California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 51243 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Every contract shall do both of the following:

(a)Provide for the exclusion of uses other than agricultural, and other than those compatible with agricultural uses, for the duration of the contract.

(b)Be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of the owner. Whenever land under a contract is divided, the owner of any parcel may exercise, independent of any other owner of a portion of the divided land, any of the rights of the owner in the original contract, including the right to give notice of nonrenewal and to petition for cancellation. The effect of any such action by the owner of a parcel created by the division of land under contract shall not be imputed to the owners of the remaining parcels and shall have no effect on the contract as it applies to the remaining parcels of the divided land. Except as provided in Section 51243.5, on and after the effective date of the annexation by a city of any land under contract with a county, the city shall succeed to all rights, duties, and powers of the county under the contract.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Delucchi v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal. App. 3d 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delucchi v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal. App. 3d 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “) Under *820 the act local governments are authorized to establish agricultural preserves (Gov.”

Santa Catalina Island Conservancy v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 126 Cal. App. 3d 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “(Gov. Code, §§ 51243, 51244.) The Land Conservation Act was immediately followed by another proposed constitutional amendment in 1966 (Sen.”

Shellenberger v. Bd. of Equalization, 147 Cal. App. 3d 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “(Gov. Code, §§ 51243, 51243.5.) At this time, the property was no longer entitled to a preferential tax .”

Farmland Prot. All. v. Cnty. of Yolo (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “” Plaintiffs assert the revised mitigated negative declaration “itself admits that the Project does not in any way involve or include agriculture -- it is a purely commercial endeavor.”

Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (N.D. Cal. 2022). “at 23; see 12 Cal. Gov. Code § 51243 . Lee has not served notice but may do so at any time.”

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.