California Legal Brief

The Rule of County of Sacramento v. NKS Real Estate Holdings, Inc. is that a county may pursue a nuisance per se action against property owners who construct and lease accessory dwelling units without required building permits, under circumstances where the county has adopted ordinances expressly declaring permit violations to be public nuisances.

Appeal from judgment after court trial in Superior Court, Sacramento County.

Defendant Appellants were Nabil Samaan and NKS Real Estate Holdings, Inc. — property owners who constructed and leased an accessory dwelling unit without obtaining required building permits.

Plaintiff Respondent was County of Sacramento — the local government agency responsible for enforcing building codes and permit requirements.

The suit sounded in public nuisance abatement and injunctive relief. The County alleged defendants violated California Building Code and Residential Code permit requirements and created a public nuisance per se.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were defendants built an accessory dwelling unit on a Fair Oaks lot without a building permit, applied for but never completed the permit process, ignored multiple stop work orders issued by the County in September and October 2020, completed construction despite the orders, and leased the unpermitted unit to tenants who occupied it without a certificate of occupancy.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted judgment in favor of the County on both causes of action and issued a permanent injunction, ruling that defendants created a nuisance per se because the County had expressly declared by ordinance that construction without required permits constitutes a public nuisance.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the County has standing to pursue nuisance abatement actions in its own name rather than in the name of the people of California; 2. Whether the County's nuisance ordinances conflict with state housing laws; 3. Whether the trial court correctly found that unpermitted construction constitutes a nuisance per se.

The Appellate Court held that counties have statutory authority under the State Housing Law to enforce building codes and abate nuisances in their own name, county nuisance ordinances declaring permit violations to be public nuisances do not conflict with state law and operate as permissible procedural enforcement mechanisms, and construction without required building permits constitutes a nuisance per se when expressly declared unlawful by county ordinance.

The case is inapplicable when the county has not adopted ordinances expressly declaring permit violations to be public nuisances, when the action involves maintenance violations of existing buildings rather than construction violations, or when the defendants obtained proper permits before commencing construction.

The case leaves open questions regarding the scope of abatement remedies available for other types of building code violations not involving construction permits, and whether different standards apply to commercial versus residential unpermitted construction.