Local governments are authorized to enact an administrative process to enforce violations of any local ordinance through the imposition and collection of administrative fines or penalties. (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).) This authorization was intended “to provide a faster and more cost-effective enforcement mechanism than criminal prosecution for the violation of a local ordinance.” (94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 39, 43 (2011).)

Legal Standard

Despite its broad applicability, the requirements for implementing a code enforcement process are relatively basic: “The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).)

Any such administrative procedures must provide for “a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(A).)

However, “the ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to this subdivision may provide for the immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirements if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis. This subparagraph shall not be construed to apply to cannabis cultivation that is lawfully undertaken pursuant to Section 11362.1 of the Health and Safety Code.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(B).) Such an ordinance shall provide for “a reasonable period of time for the correction or remedy of the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties... if all of the following are true:

1. A tenant is in possession of the property that is the subject of the administrative action.
2. The rental property owner or agent can provide evidence that the rental or lease agreement prohibits the cultivation of cannabis.
3. The rental property owner or agent did not know the tenant was illegally cultivating cannabis and no complaint, property inspection, or other information caused the rental property owner or agent to have actual notice of the illegal cannabis cultivation.”

(Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(C).)

Judicial Review

Section 53069.4 provides for judicial review of a local agency's final administrative order in a code enforcement action. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) Great specificity in the administrative decision is not required and an administrative decision may be deemed satisfactory if the findings form an analytic bridge between the evidence and the agency's decision. (Fair Employment Practice Com. V. State Personnel Bd. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 322.)

After obtaining an unfavorable administrative decision in a code enforcement proceeding, a challenge to a final administrative order may be brought by either writ of mandate or a Section 53069.4 request for trial de novo. (Martin v. Riverside Co. Dept. of Code Enforcement (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1406.) “[W]ithin 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency’s file in the case shall be received in evidence.” (Id.)

The de novo review process authorized by the statute is, in essence, an original proceeding in the superior court reviewing the propriety of a local agency’s final administrative decision after hearing to impose fines or penalties; it is “tantamount to a superior court judgment in mandamus,” which is generally appealable. (Cruz v. Patel (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 234, 242; JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1056–1057 & fns. 9–10.)

These proceedings are only applicable to limited civil cases. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) The statutory scheme governing the designation of civil actions makes clear that “a civil case is classified as unlimited by default; extra requirements must be satisfied to render a case limited.” (Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 493.) “[N]otwithstanding any statute that classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case, an action or special proceeding shall not be treated as a limited civil case unless all of [three] conditions are satisfied.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85.) The first of these three conditions requires that “[t]he amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(a).) In addition, the relief sought must be of “a type that may be granted in a limited civil case” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(b)) and must be “exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(c).)