near-term capital for local public improvements—solving one problem (development feasibility) increases uncertainty for municipal finances and private finance, and the bill leaves many implementation choices to local agencies without providing funding or uniform standards.
The bill forces a classic trade-off: accelerate housing production by removing an upfront cost, or protect municipal capital and cash flow by continuing to collect fees today. Implementing long-term deferral loans tied to residual receipts demands robust accounting, monitoring, and legal frameworks that many local agencies do not now have.
Agencies will need standardized loan documents, auditing protocols, and staff capacity to track receivables that may not mature for decades.
Practical questions remain unresolved in the text. The statute does not prescribe administrative rules for application, underwriting standards, unsecured versus secured lien positions, or remedies on default; it also does not fund the additional administration or specify how deferrals interact with existing bond covenants, federal funding requirements, or tax-credit financing.
Lenders and underwriters will treat deferred-fee obligations differently depending on lien priority, which the bill leaves to local implementation, creating potential friction in deal structuring. Finally, the narrow 100%-unit requirement could push developers to either avoid mixed-income projects or reconfigure unit mixes to qualify, with unpredictable effects on overall housing supply.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.