Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The "good faith improver of property owned by another" law (Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.1 to 871.7) doesn't apply, because 871.6 says other law continues to govern encroachments, which this is.

Case law gives courts considerable discretion to resolve encroachment cases by either (1) ordering the removal of the encroachment, or (2) award damages to the owner of the encroached parcel and allow the encroachment to remain.

The following is quoted from a 1964 California Supreme Court case (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Ca.2d 855) on the subject, and I believe properly reflects the current state of the law on this topic:

" In an action between adjoining landowners, when the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff's property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment. (Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537, 244 P.2d 716.) But 'where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, that the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.' (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559, 250 P.2d 660, 663; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513, 25 Cal.Rptr. 270, 375 P.2d 174; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163, 14 Cal.Rptr. 174; Baglione v. Leue, 160 Cal.App.2d 731, 734, 325 P.2d 471.) "

Your situation sounds as though it meets the requirements for payment of damages rather than forced removal of part of the house, although one can't be certain without more facts. If you can't resolve the matter favorably, please feel free to contact me for assistance.