California has enacted a statewide requirement that will make remote building inspections an available option for many common residential projects. Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1738 on September 18, 2026. The measure was filed with the Secretary of State the same day as Chapter 271, Statutes of 2026, and adds Section 17970.9 to the California Health and Safety Code.
For building departments, the important question is no longer whether AB 1738 will become law. It is how to turn the chaptered requirements into a practical, defensible service before the applicable 2028 deadline. That work includes defining eligible inspection types, documenting homeowner consent, setting camera and location-verification standards, training inspectors, updating scheduling practices, and preserving an in-person fallback when a remote view is not enough.
This article summarizes the final chaptered text. It is operational guidance, not legal advice. Agencies should review the statute with their counsel and rely on the enrolled law—not summaries of earlier bill versions—when adopting policy.
AB 1738 at a glance
- Signed: September 18, 2026.
- Chaptered: Chapter 271, Statutes of 2026.
- New law: Health and Safety Code Section 17970.9.
- Core requirement: Covered local agencies must offer eligible homeowners, or contractors with homeowner consent, an option to request remote inspection for specified work in one- or two-family dwellings.
- Allowed methods: Live videoconferencing or recorded photos and videos, selected at the construction inspector’s discretion.
- Main deadline: January 1, 2028 for covered agencies that are not qualifying smaller cities.
- Extended deadline: July 1, 2028 for a qualifying city of 50,000 people or fewer that is not exempt.
Who must comply—and by when?
The law defines a “local agency” as a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county. Its legislative findings call permitting and inspection oversight a matter of statewide concern rather than solely a municipal affair, so the requirement extends to charter cities.
The population provisions need careful reading. Section 17970.9 does not apply to a city with fewer than 5,000 people or a county with fewer than 150,000 people, including each city within that county. A nonexempt city with 50,000 people or fewer is treated as a “qualifying city or county” and has until July 1, 2028 to comply. Other covered local agencies must comply by January 1, 2028.
That gives most covered departments about 15 months from enactment, not years of open-ended planning. Leaders should confirm the population category that applies to their jurisdiction, record the conclusion, and work backward from the correct deadline. Because county status can also affect cities within that county, agencies should not classify themselves using city population alone.
Which residential projects are included?
The final law applies to all or a subset of inspections required by a building permit for five categories of work in single- or two-family dwelling units:
- Residential heat-pump water heaters, including alteration, extension, or replacement of parts of an existing electrical system needed for the installation.
- Residential heat-pump HVAC systems, subject to inspector discretion, including related alteration, extension, or replacement of existing electrical-system components.
- Residential reroofs.
- Photovoltaic systems rated at 15 kilowatts AC or less, plus energy storage systems.
- Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
For both heat-pump categories, the agency does not have to inspect a new or upgraded main electrical service remotely. It may elect to do so. This distinction should appear in written eligibility rules so permit technicians, inspectors, homeowners, and contractors receive the same answer.
Earlier versions and analyses of AB 1738 discussed additional work types. Those lists should not be copied into a final policy without checking the chaptered text. The enacted list above is narrower. Agencies may still run a more permissive program and allow other permit types remotely, but that is a local choice rather than part of the minimum statewide mandate.
How a remote inspection may be conducted
The inspection takes place with the construction inspector offsite. The inspector chooses between two methods: videoconferencing or recorded photos and videos. That discretion matters. A department does not have to force every eligible inspection into one identical format, and an inspector remains responsible for deciding whether the evidence is adequate.
A live session is useful when the inspector needs to direct movement, ask for another angle, hear an explanation, inspect adjacent conditions, or capture additional details immediately. An asynchronous submission can work for predictable, repeatable evidence where the agency has defined exactly what must be shown. A practical policy can use both while documenting when each method is appropriate.
The option generally belongs to the homeowner, or to a contractor who supplies the city or county with the homeowner’s written consent. If an agency requires the inspection to be remote, the contractor must instead disclose that requirement to the homeowner. Departments should decide how consent or disclosure will be collected, associated with the permit, and retained.
What the law allows departments to require
AB 1738 allows local agencies to adopt reasonable protocols for the technical conduct of remote inspections. The statute identifies three central reliability tests:
- The field of view, image quality, and camera coverage must let the inspector adequately observe the permitted work.
- The department must be able to verify that the work shown is the actual work under the permit at the permitted location. The video or photo inspection must begin at the street, clearly showing the property address at the front of the building or other proof of location.
- The technology and broadband connection must be sufficient for the inspector to observe and verify the work reliably.
These are not merely technical details. They should become a short, repeatable operating procedure. A remote-inspection checklist can begin with identity, permit number, address and location confirmation, then move through a prescribed evidence sequence for each project type. The inspector should also have a clear way to record an incomplete view, failed connection, correction request, pass, or escalation to an onsite inspection.
Inspector authority and safeguards remain intact
AB 1738 does not require an inspector to approve work that cannot be verified through a camera. After attempting remote verification, the inspector may terminate the session and require an in-person inspection. If a remote inspection fails, the inspector may decide whether later inspections under the same permit will be remote or onsite.
