California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 51240 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any city or county may by contract limit the use of agricultural land for the purpose of preserving such land pursuant and subject to the conditions set forth in the contract and in this chapter. A contract may provide for restrictions, terms, and conditions, including payments and fees, more restrictive than or in addition to those required by this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Lewis v. City of Hayward, 177 Cal. App. 3d 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lewis v. City of Hayward, 177 Cal. App. 3d 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “(Gov. Code, §§ 51240, 51244.) Contractual restrictions were employed because zoning had proved to be an ineffective method of enforceably restricting land use given the ease with which zoning could be changed, a fact reflected in assessment practices.”

Delucchi v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal. App. 3d 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Code, § 51230) wherein land uses are limited to agricultural and compatible uses.”

California Farm Bureau Fed'n v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “(Gov. Code, §§ 51240, 51242, 51244.) The act was the Legislature’s *181 response to “the rapid and virtually irreversible loss of agricultural land to residential and other developed uses .”

Dorcich v. Johnson, 110 Cal. App. 3d 487 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “Contracts thereafter could be entered into limiting the use of any agricultural land, not only prime agricultural land (Gov. Code, § 51240; Stats. 1969, ch. 1372, §§ 9, 28, 29).”

Shellenberger v. Bd. of Equalization, 147 Cal. App. 3d 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “In accordance with the Williamson Act the contracts provided that Holt Brothers would restrict their land to agricultural or related use for at least 10 years (Gov. Code, §§ 51240, 51242, 51244) in return for a use-value assessment for property taxes.”

McMillan v. Cnty. of Siskiyou CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “(Gov. Code, § 51240.) “In return for accepting restrictions on the land, the landowner is ‘guaranteed a relatively stable tax base, founded on the value of the land for open space use only and unaffected by its development potential.”

290 Div. (EAT), LLC v. City & Cnty. of S.F. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “4; Gov. Code, §§ 51240, 51242, 51244.) Others include wildlife habitat and scenic corridor contracts under Government Code sections 51205 and 51205.”

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (N.D. Cal. 2021). “Cal. Gov. Code § 51240 . 8 Such a contract must exclude land “uses other than agricultural, and other than those 9 compatible with agricultural uses, for the duration of the contract.”

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (N.D. Cal. 2022). “Cal. Gov. Code § 51240 . 10 Such a contract must exclude land “uses other than agricultural, and other than those 11 compatible with agricultural uses, for the duration of the contract.”

SOS-Danville Grp. v. Town of Danville CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “(Gov. Code, §§ 51240–51244.) Absent contrary action, each year the contract renews for an additional year, so that the use restrictions are always in place for the next nine to 10 years.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.