SB 800 — The California Right to Repair Act
Cal. Civ. Code §§895–945.5 · Enacted as SB 800 (2002) · Effective Jan. 1, 2003 · Verified April 2026
SB 800 — codified at California Civil Code §§895–945.5 and commonly called the Right to Repair Act — is the exclusive statutory framework for residential construction defect claims on homes sold after January 1, 2003. It does three things at once: it sets specific building performance standards in §896 that define what counts as a defect, it provides a mandatory pre-litigation notice-and-repair procedure in §§910–938 that the homeowner must complete before filing suit, and it specifies the damages available and the statutes of limitation in §§941–945.5. The 2018 California Supreme Court decision in McMillin Albany v. Superior Court closed off most workarounds, holding that the Act is the exclusive remedy — homeowners can no longer plead common-law negligence or strict liability to escape the pre-litigation procedure.
Scope — When SB 800 Applies
The "Original Construction" Rule
SB 800 applies only to "new residential units" — single-family homes, condominiums, and units in common interest developments — that were sold after January 1, 2003. It does not apply to:
- Pre-2003 construction (governed by pre-existing common law)
- Conversions of non-residential to residential use
- Home improvements or remodels on existing residential property (governed by BPC §7159 and common-law warranty principles)
- Commercial construction
For a project to fall under SB 800, two conditions must be met: it must be original residential construction, and the dwelling must have been sold after January 1, 2003.
The §896 Building Standards
Civil Code §896 sets out an extraordinarily detailed catalog of building performance standards. A defect, for purposes of the Act, is a deviation from any of these standards. The standards cover:
Each standard above has multiple subparts; the full text runs several thousand words. Source: California Legislative Information, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
§897 — The Catch-All Standard
If a construction defect doesn't fit any specific §896 standard, Civil Code §897 provides a residual standard: a function or component must not cause "damage" to the home or its components. This catch-all, combined with the exhaustive specific list in §896, is what the Supreme Court in McMillin Albany pointed to as evidence that the legislature intended SB 800 to be a comprehensive replacement for common-law claims.
The Pre-Litigation Procedure (§§910–938)
The Act's procedural core is a mandatory pre-litigation process that a homeowner must complete before filing a construction defect lawsuit. Skipping the procedure is grounds for a stay of the litigation under §930 and can result in dismissal.
Step 1 — Homeowner Notice (§910)
The homeowner must serve the builder with a written notice of claim describing in "reasonable detail" the construction defects, their locations, and the standards in §896 alleged to have been violated. The notice must be served by certified mail to the address listed for the builder in the homeowner's purchase contract.
Step 2 — Builder Acknowledgment (§913)
The builder must acknowledge receipt of the notice in writing within 14 days. Failure to acknowledge releases the homeowner from the pre-litigation procedure and allows immediate filing of suit.
Step 3 — Builder Inspection (§916)
Within 14 days of acknowledgment, the builder may inspect the property. The builder gets one initial inspection of 14 days or less, and may request a second inspection if a third party (e.g., a destructive testing expert) is required. The homeowner must allow reasonable access.
Step 4 — Builder Offer (§917–§918)
Within 30 days of the inspection (or 30 days from notice of claim if no inspection occurred), the builder must respond. The builder may: (a) offer to repair the defect, (b) offer to pay cash in lieu of repair, (c) make an offer combining repair and cash, or (d) reject the claim. An offer to repair must contain specific elements set out in §917, including the scope of work, the timeline, and the qualifications of the repair contractor.
Step 5 — Homeowner Response (§919–§925)
If the builder makes an offer to repair, the homeowner has 30 days to accept or reject. Rejection ends the pre-litigation procedure and allows the homeowner to file suit. Acceptance starts the repair process. If the builder repairs the defect to the homeowner's reasonable satisfaction, the matter ends. If the homeowner alleges the repair was inadequate, the homeowner may file suit at that point.
