Land Development Insights

Expert guidance on turning raw land into viable, buildable projects.

May 8, 2026

Essential Infrastructure vs. Desirable Amenities: Understanding What Development Fees Actually Pay For in Sacramento

Tags: California, Development Impact Fees, Due Diligence & Feasibility, Pro Forma & Cost Loads, Residential, Sacramento Region

Q&A

How much do development fees add to the cost of a new home, and what do they pay for?

Development impact fees are charges that local jurisdictions levy on new construction to fund the public facilities and infrastructure expansion that growth requires.

In California, they are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act and set through nexus studies that establish a quantifiable relationship between each fee and the demand new development places on public services. In the greater Sacramento region, recent analysis shows fees averaging approximately $109,000 per single-family dwelling unit, with meaningful variation across jurisdictions: Sacramento County sits near the regional average at $109,000, El Dorado County leads the region at roughly $125,000, Yolo County follows at $114,000, and Placer County remains the only jurisdiction below the $100,000 threshold at approximately $95,000.

These fees fund a broad set of public investments that fall into several distinct categories. Essential infrastructure — water, sewer, drainage, flood protection, solid waste, dry utilities, and local roadways — typically commands the largest share.

Critical regional infrastructure layers in next: regional roads, transit, public facilities, and law enforcement and public safety services.

Agricultural and habitat mitigation is required in jurisdictions where development affects sensitive lands. School facilities fees represent another substantial portion in new growth areas, where new sites and capacity must be funded.

Community amenities — parks, trails, libraries, and the connectivity infrastructure that ties neighborhoods together — have become a growing priority across many jurisdictions. Affordable housing contributions and overall permit processing overhead round out the total.

The trajectory matters as much as the absolute number. Over the past five years, several Sacramento-region jurisdictions have seen fee loads grow significantly: El Dorado County increased approximately 30 percent, Yolo County 15 percent, and Placer County 17 percent.

Those increases flow directly into the cost of every new home and reshape what is economically feasible to build. For developers, builders, and investors, the practical implication is that fee loads need to be priced into the pro forma at the same time the land is being valued — not discovered later during entitlement. Knowing the jurisdiction-specific fee structure up front supports more accurate yield analysis, more informed acquisition decisions, and a clearer view of what each jurisdiction is actually asking new development to fund.

May 6, 2026

How Stormwater Shrinks Your Site Plan

Tags: California, Feasibility, Land Design & Engineering, Low Impact Development (LID), Site Planning, Stormwater

Q&A

How do stormwater requirements affect a development project's budget and site layout?

Stormwater is one of the most consequential constraints on a development site, and it rarely registers on the front end of a deal. Under California's MS4 permits — the regulatory framework derived from the federal Clean Water Act — projects that create or replace as little as 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, and in some jurisdictions as little as 2,500, must capture, treat, and often detain runoff on site.

The compliance pathway typically follows a strict hierarchy: infiltration first, then biofiltration, then conventional treatment, with hydromodification controls layered on top in many regions. None of this is optional, and none of it is inexpensive.

The space these requirements consume is tangible and often surprising. Bioretention basins, vegetated swales, infiltration galleries, underground detention vaults, and dedicated landscape buffers all need a place on the site, and they have to be sized to the project's actual runoff volume rather than fit into whatever is left after the buildings are placed. On a tight infill site, that can mean the difference between hitting a target unit count and falling short.

On a larger subdivision, it can mean lost lots, smaller building pads, reduced parking yields, or facilities that have to be relocated as the design progresses.

When stormwater is treated as an afterthought, the resulting redesigns are expensive and often force tradeoffs against features that were central to the project's original economics.

Identifying stormwater requirements at the feasibility stage changes this dynamic entirely. Understanding the applicable jurisdiction, the design storm volume, the site's infiltration capacity, and the relevant treatment options before a layout is committed allows the design to absorb those constraints from day one rather than retrofitting around them.

