The latest “not in my backyard” tactic in California’s local zoning disputes and state housing law battles?
Filing a complaint with the state bar association.
A case in point: An attorney who failed in an effort to derail a Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., upzoning lodged a complaint with the California State Bar about a March 2025 letter YIMBY Law addressed to the city council, which suggested the city needed to follow state housing mandates.
The state bar, in turn, launched an investigation into the pro-housing group YIMBY Law for unauthorized practice of law. Lawyers with the Institute for Justice, representing YIMBY Law, argue that the investigation violates the First Amendment.
The dispute could become a litmus test for the lengths opponents of upzoning will go to push back against state housing enforcement. Tensions have intensified between Sacramento housing regulators and opponents resistant to state density expansion mandates passed at the urging of “yes in my backyard” supporters.
Those tensions echo battles in other cities where NIMBY-minded residents have turned to courts and professional regulators to slow or punish efforts to add density of any level in single-family neighborhoods.
In Charlottesville, Va., for example, homeowners sued over a 2023 zoning overhaul that opened single-family areas to “missing middle” housing, alleging procedural missteps. The city settled rather than go to trial after a judge briefly voided its zoning code. It agreed to provide new traffic and infrastructure studies while keeping the added density.
The complaint against YIMBY Law is an unusual situation because Sonja Trauss, its executive director, isn’t a trained lawyer. The group advocates for changing laws to build more housing.
YIMBY Law routinely writes letters to local agencies to encourage adherence to statewide housing laws such as the Housing Accountability Act.
“You shouldn’t have to be a lawyer to tell the government what you think,” Trauss said. “This goes beyond having a disagreement in policy — this is trying to end discussion entirely.”
Challenge over 16 homes
Last year Rancho Palos Verdes, an affluent city in Los Angeles County, considered removing three sites from its “Housing Elements Plan” that had been updated in 2024.
Developer Ali Vahdani had an application on a site that was upzoned from four homes per acre to 22 units per acre in 2024. Vahdani had bought the parcel from Thomas and Shannon Hartman, who still live in the neighborhood. He wants to build 14 townhomes and two accessory dwelling units.
Vahdani’s plans drew opposition from neighbors, including the Hartmans. The neighbors argued that the density would harm the single-family neighborhood and pose a risk to a nearby 250,00-year-old landslide.
As the city prepared to decide, Vahdani, a civil engineer and founder of Optimum Seismic, told The Real Deal he felt devastated. This project would be his first ground-up development.
“I saw it as totally unfair, totally crazy,” he said. “I couldn’t believe they were going to downzone it months later.”
His lawyer stepped up the battle. Trauss followed with a detailed letter to the city council that said removing the sites would violate state law and Vahdani’s vested rights.
The amendment to the city’s housing element plan had already been sent to the California Coastal Commission, marking the final approval in the process.
Reopening the process could “subject the city to numerous opportunities for litigation and scrutiny,” Trauss wrote in her letter.
In 2019, the state passed the Housing Crisis Act that limited downzoning and procedural barriers to protect and expand California’s housing capacity statewide. The state tightened the rules on cities more in 2021. The city council opted not to make the changes. That wasn’t the end of the battle.
Neighbors take zoning dispute to the Coastal Commission
After the council kept the sites in the housing plan, opponents took their fight to the state. Newport Beach attorney Kendra Carney Mehr represented the Hartmans for the commission’s August hearing. Mehr sent an opposition email that joined with others, highlighting environmental and geological concerns with the site.
She argued that the city’s housing element amendment “created spot zoning and inconsistent development. Mehr cited the local coast plan, which coastal cities must have by law, that states: “All new development will be residential single-family dwellings. Subdivisions of large parcels should be designed in a manner that will blend with the existing community pattern.”
The commission approved the city’s amendment despite the opposition. After the commission backed the city, Mehr took the fight a step further. She filed the complaint against YIMBY Law. Meher hasn’t responded to questions on motivation.
Institute for Justice lawyers were surprised the bar association didn’t dismiss the complaint as it does with many. It’s unclear what the penalty would be because Trauss isn’t a member of the bar. The Institute said it would sue if the bar association proceeds with disciplinary action.
“There is nothing more American than the right to tell government officials you think they’re breaking the law,” senior attorney Sam Gedge, said in a statement. “The only thing you should need before writing to government officials is an opinion—not a license from the state.”
English