The law also lets an agency keep a digital record for later review, training, or compliance. “May” gives departments discretion, but a retention decision should be deliberate. A policy should define what becomes part of the permit file, how long recordings or captured evidence are retained, who may access them, and how exports are handled under the agency’s records and privacy obligations.
If a homeowner or contractor willfully misrepresents the work, the city or county may temporarily ban that person from remote inspections for up to six months after a first offense and up to 12 months for later offenses. Agencies may enter agreements to enforce one another’s temporary bans. Any enforcement process should include consistent documentation and legal review.
Remote inspections must be offered at no greater cost and with no greater delay than in-person inspections. That parity rule makes fee schedules and appointment availability part of implementation—not an afterthought. The statute also extends applicable liabilities and immunities to remote inspections.
What AB 1738 means for building departments
The law creates an access requirement, but a successful program needs more than a video call. A department must connect intake, scheduling, consent, inspection evidence, inspector decisions, corrections, records, and reporting. If those pieces remain scattered across email, personal phones, and unstructured file uploads, remote inspections can create more administrative work than they remove.
The best starting point is a narrow, controlled workflow. Choose one or two covered project types with clear visual criteria. Define the required views. Test the process with several inspectors and permit technicians. Track completion rate, average appointment time, failed connections, conversion to onsite visits, and common missing evidence. Then revise before expanding.
Public instructions should be equally simple. Participants need to know how to join, whether an app is required, where to begin, what must be visible, how to prepare for weak connectivity, and when an inspector may stop the remote process. Clear expectations reduce missed appointments and protect inspector judgment.
A practical implementation timeline
Now through early 2027: policy and ownership
Assign an executive sponsor and a working group that includes building officials, inspectors, permit technicians, information technology, records staff, communications, and counsel. Confirm whether the January or July 2028 deadline applies. Compare current policy with the enacted statute and choose initial permit types.
Spring through summer 2027: design and pilot
Write eligibility, consent, location-verification, connectivity, evidence, escalation, retention, and misuse procedures. Configure the inspection workflow and reporting format. Run a controlled pilot with measurable success criteria and collect structured feedback from inspectors and applicants.
Fall 2027: train and integrate
Train every affected role, not only inspectors. Publish applicant instructions, update scripts and appointment notices, test records retrieval, and make sure supervisors can audit outcomes. Review fees and scheduling to confirm remote inspections are not offered at greater cost or delay.
Before the applicable 2028 deadline: launch and monitor
Move from pilot to a documented service. Monitor failed or abandoned sessions, onsite escalation rates, inspection duration, evidence quality, corrections, applicant experience, and record completeness. Schedule a formal review after the first 30, 60, and 90 days.
How Virtual Inspection Pro can help
Virtual Inspection Pro helps a department organize the operational workflow around remote inspection. Teams can schedule an inspection, send a secure browser link, guide a live mobile camera, capture photos and notes during the session, annotate findings, associate location context, and produce an organized report for the permit record. Participants can join from a modern phone browser without installing an app.
The platform can support consistent templates for eligible inspection types, evidence capture, corrections, and reporting. It can also help supervisors review records and help teams standardize how remote sessions are performed. Technology does not determine code compliance and does not replace the inspector’s judgment. It gives the department a consistent way to carry out and document the process the department approves.
For agencies facing AB 1738, our team can help map the current inspection process, select a focused pilot, configure the first workflow, and train staff. Starting with a small production-ready process now leaves time to learn before the statutory deadline instead of rushing a department-wide change at the end of 2027.
AB 1738 readiness checklist
- Confirm whether your agency is exempt, due January 1, 2028, or due July 1, 2028.
- Use the final chaptered project list rather than an earlier bill summary.
- Define when live video or recorded media will be used.
- Create written homeowner-consent and contractor-disclosure steps.
- Standardize street, address, permit, and location verification.
- Set minimum field-of-view, image-quality, camera-coverage, and connectivity standards.
- Protect the inspector’s ability to stop and convert to an onsite inspection.
- Decide what digital records are retained and who can access them.
- Review fees and scheduling for cost-and-delay parity.
- Document willful-misrepresentation review and temporary-ban procedures.
- Pilot, measure, train, and improve before public launch.
Do not wait for the deadline
AB 1738 gives California building departments a clear direction and a workable runway. The agencies that benefit most will use that runway to build a reliable inspection service—not simply add a video link to an existing appointment. A controlled pilot now can reveal policy gaps, training needs, and evidence standards while there is still time to address them.
See how Virtual Inspection Pro supports building departments or request a consultation to map your first phase.
Sources
- California Legislative Information, AB 1738, chaptered bill text, Chapter 271, Statutes of 2026.
- California Legislative Information, AB 1738 bill status, showing approval and chaptering on September 18, 2026.
- California Legislative Information, AB 1738 bill history, 2025–2026 Regular Session.
- California Legislative Information, AB 1738 vote information and legislative actions.
Last reviewed September 23, 2026. This article provides general operational information and is not legal advice.