That early visibility protects the budget by avoiding rework, protects the layout by reserving the right footprint for treatment facilities, and protects the schedule by ensuring the plan can actually meet the water quality and hydromodification standards the reviewing agency will require. The cost of running the analysis up front is small; the cost of discovering it after a layout is in plan check is not.

May 4, 2026

The Hidden Reality Behind Land Listings

Tags: California, Due Diligence & Feasibility, Land Valuation, Net Developable Area, Pre-Acquisition, Site Constraints

Q&A

How much of a listed property's acreage is actually buildable?

The acreage on a property listing rarely reflects the land you can actually build on. Listings advertise gross acreage — every square foot inside the parcel boundary — but the number that drives a project's economics is the net developable area, the portion that can legally and physically support construction.

The gap between those two figures is often substantial, and on parcels with meaningful terrain or regulatory constraints, the developable footprint can be a small fraction of what the brochure advertises. Understanding that distinction before making an offer is one of the most important steps in evaluating any land acquisition.

A wide range of features routinely come out of the equation when calculating what's truly buildable. Slopes too steep to grade, floodways and FEMA flood zones, wetlands and their associated buffers, riparian corridors and habitat protection areas, recorded easements, utility rights-of-way, required access roads, and stormwater detention or treatment areas all reduce the usable footprint. In California, additional layers — Alquist-Priolo fault zones, High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, fuel modification setbacks, oak woodland and sensitive species protections, and zoning-required setbacks — frequently take further bites out of the parcel. Each constraint carries its own legal basis and engineering implications, and they often overlap in ways that aren't visible from a parcel map or a listing photo.

This is why a credible feasibility analysis runs the net developable area calculation up front, before a property is priced into a financial model. The meaningful benchmark for valuation isn't dollars per gross acre but dollars per buildable acre, because that's the land that actually generates units, square footage, or yield. A parcel listed at 20 acres that delivers only 8 net developable acres is a fundamentally different investment than the headline number suggests.

Running those numbers at the front end of due diligence protects the project's economics through every phase that follows — entitlement, design, and construction.

May 1, 2026

AB 130’s Six-Year Code Freeze: How BIA is Fighting Jurisdictions That Don’t Understand the New Rules

Tags: AB 130, Building Code Freeze, California Housing, Entitlements, Home Builders, Residential Development

Q&A

What do home builders need to know about the building code freeze and year-end submittal deadlines?

California's recently enacted budget package included AB 130, which establishes a near six-year moratorium on state and local modifications to residential building codes from October 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031.

The intent is to bring cost certainty to housing development by holding the regulatory landscape steady, with only narrow exceptions for emergency standards, wildfire-related home hardening measures, and certain pre-approved local plan alignments.

While the freeze locks in stability going forward, it does not prevent the already-finalized 2025 California Building Standards Code from taking effect on January 1, 2026, which is the change driving urgency at the end of this calendar year.

For builders with active or near-ready projects, the practical consequence is significant. Plans and applications submitted before year-end can generally be processed under the 2022 code cycle they were designed around, while projects submitted after January 1 will need to comply with the 2025 standards.

Because building codes change every three years and incorporating mid-stream revisions can force expensive redesigns and resubmittals, the difference between filing in December and filing in January can mean weeks of additional engineering work, new fees, and meaningful schedule delays.

This is particularly impactful for projects already deep in design or financing, where late-stage code changes can affect everything from electrical and energy systems to fire protection details.

Confusion at the local level is a real and active risk during this transition. Some local agencies and special districts have continued to tell applicants that they must incorporate the new January 1 standards even when a project was submitted in time to vest under the 2022 code, which is not consistent with how the freeze and grandfathering provisions are intended to operate.

Builders who encounter this should be prepared to document their submittal timing carefully, push back on agency demands that overreach the new law, and engage planning support early to confirm which code cycle a project is actually subject to. With limited time left in the year, the most important step is ensuring that any project meant to qualify under the current code is fully submitted before the deadline closes.

