Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS / TITLE 5. HIRING / CHAPTER 6. Assignment and Sublease / ARTICLE 2. Restrictions on Transfer
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1995.270 (2026)

Restrictions on Transfer

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The Legislature finds and declares:

(1)It is the public policy of the state and fundamental to the commerce and economic development of the state to enable and facilitate freedom of contract by the parties to commercial real property leases.

(2)The parties to commercial real property leases must be able to negotiate and conduct their affairs in reasonable reliance on the rights and protections given them under the laws of the state.

(3)Until the case of Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 488 (1985), and its predecessor, Cohen v. Ratinoff, 147 Cal. App. 3d 321 (1983), the parties to commercial real property leases could reasonably rely on the law of the state to provide that if a lease restriction requires the landlord’s consent for transfer of the tenant’s interest in the lease but provides no standard for giving or withholding consent, the landlord’s consent may be unreasonably withheld.

(4)The Kendall and Cohen decisions reversed the law on which parties to commercial real property leases executed before September 23, 1983, the date of the Cohen decision, could reasonably rely, thereby frustrating the expectations of the parties, with the result of impairing commerce and economic development.

(b)Section 1995.260 applies to a restriction on transfer executed on or after September 23, 1983. If a restriction on transfer executed before September 23, 1983, requires the landlord’s consent for the tenant’s transfer but provides no standard for giving or withholding consent, the landlord’s consent may be unreasonably withheld. For purposes of this subdivision, if the terms of a restriction on transfer are fixed by an option or other agreement, the restriction on transfer is deemed to be executed on the date of execution of the option or other agreement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: In re Art & Architecture Books of the 21st Century, 518 B.R. 43 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Art & Architecture Books of the 21st Century, 518 B.R. 43 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 6× “Although the contract in Photopoint involved an assignment of a lease and California Civil Code § 1995.270 is located in a chapter of the California Civil Code entitled "Assignment and Sublease,” the court can see no good reason to limit the broad policy language in Civil Code §…”
Gregory v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “Moreover, as respondents point out, appellant asks us to apply the policy against urban blight to circumstances where it would impinge on a separate state policy favoring “freedom of contract by the parties to commercial real property leases.”
Gregory v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “Moreover, as respondents point out, appellant asks us to apply the policy against urban blight to circumstances where it would impinge on a separate state policy favoring "freedom of contract by the parties to commercial real property leases.”
Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, 54 Cal. App. 5th 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “” (Civ. Code, § 1995.270, subd. (a)(1); see also 250 L.”
Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc., No. D076214 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2020). “” (Civ. Code, § 1995.270, subd. (a)(1); see also 250 L.”
Cal. Civil Code § 1995.270(a)(1): 1 case
In re Art & Architecture Books of the 21st Century, 518 B.R. 43 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014). “Although the contract in Photopoint involved an assignment of a lease and California Civil Code § 1995.270 is located in a chapter of the California Civil Code entitled "Assignment and Sublease,” the court can see no good reason to limit the broad policy language in Civil Code §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.