California Real Estate Case Studies

California recognizes easements created by written grant, by implication from a prior use, and by prescription after five years of open, continuous and adverse use. Recent decisions address exclusive implied easements and the proof needed to establish a prescriptive easement.

• Clayton v. Canada (2026)Cal. Court of Appeal (unpublished)Buyers kept an exclusive equitable easement over a walled garden inside a neighbor's deed, based on an unrecorded 1955 agreement between the prior owners.
• Montecito Country Club v. Root (2026)Cal. Court of AppealOwners who moved a hedge to the property line and improved the strip behind it were ordered to remove the work, and the court addressed the burden of proof for prescriptive easements.
• Romero v. Shih (2024)Cal. Supreme CourtAn implied easement can be recognized even when it leaves the owner with little practical use of the strip of land it covers.

Related practiceEasement disputesBoundary disputes

Adverse possession in California requires five years of actual, open, hostile, continuous and exclusive possession, plus payment of all property taxes assessed on the land during that time (Code of Civil Procedure section 325). Most claims fail on the tax requirement or on equitable defenses.

• Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016)Cal. Court of AppealOwners who built a wall and yard on association land lost their adverse possession claim on the property tax element and were ordered to restore the slope.
• Aguayo v. Amaro (2013)Cal. Court of AppealA claimant who met every element of adverse possession still lost the house because the unclean hands defense barred the claim.

Related practiceAdverse possessionBoundary disputes

California sellers must disclose known material defects on the Transfer Disclosure Statement (Civil Code section 1102 and following), and an "as is" clause does not excuse concealment. Residential landlords owe an implied warranty of habitability recognized in Green v. Superior Court.

• Green v. Superior Court (1974)Cal. Supreme CourtEvery residential lease carries an implied warranty of habitability, and a breach can be raised as a defense when a landlord sues to evict for unpaid rent.
• California mold disclosure lawStatute and case lawThe 2001 mold disclosure statute never took effect, so seller liability for mold runs through the Transfer Disclosure Statement and fraud law.
• Hidden mold and a failed disclosureSettled disputeA repaired leak left off the Transfer Disclosure Statement became a concealed-mold claim after closing, and the dispute settled for $450,000.

Related practiceFailure to disclose defectsMold claims

California presumes money damages cannot replace a specific parcel of real property (Civil Code section 3387), which supports specific performance against a seller who refuses to close. Title disputes also turn on when a lis pendens may be recorded, who has standing to partition, and when an assignment is void.

• Kuish v. Smith (2010)Cal. Court of AppealA seller who resold for $1 million more could not keep a $600,000 "non-refundable" deposit, because keeping money beyond actual damages is an invalid forfeiture.
• Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004)Cal. Supreme CourtA claim to set aside a transfer of real property supports a lis pendens, even when most of the lawsuit seeks money.
• Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage (2016)Cal. Supreme CourtA homeowner may challenge a void assignment of the deed of trust in a wrongful foreclosure suit after a trustee's sale.
• Amundson v. Catello (2025)Cal. Court of AppealHeirs could not force a partition sale while probate had not confirmed their title, and the partition judgment was reversed.
• Seller refuses to close: specific performanceCivil Code § 3387California presumes money cannot replace a specific property, so a buyer can sue to force a seller who backs out after accepting an offer to close.

Related practiceTransactional real estateStop foreclosure

Local rent ordinances in Los Angeles County operate within state limits such as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Courts have struck down local provisions that conflict with state law while upholding others, and commercial tenants generally remained liable for rent during pandemic closure orders.

• Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2026)Cal. Court of AppealCosta-Hawkins preempts Los Angeles's relocation assistance mandate for exempt units, while the city's eviction threshold rule was upheld.
• SVAP III Poway Crossings v. Fitness International (2023)Cal. Court of AppealPandemic closure orders did not excuse a commercial tenant's rent, and the court rejected all five of the tenant's defenses.
• California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)Cal. Court of AppealTwo provisions of Pasadena's Measure H were struck down, while its rent caps and just-cause eviction protections remain in effect.

Related practiceCommercial and residential leasesReal estate mediation

A legal nonconforming use may continue after a zoning change, but it generally cannot be expanded or converted to a different principal use without the permit the current code requires.

• Holguin Family Ventures v. County of Ventura (2024)Cal. Court of AppealA grandfathered use may continue, but it cannot be expanded or converted to a new principal use without the permit the current code requires.

Related practiceZoning and land use

For new residential construction, the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code section 895 and following) sets building standards and a mandatory prelitigation process. Courts will not enforce CC&R provisions a developer drafts to block a homeowners association from pursuing its defect claims.

• McMillin Albany v. Superior Court (2018)Cal. Supreme CourtThe Right to Repair Act's prelitigation process applies to new-home defect claims even when homeowners plead only common law causes of action.
• Aldea Dos Vientos v. CalAtlantic Group (2020)Cal. Court of AppealA CC&R clause the developer wrote to block the HOA's $5.6 million defect claim was held unconscionable and void.

Related practiceConstruction defectsConstruction law

Decisions outside real estate that shape how California businesses contract, mediate disputes and handle consumer data.

• California v. General Motors and OnStar (2026)SettlementA $12.75 million CCPA settlement over driving data that GM sold to insurance data brokers without consumer consent.
• Department of State v. Muñoz (2024)U.S. Supreme CourtA U.S. citizen has no constitutionally protected interest in a spouse's visa, which left the consular denial in place.
• Cassel v. Superior Court (2011)Cal. Supreme CourtMediation confidentiality bars evidence of what was said in mediation, even in a malpractice claim against the client's own lawyers.
• Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen (2020)Cal. Supreme CourtInterfering with an at-will contract is actionable only when the interfering conduct is independently wrongful.

Related practiceBusiness and corporate lawMediation