April 29, 2026

Spotting Development Risks Before You Buy Land

Tags: Discretionary Review, Entitlement Risk, Homebuilders, Lot Due Diligence, Pre-Acquisition Planning, Site Feasibility

Q&A

What entitlement risks should builders check before buying a lot?

Builders and general contractors bring deep expertise in product design and construction costs, but lot selection often introduces a different category of risk that sits outside their core training: entitlements.

A parcel that pencils out on price alone can carry hidden constraints that surface only during the approval process, sometimes adding months of delay or eliminating the project's margin altogether.

Catching these issues before a purchase closes — or before a design package is locked in — is one of the highest-leverage moves a builder can make on a project.

The most common red flags include awkward access geometry that complicates driveway placement and fire department turnarounds, lots too shallow or irregular to accommodate standard floor plans without costly redesign, and parcels where the buildable area falls within mapped flood zones or high fire severity areas.

Utility routing is another frequent surprise; sewer, water, or dry utility extensions can quietly add significant cost when the nearest connection is farther or more constrained than it first appears. Equally important is understanding the review pathway, since a project that qualifies for ministerial or administrative approval moves on a fundamentally different timeline and risk profile than one that triggers discretionary review with public hearings, environmental analysis, or design review board scrutiny.

A planning review at the lot evaluation stage answers the questions that determine whether a deal is actually as good as it looks on paper. Bringing in entitlement expertise before committing to a parcel — or before investing in architectural plans — protects both the acquisition decision and the design budget, and it gives builders a clearer view of total project cost rather than just acquisition cost.

April 27, 2026

AB 2011 and SB 9 Can Unlock More Housing

Tags: AB 2011 & SB 9, California Housing Law, Due Diligence, Entitlements, Residential Development, Streamlined Approvals

Q&A

Could AB 2011 or SB 9 unlock faster approvals or extra units on my site?

AB 2011 and SB 9 are two California laws that can change what's possible on a development site, and in some cases dramatically shorten the path from concept to construction.

SB 9 (2021) requires ministerial approval of housing developments of up to two units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a single-family parcel into two lots, or both, taking qualifying projects out of discretionary review.

AB 2011 (2022) creates a parallel by-right pathway for specified mixed-income and affordable housing on certain commercially zoned sites, provided the project meets affordability, density, and labor standards. Both laws were designed to move qualifying housing projects out of the lengthy, uncertain entitlement process and into a faster, more predictable lane.

The catch is that neither law applies universally, and the rules have continued to evolve. SB 9 eligibility depends on factors like the parcel's zoning, lot size, location relative to historic districts and environmentally sensitive areas, and whether a proposed lot split meets specific geometric requirements.

AB 2011 requires the site to sit on a qualifying commercial corridor and to satisfy project-level tests for affordability mix, density, prevailing wage, and distance from industrial uses. Recent amendments have continued to refine the landscape — AB 2243 (2024) expanded AB 2011 eligibility for housing on commercially zoned property, AB 893 (2025) extended that reach to parcels within half a mile of a public university, and SB 450 limits how local jurisdictions can apply objective standards to SB 9 projects, treating them no more restrictively than other development in the underlying zone.

Whether either law actually unlocks value on a given site comes down to a parcel-by-parcel review of zoning, location, site conditions, and prior approvals. We evaluate each property against the specific eligibility criteria of these streamlining laws to determine whether they offer a meaningful path to extra units, faster processing, or both — or whether a traditional entitlement strategy remains the right approach. That early analysis can save months of effort and shape every downstream decision about feasibility, design, and financing.

April 24, 2026

Hidden Cost of Park Amenities: How Small Fee Increases Price Families Out of Homeownership

Tags: Development Fees, Entitlements, Fee Strategy, Housing Affordability, Project Feasibility, Value Engineering

Q&A

How do development fees affect housing affordability — and what can be done about it?

