Notwithstanding Section 7060, nothing in this chapter does any of the following:
(a)Prevents a public entity from enforcing any contract or agreement by which an owner of residential real property has agreed to offer the accommodations for rent or lease in consideration for a direct financial contribution or, with respect to written contracts or agreements entered into prior to July 1, 1986, for any consideration. Any contract or agreement specified in this subdivision is not enforceable against a person who acquires title to the accommodations as a bona fide purchaser for value (or successors in interest thereof), unless (1) the purchaser at the time of acquiring title to the accommodations has actual knowledge of the contract or agreement, or (2) a written memorandum of the contract or agreement which specifically describes the terms thereof and the affected real property, and which identifies the owner of the property, has been recorded with the county recorder prior to July 1, 1986, or not less than 30 days prior to transfer of title to the property to the purchaser. The county recorder shall index such a written memorandum in the grantor-grantee index.
As used in this subdivision, “direct financial contribution” includes contributions specified in Section 65916 and any form of interest rate subsidy or tax abatement provided to facilitate the acquisition or development of real property.
(b)Diminishes or enhances, except as specifically provided in Section 7060.2, any power which currently exists or which may hereafter exist in any public entity to grant or deny any entitlement to the use of real property, including, but not limited to, planning, zoning, and subdivision map approvals.
(c)Diminishes or enhances any power in any public entity to mitigate any adverse impact on persons displaced by reason of the withdrawal from rent or lease of any accommodations.
(d)Supersedes any provision of Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of this division, Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of this code, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, Part 2 (commencing with Section 43) of Division 1 of the Civil Code, Title 5 (commencing with Section 1925) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code.
(e)Relieves any party to a lease or rental agreement of the duty to perform any obligation under that lease or rental agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2003).
Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2003).
· cites it 8× “" (Gov. Code, § 7060.1, subd. (d).) Title 5 includes Civil Code section 1942.”
Coyne v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 9 Cal. App. 5th 1215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “) San Francisco Ordinances Since the Ellis Act’s adoption, the City has passed various ordinances setting forth requirements rental property owners must satisfy to withdraw units from the rental market. Most relevant for our purposes are the City-enacted ordinances requiring…”
Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “) “In passing the Ellis Act, the Legislature has explicitly indicated it will tolerate no local measures providing substantive grounds for defenses in unlawful detainer actions brought by landlords who wish to go out of the business.” (Id. at p. 171.”
Bullock v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “” (Gov. Code, § 7060.1, subd. (c)(1).) At the time the Ellis Act was enacted the definition of “residential hotel” it incorporated meant “any building containing six or more guestrooms intended or designed to be used, or which are used, rented, or hired out, to be occupied, or…”
San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 41 P.3d 87 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “" (Gov.Code, § 7060.1, subd. (b).) This provision seems reasonable on its face: property owners are free to stop leasing to residents, but they still must obey zoning laws regulating the new use to which they intend to put their property.”
San Francisco Apt. Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 3 Cal. App. 5th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “the imposition of relocation assistance payments must inevitably place an undue burden on a landlord’s right to withdraw from the rental business” given that, “[i]n stating that it neither diminishes nor enhances the power of public entities to mitigate adverse impacts on…”
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 911 P.2d 429 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “) In such cases, the government may have a constitutionally legitimate interest in preserving an existing private facility that has public value, and in requiring mitigation fees if the facility is closed or put to a different use.”
City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark, 203 Cal. App. 3d 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “(Gov. Code, § 7060.1.) In particular, the Act does not interfere with local governmental authority over regulation of the conversion of existing housing to condominiums or other subdivided interests.”
Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
“(Gov. Code, § 7060.1, subd. (c).) Thus, we turn to the Rent Ordinance provisions to determine what persons displaced by an Ellis Act eviction are entitled to a relocation payment benefit.”
First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
““The Act contains explicit boundaries, leaving areas for local control in a fashion consistent with its terms. . . .The Act bears no effect on a public entity’s power under law to .”
2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “” (Gov. Code, § 7060.1, subd. (c).) The Act does 8 not override procedural protections designed to prevent abuse of the right to evict tenants (id.”
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.