Land Use Disputes

Cox Castle pairs the depth and breadth of our land use practitioners’ expertise with our extraordinary trial and appellate experience to deliver unparalleled land use litigation advice and counsel to our clients. We have worked successfully throughout California and nationally on a broad range of complex matters. Our seamless integration of land use and litigation expertise, tested and refined from the administrative process through trial and the courts of appeal, allows us to offer sophisticated, practical representation.

We have extensive state and federal court experience, including litigating numerous leading cases in the California Supreme Court. In addition, we represent clients before the full range of specialized agencies in California, including the Army Corps of Engineers, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, federal and state Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, the Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, Local Agency Formation Commissions, air districts, and water quality control boards.

Our clients range from private developers and project applicants to cities, counties, and special districts. Reflecting our clients’ diversity, we have litigated cases spanning the spectrum of industries and practice areas, including planning (general plans, air quality plans, transportation plans, and greenhouse gas reduction plans), renewable energy, housing (market rate, affordable, senior, infill, and greenfield) mixed-use projects, life sciences, industrial, office, retail, hospitality, education, and healthcare.

We have deep expertise addressing all the laws under which land use claims arise, including:

• California Coastal Act
• California Endangered Species Act
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)   
• Federal and state Clean Air Act 
• Federal and state Clean Water Act
• Cortese-Knox Act (Local Agency Formation Commissions)
• Density Bonus Law                                                       
• Development Agreement Law
• Initiative and Referendum Law                                                                 
• Endangered Species Act
• Housing Accountability Act, including Builder’s Remedy
• Housing Crisis Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Mitigation Fee Act
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Planning and Zoning Law
• Property Rights and Procedural Protections     
• Storm Water Management Statutes
• Subdivision Map Act
• Williamson Act

We also have extensive experience with contractual and regulatory issues related to land use, including Reimbursement Agreements, Development Agreements, Community Facilities Districts, Disposition and Development Agreements, and ongoing matters arising from the termination of redevelopment agencies in California, including Owner Participation Agreements. 

Victorious Court Cases for a City’s Power Plant Upgrades
Represented a city against two cases in Los Angeles Superior Court in which the city was challenged for its decision to upgrade its power plant, following a lengthy multi-step California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Cox Castle won both cases as the court rejected environmental justice and historic resource claims, among other CEQA and municipal code issues. The project is currently underway.

Successfully Settled Lawsuits Against a County’s General Plan Policies
Represented a county in California against a multitude of lawsuits filed by oil companies and related interests challenging new county General Plan policies that imposed buffer, anti-flaring, and anti-trucking policies on new discretionary oil wells. Cox Castle previously represented the county on environmental impact issues relating to adoption of the new policies and related zoning amendments. Eleven lawsuits were ultimately filed challenging the policies, and Cox Castle settled all the lawsuits, with either policy clarifications or minor changes to the General Plan policies, all of which were already evaluated in the county’s environmental impact report. Settling the lawsuits with minor changes was a huge win for the client, and potentially saved them over a million dollars in further legal fees for the hearing and inevitable appeals.

News