More than most people realize. Every fee added to a new home gets passed directly to the buyer or renter. According to the National Association of Home Builders, every $1,000 increase in the price of a home prices out over 600 households who could have afforded it at the previous price point.

With municipal impact and development fees in California averaging $29,000 per unit, the cumulative effect on affordability is significant — and it falls on every project type, including the affordable housing the state most desperately needs.

The park fee question is a good example of where this gets fixable. When a community already has access to a regional or large community park nearby, does a smaller neighborhood park really need every bell and whistle? That kind of value engineering at the fee and amenity level — applied systematically across a project — can meaningfully move the needle on home prices without compromising quality of life.

The same discipline needs to apply more broadly. Fee structures should reflect actual infrastructure impact, not function as a growth management tool. Waivers, reductions, and deferrals can meaningfully improve project feasibility — and engaging early with jurisdictions on fee nexus studies and master fee schedules often reveals more flexibility than development teams assume.

April 22, 2026

Before You Build: Check Your Land Survey

Tags: Construction Risk, Due Diligence, Land Survey, Risk Management, Site Constraints, Subdivision & Mapping

Q&A

How old is too old when it comes to my land survey?

If your survey is more than two years old, treat it as a risk item — especially if you're heading into design, entitlements, or final mapping.

A land survey doesn't technically expire, but its validity depends on how much has changed since it was conducted. And more changes than most people expect. Property pins move. Fences creep. Utilities get added. Counties and cities regularly re-plat or widen roads, install utilities, or update easements — and an older survey may not show new rights-of-way or recorded easements that affect your property.

For development projects, the stakes are higher. Lenders, attorneys, and title companies often require a current boundary or ALTA survey — typically less than five years old — to confirm that property lines, easements, and improvements are still accurate. For subdivisions, entitlements, or anything near a boundary, cities will often require current data before they'll accept your application.

The real risk is timing. Designing on an outdated survey means you may not discover the problem until you're in construction or at final mapping — when fixing it is expensive and disruptive.

The practical rule: always ask how old your survey is and whether it still reflects site reality. If the answer is uncertain, a survey refresh is almost always cheaper than the boundary dispute, redesign, or permitting delay it prevents.

April 20, 2026

Turning Rural Land Into Smart Growth Communities

Tags: Entitlements, General Plan Consistency, Open Space Preservation, Preserve-Adjacent Sites, Rural Land Development, Smart Growth

Q&A

How do I develop rural or preserve-adjacent land without fighting the general plan?

The difference between a project that moves forward and one that stalls usually comes down to one thing: whether your development vision aligns with what the jurisdiction already wants to see on that land — or fights it.

General plans on rural and preserve-adjacent properties typically call for compact development, meaningful open space, and infrastructure that doesn't overextend public services. The winning strategy is designing a project that delivers on those expectations, not one that asks for exceptions to them.

In practice, that usually means cluster development — concentrating the built footprint on the least sensitive portions of the site while permanently preserving the remainder as open space. It also means demonstrating that you can serve the project with infrastructure without harming natural resources, and incorporating Smart Growth elements like walkable streets, parks, and connectivity that agencies are looking for.

Environmental work is not optional on these sites — and doing it early actually helps you. Biological surveys and wetland delineations completed upfront inform your site plan, reduce surprises at entitlement, and signal to the lead agency that resource protection is built into your approach.

The goal is to position your project as helping the jurisdiction implement its own plan. That's a fundamentally different — and more approvable — conversation.

This page features videos that break down the critical steps of the land development process, from early due diligence and feasibility analysis to entitlements, environmental considerations, and final project execution. Topics include biological and wetlands constraints, CEQA and NEPA compliance, land use strategy, engineering and design, and market demand analysis. You’ll also find real-world project updates and case studies that show how these pieces come together to move projects forward.