San Francisco Up-Zoning Plan Faces Suits From Both Sides

San Francisco’s efforts to build denser housing face crucial tests in the coming months amid a series of lawsuits, which variously claim that the city’s efforts go too far—or not far enough.

The three lawsuits against the city, filed in Superior Court, come from groups on the opposite end of the spectrum. They challenge the so-called Family Zoning Plan, which the city adopted in December 2025, and which San Francisco says could enable 36,200 new units of denser housing.

The law was a response to California‘s Senate Bill 79, which mandates cities plan for more housing development by adopting a housing element. The state has taken a pro-building approach to confront its historic housing affordability crisis. San Francisco, meantime, is one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation for renters and buyers alike.

A series of pro-development housing groups—including California Housing Defense Fund, Californians for Homeownership and YIMBY Law—argue the city needs to build more housing. They’ve filed two lawsuits arguing both the city’s plan and SB79 don’t do enough.

On the other side, a group of homeowners—including Neighborhoods United SF—is also suing the city, attempting to block its denser development plans. The group argues these plans run afoul of the state’s environmental quality laws.

The Family Zoning Plan takes aim at allowing denser development along major corridors, especially in the city’s north and west neighborhoods. A swath of Van Ness Avenue into the city center saw height restrictions loosened to 350 feet fronting the street. Other key corridors like California, Lombard, and Fulton streets raise height limits along the street to 65, 85, or 105 feet in many areas.

The NIMBY opposition

Shortly after San Francisco enacted its plan, Neighborhoods United SF filed suit citing the California Environmental Quality Act.

Denser housing development would “displace thousands of low-income residents living in rent-controlled buildings, will harm hundreds of historic buildings, will generate air pollution,” its lawsuit claimed.

The group has also opposed a number of specific housing projects, including a redevelopment of the Marina District Safeway with an 800-unit tower.

Among claims in the suit, it cites impacts to public transit and traffic and “protected birds in the Pacific Flyway” and argues the city didn’t do enough research for the environmental impacts for up-zoning.

“NUSF believes that the City should be creating policy that protects and supports its neighborhoods and communities, not attacking them, demolishing them, and threatening their future,” the suit states.

In its initial response to the petition filed in late July, San Francisco largely denied the allegations. It also alternately told the court that they failed to state a claim, and that the court lacked jurisdiction for the case.

This month, the city sought to schedule a more extensive briefing on the merits of the case next year.

The YIMBY complaints

Meanwhile, the pro-development groups launched their own lawsuit in the Superior Court. They argue the plan amounts to “a betrayal of promises the City made in its housing element promises to take the City’s housing crisis seriously and enact real reforms to address it.”

The groups questioned the models that the city used in its plans, which examine how much housing could be built. They argued the plan, as approved, inadequately studied the market. And it will result in “far less” housing than the state requires in the plan.

What’s more, the plan includes constraints on housing production in some areas, including caps on dwelling unit size, office density, and lower parking maximums.

In an opening brief, San Francisco said the plan was “supported by robust analysis.” And while its analysis found that the up-zoning could theoretically create room for 700,000 new housing units, its far smaller “realistic capacity” of 36,200 new units would be financially feasible. And it says the plan allows for more kinds of housing beyond single-family detached homes.

“Unsurprisingly, not everyone is happy,” the city said in its brief. “But this is not the first time the City has encountered opposition to its housing-friendly decisions, and likely won’t be the last.”

A first hearing on the merits of the case is scheduled for November.

San Francisco’s response to Senate Bill 79

After the passage of SB79, Gov. Gavin Newsom required each city pass a housing element, a long-term comprehensive plan for how they would build more housing for all income levels. Some of the cities that delayed were threatened with legal action. Some that have resisted the change, such as Huntington Beach, so far have not fared well in court.

Different cities have taken different approaches. Los Angeles has aimed to take a more gradual approach to new housing development. That effort has brought mixed results.

San Francisco has been working through its plan for three years. It says the “gentle density” approach in practice will only mean increases of two to four stories in commercial areas. Most residential areas maintain their 40-foot height limits.

In a second lawsuit filed several weeks ago, the pro-development groups also challenge the city’s transit-oriented development rules amid its implementation of SB79.

That suit argues that the city is also constraining housing development by sectioning off some land in the city as within an industrial employment hub. The city hasn’t yet responded to that suit.

Analyzing the situation, law firm Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP noted the challenges create uncertainty for developers and land owners. It’s hard to move forward on development plans under the Family Zoning Plan if it’s unclear that plan is going to remain in force.

“If a court sets aside the Family Zoning Plan, San Francisco could face renewed questions about Housing Element compliance and potential exposure to builder’s remedy projects,” the firm’s analysis said.