SB2477

Which office conversions SB2477 describes: The building must be primarily in office use, at least five years old at the proposed conversion start, and proposed for residential mixed-use or multifamily occupancy covering at least 65% of the building and at least 65% of each occupiable floor. Mixed-use means at least 65% residential square footage; multifamily means three or more dwellings, including qualifying condominiums. Its conversion subchapter excludes heavy-industrial zoning, buildings within 1,000 feet of an existing heavy-industrial site, within 3,000 feet of an airport or military base, and within 15,000 feet of a military-base boundary in a designated clear or accident-potential zone supporting military aviation. These are not blanket exclusions from every protection in SB840. SB2477 final law, sections 218.001–.002 and .101; SB840 final law.

Approval and conversion requirements: For covered projects, a city cannot require traffic-impact studies, traffic-mitigation construction or fees, parking beyond existing spaces, or utility expansion beyond the minimum capacity needed to serve the converted building. It cannot demand design requirements stricter than the applicable minimum International Building Code standard adopted under state law. It cannot require rezoning or the listed discretionary exceptions and approvals merely to allow the conversion, or require nonresidential uses in a multifamily conversion outside a mixed-use zone. Once the responsible authority determines that the proposal meets municipal regulations consistent with the subchapter, approval must be administrative without another city-council action. This is not automatic approval of a noncompliant application. SB2477 final law, sections 218.102 and .104; State building-code framework.

Density, site coverage and drainage: SB2477 bars a density cap below the greater of the city’s highest allowed residential density or 36 units per acre. Its text also protects existing impervious/site coverage and bars additional drainage, detention or water-quality requirements when impervious cover is not increased. Its floor-area-to-lot-area provision bars a limit below the greater of the highest ratio allowed on the site or 120% of the existing ratio when height and site coverage are unchanged. These provisions must be read with SB840: that law separately prohibits floor-area-ratio restrictions for covered residential development and preserves generally applicable stormwater rules and state/federal water-quality protections. SB2477 does not override those preserved powers or narrow SB840. SB2477 final law, sections 218.102(a)(5), (9)–(11) and act section 4; SB840 final law, sections 218.003 and .102.

Fees and retained safeguards: An impact fee is a development charge for specified infrastructure costs, not every permit fee. SB2477 bars it unless the land was already subject to an impact fee before the conversion permit was filed; water/wastewater impact fees additionally require increased service demand. The law preserves historic-protection and short-term-rental rules, private deed restrictions, and authorized municipal deed-restriction enforcement. Generally applicable water/sewer access, building-code and stormwater requirements remain subject to the chapter’s specific terms and the SB840 priority rule. The roadway-impact-fee prohibition outside city limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction was already law; the act reorganizes it rather than creating it. SB2477 final law, sections 218.003 and .103 and act sections 2 and 4; Impact-fee definition; Prior fee rule; Existing deed-enforcement limits.

Enforcement: Qualifying housing organizations or other adversely affected or aggrieved people may seek a court declaration or an injunction against a city. The organization definition covers specified Texas housing trade groups, Texas housing-access nonprofits that have commented to the legislature, and housing-policy research/education/advocacy nonprofits. A prevailing claimant must receive reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. Suit belongs in a county containing part of the property; intermediate appeals go exclusively to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. The final act does not include the introduced economic-damages remedy, express immunity waivers or attorney-general-triggered three-year property-tax-rate restriction. SB2477 final law, section 218.201; Introduced proposal.

What changed in passage: The Senate substitute dropped county coverage, raised the city threshold from more than 90,000 to more than 150,000, expanded airport/military buffers, added the floor-area/site-coverage/drainage provisions, and removed the proposed damages, immunity-waiver and tax-rate-penalty provisions. Senate F1, offered by Bettencourt and adopted May 8, removed blanket conversion permit-fee and parkland-dedication/fee bans; those bans did not survive. Both Patterson House amendments were adopted May 27 and survived: H21 added the retained municipal powers and SB840 harmonization clause; H22 added the increased-demand condition for water/wastewater impact fees. All three indexed amendments and the five text versions were compared through enrollment. Senate substitute; Senate F1; House H21; House H22; Amendment dispositions; Text versions; SB2477 final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Owners of qualifying buildings gain a less discretionary conversion path and relief from specified requirements. Cities lose some regulatory choices and may face compliance or litigation costs; more homes or lower rents are possible outcomes, not guarantees. The latest fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal implication, assumes state costs can be absorbed with existing resources, and says possible property-value and school-finance effects are unlikely to be significant. It identifies potential local impacts where municipal regulations conflict with the bill but provides no dollar estimate for those effects or private savings. May 28 latest fiscal note; SB2477 final law.

This is a review of the enacted texts, not a determination that a particular parcel qualifies, that a city has complied, or that a court has resolved a specific conflict between the two laws. Actual building suitability, financing, retained rules and SB840’s controlling provisions still matter. SB2477 final law; SB840 final law.