The §914 Builder Alternative
Civil Code §914 lets a builder substitute its own contractually-defined non-adversarial procedure for the §§910–938 statutory process. To use the §914 alternative, the builder must give the homeowner notice of the alternative procedure in the original sale documents and must comply with §912's disclosure requirements. Most California production builders use §914 alternatives in their purchase contracts; smaller custom builders typically default to the statutory procedure.
Damages and Statute of Limitations (§§941–945.5)
§941 — General Statute of Limitations
The default statute of limitations under SB 800 is 10 years from the date of substantial completion. This aligns with the latent-defect statute of repose in Code of Civil Procedure §337.15.
For specific defects, §896 sets shorter category-by-category time limits — for example, dryer ducts, exhaust fans, and irrigation systems have shorter periods. If a defect category has no specific period set out in §896, the default 10-year period applies under §941(a).
§944 — Recoverable Damages
A homeowner who prevails on an SB 800 claim can recover: (a) the cost of repair (the most common measure), (b) the cost of repair of any property damaged by the defect, (c) the cost of removing and replacing damaged components, (d) the reasonable cost of investigation, (e) attorney's fees if the underlying contract or another statute provides them, (f) loss of use damages during repair, (g) any other damages "proximately caused" by the defect.
Notably, §944 includes both economic and consequential damages — overruling the prior holding in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627 that economic-loss damages alone were not recoverable in the absence of property damage.
Leading Case Examples
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 241
The California Supreme Court resolved a decade of conflict among the Courts of Appeal by holding that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive statutory framework for residential construction defect claims on homes sold after January 1, 2003. Homeowners cannot bypass the §§910–938 pre-litigation procedure by pleading common-law negligence, strict products liability, or breach of implied warranty. The pre-litigation procedure must be completed for any defect claim within the Act's scope. McMillin Albany is now the foundational case for any SB 800 dispute.
Aas v. Superior Court
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 627
The pre-SB 800 California Supreme Court case holding that homeowners could not recover economic-loss damages for construction defects absent property damage or personal injury. Aas was the immediate legislative catalyst for SB 800: the legislature enacted the Act in 2002 specifically to supplant Aas and allow homeowners to recover for defects that had not yet caused appreciable damage. McMillin Albany confirmed that SB 800 superseded Aas for post-2003 residences.
William Lyon Homes v. Superior Court (Gerlach)
(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 961
The Court of Appeal applied the §896 standards strictly: a homeowner alleging defects in roofs and roofing systems under §896(a)(4) must allege that the defect actually allowed water to enter the structure or to pass beyond moisture barriers. Conclusory allegations that something is "defective" without tying the defect to a specific §896 standard are insufficient under the Act. The case is a useful demonstration of how §896's specificity cuts both ways: it expands defect coverage but also requires plaintiffs to plead defects with statute-specific precision.
Harris v. Superior Court
(2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 161
A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifying the scope of SB 800 for residential properties sold to subsequent purchasers (not the original buyer). The court held that the Act's protections run with the property and can benefit subsequent owners within the limitations period, allowing a homeowner who buys a post-2003 home with defects to pursue the original builder under SB 800 without contractual privity. This significantly expands the practical reach of the Act and is a leading recent authority on second-buyer claims, though practitioners should confirm that Harris remains good law and has not been limited.
Practical Impact
For a homeowner who discovers defects in a post-2003 new residential construction: do not file a lawsuit first. Issue a §910 notice of claim. Engage a construction-defect attorney early because the pre-litigation procedure has tight deadlines (14-day acknowledgment, 14-day inspection request, 30-day offer response) that can be missed without counsel. Document defects with photographs, dated correspondence, and expert reports where possible.
For a builder or developer: maintain a §914 alternative procedure in your purchase contracts if your business model can support one (most production builders do; most custom builders don't). Respond to every §910 notice within the statutory deadlines — failure to acknowledge releases the homeowner from the pre-litigation procedure entirely. Conduct inspections promptly and document them. An adequate, timely offer to repair is the single most powerful tool a builder has under the Act, both to defeat litigation and to limit downstream damages.
