## Facts

- A private developer planned and began developing a large planned community in Orange County, with portions located in the coastal zone subject to a state coastal permitting statute.
- Before the statute’s operative permit date, the developer obtained local subdivision and development approvals, performed substantial grading, and installed streets, storm drains, and utilities.
- The developer had not obtained any building permits for structures on the coastal-zone parcels before the statute’s key dates.
- After the statute became operative, the developer sought an exemption from the coastal development permit requirement, claiming a vested right to complete the project without a coastal permit.
- The regional commission and the statewide commission denied the exemption request.
- The trial court denied the developer’s petition for a writ of mandate to compel an exemption; the developer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a developer acquires a vested right to construct buildings exempt from later-enacted coastal permitting requirements absent a building permit issued before the statute’s operative dates.
2. Whether subdivision approvals, grading, and installation of infrastructure in reliance on local approvals can, by themselves, create a vested right to proceed with building construction free of subsequent state regulation.
3. Whether constitutional doctrines or governmental estoppel bar application of the coastal permitting statute to the developer’s project.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying the writ of mandate.
- The Court held the developer had no vested right to build in the coastal permit area without obtaining a coastal development permit.
- Because no building permits had issued for the affected structures before the statutory deadlines, the developer was required to comply with the coastal permitting process.
- The Court rejected claims based on broader common-law, contractual, estoppel, and constitutional theories as bases to avoid the statute’s permit requirement.

## Legal Principles

- A vested right to proceed with development against a later change in land-use regulation arises only when: (1) a valid building permit has been issued, and (2) the developer, in good-faith reliance on that permit, has diligently commenced construction, performed substantial work, and incurred substantial liabilities.
- Expenditures on planning, subdivision mapping, grading, and installation of public improvements do not, without a building permit, vest a right to construct buildings free of later regulatory controls.
- Government generally cannot bargain away the police power; local approvals and agreements do not prevent later state regulation enacted to protect public resources.
- Estoppel against the government in the exercise of police power is disfavored and requires extraordinary circumstances; the public interest in uniform application of coastal protections can outweigh private reliance costs.
- Application of a generally applicable, temporary coastal regulatory scheme to property within the coastal zone is a valid exercise of the police power where the owner remains able to seek a permit.

## Conclusion

The court held that a developer’s reliance on local subdivision approvals and substantial infrastructure work does not create a vested right to avoid later coastal permitting requirements; absent a preexisting building permit and substantial reliance on it, the developer must obtain a coastal development permit before constructing buildings in the regulated coastal area.


Avco Cmty. Developers, Inc. v. S. Coast Reg'l Comm'n, 17 Cal. 3d 785 (Cal. 1976)