Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The legal rule for recovery in court after a fraudulent misrepresentation re material facts in a real estate transaction is as follows:

(To recover) "it must be shown that the defendant made: (1) a false representation or a nondisclosure (concealment) of material facts affecting the value or desirability of the property; (2) with knowledge of its falsity or knowledge that such fact could not reasonably be discovered; (3) with intent to defraud or deceive, i.e., to induce reliance. Further, plaintiffs must show justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or resulting from the nondisclosure, and resulting damages. (Civ. Code, �� 1572, 1709; Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974"

The cases I reviewed in preparing to answer your question show a mixed pattern, and I would say some of the factors that tipped the scales in the outcome were (a) whether the incorrect representations were oral or in writing; (b) whether the actual sales contract contains language disavowing any representations not contained in the contract or attachments thereto; (c) whether the sellers making the representation were residents, locals, or distant absentee owners; and (d) whether the zoning law was changed any time close to the sale date, either just before or afterward. Ability to prove actual money damages (i.e., the market value is less) may also be a factor.

Overall, I think you have some chance of prevailing in court, but it won't be a slam dunk. Worth discussing with a local lawyer with real-property transaction litigation experience, however.