For a subcontractor or supplier: SB 800 claims often reach subs through indemnity provisions in the prime contract with the builder. Maintain proper insurance, document scope of work carefully, and track licensure status. A sub whose work fell below a §896 standard can be on the hook for the full repair cost even years after substantial completion.
Related California Statutes
- Cal. Civ. Code §§896, 897 — building standards and residual standard
- Cal. Civ. Code §§910–938 — pre-litigation procedure
- Cal. Civ. Code §912 — builder disclosure requirements
- Cal. Civ. Code §914 — builder alternative procedure
- Cal. Civ. Code §§941–945.5 — limitations periods and damages
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §337.15 — 10-year statute of repose for latent defects (aligns with §941(a))
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §337.1 — 4-year statute of repose for patent defects
- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7159 — Home Improvement Contract requirements (governs remodels, not new construction; see deep-dive)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue under common-law negligence instead of SB 800?
For a residential construction defect on a home sold after January 1, 2003: no. McMillin Albany v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241 held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy. Common-law negligence and strict liability claims for residential construction defects within the Act's scope are barred. The only path is the §§910–938 pre-litigation procedure followed by suit under the Act.
What if my builder doesn't respond to my §910 notice?
If the builder doesn't acknowledge the notice within 14 days under §913, you are released from the pre-litigation procedure and can file suit immediately. Document the certified-mail delivery and the absence of response. The same applies if the builder acknowledges but then fails to comply with subsequent procedural steps within the statutory timelines.
Does SB 800 cover detached structures like sheds and garages?
Yes, if they are part of the original residential construction. SB 800's coverage extends to the "structure" and its components, which includes attached and detached structures that are part of the residential unit. A free-standing detached garage built as part of the original house construction falls within the Act; a shed added later by the homeowner generally does not.
What's the difference between SB 800 and the statutes of repose in CCP §§337.1 and 337.15?
SB 800 applies only to post-2003 residential construction and provides both substantive standards (§896) and a pre-litigation procedure (§§910–938). CCP §§337.1 (patent defects, 4-year repose) and §337.15 (latent defects, 10-year repose) apply more broadly to all construction defects, residential or commercial, including pre-2003 properties. For a post-2003 residential defect, both bodies of law apply: SB 800 provides the cause of action and procedure, and §337.15 generally provides the outer limitations period (aligned with Civ. Code §941(a)).
I'm a subsequent buyer of a home built in 2010 that has defects. Can I sue the original builder?
Generally yes, under Harris v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 161. SB 800's protections run with the property and benefit subsequent owners within the limitations period. You would issue your §910 notice to the original builder and follow the pre-litigation procedure as if you were the original buyer. Practical caveat: documenting the date of substantial completion and verifying the original sale date (to confirm post-2003 coverage) is critical and may require title and permit research.
Should I pursue an SB 800 claim alone, or with an attorney?
The Act's procedural deadlines are tight and the statutory standards in §896 are highly technical — many cases turn on expert testimony tying observed defects to specific §896 subsections. Bay Legal PC handles SB 800 claims for California homeowners; the consultation form below is one way to start. As a rule of thumb, claims involving structural, soils, or significant water-intrusion issues warrant counsel from the outset; very minor or cosmetic claims may sometimes be resolved through the §§910–938 procedure pro se.
Legal Information Disclaimer
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contractor Law is published by Bay Legal PC (Jayson Elliott, CA Bar No. 332479) as a California construction-law reference. Statutory text is reproduced verbatim from California Legislative Information (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov); annotations and case discussions are original commentary, not summaries of any third-party publication. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify current statutory text and procedural deadlines with a California-licensed attorney before relying on them. More about Bay Legal PC's California construction practice at baylegal.com.
Last reviewed: April 2026 · Jurisdiction: California · Responsible attorney: Jayson Elliott, CA Bar No. 332479, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County
Get a Free Consultation — SB 800 / Construction Defect
Bay Legal PC represents owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers on California construction matters. Tell us briefly what's happening and we'll get back to you.