Los Angeles

When we study a city, county, or town, we examine its zoning, its development review processes, and how often approvals face opposition through local administrative appeals or litigation. We also study the development approvals to understand how local governments apply their own law, and state law. We map the approvals to examine what the community is allowing to be built and where. The following reflects data on approvals issued in 2014-2017.

Los Angeles

Approvals (2014-2017 approvals)
1,071 projects of five or more units
65,846 units total
4,757 units (7% of the approved units) were affordable units

285 of those projects (4,585 units) went through ministerial approval processes
785 of those projects (61,261 units) required discretionary approval processes

Zoning (as a percentage of all zoned land)
11% all income levels (or ~46 square miles)
47% single-family (or ~190 square miles)

Prior Use (of land approved for new housing development of five or more units)
60% already residential (2,400 units demolished, 11,599 market rate units built, 1,322 affordable units built)
24% commercial
0% agricultural
11% vacant
4% unknown

Median Timeframe for Approval (entitlement)
9.8 months for multi-family housing (urban cities median: 10.8 months)
11.7 months for single-family homes (urban cities median: 12.6 months)

Review Process
Los Angeles allowed proposed development that conforms to underlying use and density controls up to 49 units to move through a ministerial approval process, so long as it is not located within a Community Design Overlay.
Los Angeles permitted 286 projects of 5 or more units through a ministerial process (requiring no discretionary review) in 2014-2017.

Opposition to Development
29 projects faced litigation. The median timeframe for the entitlement process plus lawsuit completion in Los Angeles was 40 months.
138 projects faced local level administrative appeals.
The percent of all dense developments sited in Highest and High Resource neighborhoods that faced opposition through an administrative appeal was greater than those sited in Low Resource and High Segregation and Poverty neighborhoods: 35.81% and 18.96% respectively.

Wildfire Hazard
Los Angeles approved 46 projects (1,099 units) in high-risk fire zones. This is 1.67% of the units approved.

---

Los Angeles approved more housing than neighboring cities we studied.

The City of Los Angeles approved much more housing than any of the other five study cities within Los Angeles County, even when we adjust the rate of entitlement to account for the City's size. The City's entitlement rate per capita is still higher than the other cities we studied in Los Angeles County.

Most dense housing development required discretionary review.

Los Angeles' local law offers at least some development the option of moving through a ministerial approval process. It was the only city we studied where we were able to confirm that at least some multi-family went through a ministerial process. Still, the City's zoning limits the amount of land available for dense development (measured as a percentage of all zoned land). And most of the units approved in our study years went through discretionary review.

Most approved housing required demolishing existing housing.

Los Angeles was one of our study cities where the majority of approved housing required demolishing existing housing. We were able to find records that showed at least 70% of the demolished units were rent-stabilized units, and most of those demolished rent-stabilized units were located in higher resource areas (using the state classification for opportunity). The approved development would lead to substantially more housing, if built. Very little of the new housing would be affordable, however.

About a quarter of all approved affordable units are sited in higher opportunity areas.

Critical to fair housing policy is the distribution of deed-restricted units across the city—relative to access to opportunity. The state classifies areas of the City in terms of opportunity (based on education, environmental, and economic factors). When we mapped our approvals data over the state's opportunity classifications, we found that about 23% of approved affordable units would be built in Highest and High Resource areas. 49% would be built in Low Resource or High Segregation & Poverty areas.