_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
November 21, 2025
Recorded loan and occupancy filings conflict with Sanchez’s claim of District 4 residency.
Bellflower~A Los Cerritos Community News investigation has found that Bellflower District 4 City Councilman Victor Sanchez has created a serious residency conflict and exposed himself to potential mortgage, tax, and legal jeopardy after declaring a second home on Somerset in Bellflower City Council District 1 as owner-occupied while continuing to serve as the elected representative for District 4.
Under California law, “owner-occupied” means the owner lives in that specific home as their primary, full-time residence. It is not a casual designation and it is not satisfied by occasional visits, mail delivery, or part-time use. It requires continuous, day-to-day living in the property. The classification carries legal weight because declaring a home as owner-occupied affects mortgage terms, tax assessments, and state reporting requirements. False or misleading owner-occupancy claims are treated as a serious matter under California law.
Sanchez ran for and won the District 4 seat in 2020 while living at his Maple Street home inside District 4 boundaries. In January 2022, records show Sanchez and his wife were added to the title of a duplex, two connected residences, on Somerset in Bellflower, a property located in District 1, not District 4. Half of the property was transferred to them as a gift from his parents.
______________________
_____________________
GRANT DEED gifting half of the duplex on Somerset (upper yellow) and the owner/occupied box marked (lower yellow) showing it is owner-occupied. Click on all images to enlarge, click again to reduce.
____________________
Just days after the gift, a deed of trust securing a $421,000-plus mortgage was recorded against the Somerset property, listing four borrowers: Sanchez, his wife, and his parents.
The recorded deed of trust designates the Somerset property as an owner-occupied primary residence and includes the legally binding requirement that the borrower move in within 60 days and remain living there for at least one year. All four borrowers, including Sanchez, signed that declaration under penalty of perjury, and the document was notarized and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office.
The Somerset owner-occupied designation threatens Sanchez’s District 4 seat because California law requires councilmembers to live in the district they represent. By declaring Somerset as his owner-occupied home, Sanchez effectively placed his legal residence outside District 4, which can lead to removal under state election laws .
___________________
ABOVE That document lists the Somerset property as an owner-occupied home and uses that status to claim an exemption from a state recording fee.
ABOVE document showing all four borrowers are on the deed.
ABOVE: document showing the loan amount of $421,000.
ABOVE: document showing all four signatures.
ABOVE: document showing all four signatures were notarized.
___________________
In addition, Bellflower’s City Ordinance 1302 requires that a councilmember elected from a district “must reside in that district.” The ordinance states that “termination of residency in a district by a councilmember shall create an immediate vacancy” for that seat.
____________________
BELLFLOWER’S Ordinance 1302 showing residency requirement.
_____________________
When LCCN asked about the Somerset transaction and his residency, Sanchez insisted he remains a District 4 resident.
“I live within District 4 and have always lived within District 4 while holding office,” he wrote. “This is my legal residence where I am registered to vote and where my family calls home.”
When pressed on the Somerset loan, Sanchez told LCCN he never moved into the duplex and never intended to live there. “The property that I own in part was occupied by one of the owners, but I never moved there and never had an intent to permanently live there,” he wrote.
If Sanchez “never had an intent to permanently live” at the Somerset property, as he now claims, then the statements he certified under penalty of perjury on the deed of trust and in the recorded documents cannot be reconciled with his own admission.
That discrepancy doesn’t just deepen the residency dispute — it demonstrates that the legality of those filings is now in serious doubt and raises direct questions about whether the representations made to both the lender and the County Recorder were truthful, accurate, or lawful.
Sanchez went on to involve his parents in the situation, claiming that the occupancy requirement attached to the loan applied only to “an owner, not all owners.” “In this case, the property was correctly categorized as owner-occupied because my mother was the borrower who lived and intended to live in the home,” he told LCCN.
The public documents tell a different story.
The first document, the Somerset Grant Deed, records the gift-transfer from his parents to four joint tenants: his parents, Victor and his wife. As is standard, only the grantors [Sanchez’ parents] sign the deed; grantees do not. That deed, by itself, does not address occupancy.
The crucial instrument is the Somerset deed of trust recorded days later. That document lists the Somerset property as an owner-occupied home and uses that status to claim an exemption from a state recording fee. It also includes the occupancy rule saying the borrower will move in, make it their main residence within a set time, and continue living there for at least a year..
All four borrowers signed the deed of trust, and a notary confirmed they appeared and signed it. There is no recorded rider or clause listing any of them as a non-occupant. The document uses the word “borrower” in the singular, and it applies to everyone who signed.
When LCCN asked Sanchez to identify where in the recorded deed of trust it says that he is a non-occupant co-borrower or that the occupancy covenant applies only to his mother, he repeatedly referred to an “unrecorded loan application, lender guidelines and industry practice.”
But the public instrument is the controlling document.
Taken together, Sanchez’s statements to LCCN and the loan documents reveal several clear conflicts and will place his City Council seat in jeopardy.
Sanchez said he “never moved there and never had an intent to permanently live there,” yet he signed the same occupancy agreement as every other borrower on a loan that was recorded and treated as owner-occupied.
Sanchez also argued that the occupancy obligation applied only to his mother, but the recorded deed of trust contains no language limiting the covenant to a single borrower or exempting him. In public records, there is no such category as “partially owner-occupied by one borrower only.”
It is a paper trail that points in two different directions: campaign and voter records that say he lives in District 4, and a recorded deed of trust that says he claimed an owner-occupied residence in District 1.
What Sanchez has done will have wide-ranging consequences that create major headaches for Bellflower and its residents. A residency fight will force the city to spend time and resources investigating whether Sanchez has been serving from outside his district. If his seat is declared vacant, the city could face a costly special election or an appointment battle that drags on for months. Past votes he participated in may be challenged, putting city decisions at risk of being reopened or questioned.
Separately, a resident, the district attorney, or the state Attorney General can pursue a quo warranto action against Sanchez in superior court. In that proceeding, a judge would decide whether Sanchez is lawfully entitled to the seat based on the Somerset public documents. If the court determines that Sanchez does not reside in the district, the seat is declared vacant by operation of law.
In addition, the Fair Political Practices Commission can review whether Sanchez accurately disclosed his real property interests, loans, and potential conflicts on required Form 700 statements.
Lastly, the California Department of Real Estate can examine whether Sanchez, a licensed realtor, met professional standards on a real-estate-secured loan, particularly where owner-occupancy is concerned.
The verification process must run its course, but the recorded filings overwhelmingly indicate that Sanchez’ declared domicile lies outside District 4, which would legally compel his removal from the Bellflower City Council.
On Bellflower resident did not mince words, “We saw all the occupancy cheating during the sub prime days of greed. It seems an industry insider and elected official cheated in Bellflower.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login