The 6 Situations Where Your City Can't Require Parking for Your ADU
State law bars ADU parking mandates near transit, in a historic district, or near a car share. City codes keep omitting them.
You're planning an ADU in the backyard. It's a short walk to the bus, so you assumed a parking space wasn't part of the deal. Then you open your city's ADU code and there it is: one off-street space required. So which is it — your read, or the code's?
Here's the thing: state law names six separate situations where a city cannot make you build parking for an ADU — and plenty of city codes still print only one or two of them.
The six carve-outs live in § 66322(a)
Government Code § 66322, subdivision (a) says a local agency shall not impose any parking standards for an ADU in any of these instances:
- Within a half-mile walking distance of public transit
- In an architecturally and historically significant historic district
- When the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure
- When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the ADU's occupant
- When there's a car share vehicle within one block of the ADU
- When the ADU permit is filed alongside a permit to build a new single-family or multifamily home on the same lot
Leave one out of your local code, and — in HCD's view — that gap doesn't bind you. The state standard does.
What HCD told Inglewood
Inglewood's ordinance (Section 12-43(I)) offered exactly two parking carve-outs: a half-mile-from-transit exception and a rule that demolished garage spaces don't have to be replaced. Reviewing it, HCD wrote:
"This omits five other conditions under which no parking may be required, per Government Code section 66322, subdivision (a):"
Then HCD listed the missing five verbatim — among them:
"(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit."
HCD's instruction was blunt: the City must amend the Ordinance to add the exceptions listed above.
Verified against HCD's ADU Ordinance Findings Letter to the City of Inglewood, dated May 12, 2025 (Ordinance No. 24-02).
Same move, different cities
Inglewood isn't unusual — it's the pattern. HCD has flagged the same gap up and down the state:
- Roseville exempted parking only for ADUs created within "existing structures or living areas." HCD listed all six § 66322(a) conditions and told the City to reflect every parking exception in the statute.
- Half Moon Bay offered carve-outs only for historic properties and a local parking-exception process. HCD quoted the statute in full — "A local agency shall not impose any parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances" — and said the ordinance had to reflect all of them.
- Santa Cruz County covered transit, historic districts, and car share, but HCD found the code "omits" the on-street-permit condition, subdivision (a)(4), and the new-home condition, subdivision (a)(6).
- San Clemente kept the car-share carve-out but narrowed it to a "city-sanctioned, posted" location. HCD noted the statute carries no such qualifier and told the City to remove it.
Different code, same defect: the exemptions get trimmed, and the trimming is what HCD keeps catching.
This is HCD's position — check yours
A couple of honest caveats. HCD findings letters are the department's enforcement position, not a court ruling; a court is the final word on what any given ordinance can require. And your project's facts matter — how "public transit" or "one block" applies to your specific lot isn't always obvious.
So treat this as a prompt, not a verdict. If your ADU fits one of the six situations but your city's code still demands a space, pull the actual code section, line it up against § 66322(a), and verify with your planning department or your own counsel before you build — or pay for — parking you may not owe.
What CrossBeam does with it
When the letter lands on your desk, CrossBeam turns it around the same day: what each item is actually asking, the code or law behind it, and a written response you can hand to your team or your attorney — the back-and-forth that used to eat weeks, done in a couple of hours.