Can You Sue Over a Neighbor’s Code Violation?
Question: How can an attorney help a client when a neighbor violates local building or zoning codes—and the city refuses to investigate or enforce?
The Core Issue: Does Government Code Section 36900(a) grant private citizens the right to enforce municipal ordinances through civil action?
The right to seek redress by civil action—and the fate of Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (2002)—is at stake. The California Supreme Court granted review, and our opening brief is now filed (delayed by displacement from the Palisades fire). This is Keith Turner’s second trip to the California Supreme Court; we previously prevailed in a 2015 case.
Cohen v. Superior Court is now fully briefed: the following transaction has occurred in:
COHEN v. S.C. (SCHWARTZ)
Case: S285484, Supreme Court of California
| Date (YYYY-MM-DD): | 2025-11-26 |
| Event Description: | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
For more information on this case, go to: HERE
The amicus curiae brief deadline is likely December 29, 2025 (since December 26, 2025, is a court holiday, and the deadline is 30 days after the last merits brief filed on November 26).
Why Private Enforcement Matters More Than Suing the City
When a neighbor’s construction or zoning violation harms your property, your first instinct may be to demand city enforcement. But if the city declines to act, many assume the only recourse is to sue the municipality. That approach rarely succeeds.
1. Cities Have Broad Discretion and Immunity
California law gives cities wide latitude in code enforcement. Courts almost never compel cities to act, since enforcement is a policy decision—not a mandatory duty. Even a writ of mandate faces steep odds unless you can show a clear, ministerial obligation.
2. Limited Remedies Against Cities
Suing a city usually yields only injunctive relief (forcing compliance), not compensation for your losses. Recovering damages for non-enforcement is extremely difficult and expensive.
3. Civil Actions Are Faster and More Predictable
Suing the violator directly avoids political delays and resource battles that bog down municipal enforcement. Civil remedies are tailored to the private party’s harm—not the city’s priorities.
Key Arguments:
- Statutory Language: Section 36900(a) states that ordinance violations may be “redressed by civil action,” without limiting this right to city authorities. The statute’s use of “or” separates prosecution by city authorities from civil redress, indicating independent enforcement mechanisms.
- Legislative Intent: The legislative history shows Section 36900 was enacted to broaden enforcement. The removal of “at the option of said authorities” from earlier statutes suggests the Legislature intended to allow private enforcement.
- Judicial Precedent: Cases like Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (2002) affirm that Section 36900(a) permits private citizens to seek civil redress for ordinance violations. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Cohen v. Superior Court (2024) reversed this precedent.
- Legislative Recognition: The Legislature has acknowledged the need for private enforcement, especially when local governments fail to act. This aligns with public policy goals, such as the private attorney general doctrine (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5).
- Statutory Interpretation: The plain language of Section 36900 should control. Courts should not add limitations the Legislature did not include.
- Alternative Cases: Cases like Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino and Moradi–Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund do not apply, as those statutes lacked explicit private rights of action—unlike Section 36900.
Bottom Line:
The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether Californians can enforce municipal ordinances when cities won’t act. The outcome will shape property rights, neighborhood disputes, and the balance of public and private enforcement for years to come.
Turner Law Firm 