The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
issued a published decision (North Murrieta
Community, LLC v. City of Murrieta, Case No. E072663) on
June 8, 2020, that addressed how inconsistencies can arise between
"vested rights" afforded under a vesting tentative map
(VTM) and those afforded under a development agreement (DA).
California developers, cities and counties should be aware of this
new decision and its implications on both existing and future
projects seeking to vest — or "freeze" —local
regulations, development standards and impact fees.
Background
Under California law, there are three ways in which developers
can obtain vested rights for their projects: 1) obtain a VTM; 2)
enter into a DA with a local agency; or 3) under common law, obtain
a building permit, then perform substantial work and incur
substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the permit. These
"vested rights" mechanisms are intended to encourage
development by
