Matlin & Associates

01/17/2026

SAN FRANCISCO LANDLORDS
The March 1, 2026-February 28, 2027 Annual Allowable Rent Increase Rate is 1.6%

The San Francisco Rent Board has announced the annual allowable rent increase rate for March 1, 2026-February 28, 2027.

The annual allowable rent increase rate is 1.6%

If property owners are mailing out their rent increase notices to become effective March 1, 2026, the notice should be mailed by January 26, 2026.

In order for your rent increase to be valid, you must register with the Rental Housing Inventory prior to the effective date of the rent increase notice.

The deadline to register all units with the Rental Housing Inventory and to pay the annual Rent Board fee is March 1, 2025. This can also be done on the Rental Housing Inventory portal.

11/14/2025

The new SF supervisor for district 4 has abruptly resigned after only been sworn in for a week 

Beya Alcaraz resigned from the District 4 seat after allegations of negligence at her former pet store and tax fraud emerged.

11/04/2025

CAA defends property rights in San Francisco vacancy tax case
October 23, 2025

The California Apartment Association is asking a state appeals court to strike down San Francisco’s so-called “Empty Homes Tax,” arguing that the measure violates property owners’ constitutional rights.

In a friend-of-the-court filing prepared by the Pacific Legal Foundation on CAA’s behalf, the association supports the San Francisco Apartment Association’s challenge to the law.

Background on the vacancy tax

San Francisco voters approved the “Empty Homes Tax” (Proposition M) in 2022, which sought to penalize owners of residential properties left vacant for more than 182 days per year. The City claimed the measure would encourage owners to rent vacant units and thus ease the housing shortage.

In October 2024, the San Francisco Superior Court sided with the SFAA and other plaintiffs, finding the tax unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The court held that the measure violated the Takings Clause, Substantive Due Process, and Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution, and conflicted with the state’s Ellis Act, which protects property owners’ right to exit the rental business. San Francisco appealed that decision.

CAA’s position: the vacancy tax is an unconstitutional taking

CAA’s amicus brief, filed Oct. 17, 2025, argues that San Francisco’s vacancy tax unlawfully strips property owners of their fundamental right to exclude others from their property—a cornerstone of property ownership protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“The purpose of the Empty Homes Tax is to compel the occupancy of residential units against the property owner’s will,” the brief states. “It is now the City that controls the right to exclude.”

The brief emphasizes that the measure’s true intent is not to raise revenue, but to force owners to rent their private properties to third parties, effectively converting private housing into a public resource without compensation. CAA and PLF argue that this constitutes a categorical physical taking, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.

Moreover, the brief contends that even if the measure is not deemed a per se taking, it still violates the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which bars governments from coercing citizens into giving up constitutional rights in exchange for avoiding penalties. In this case, property owners are faced with an unlawful choice: either rent out their property against their will or pay an escalating tax penalty of up to $20,000 per year.

CAA joined this case because the issues extend well beyond San Francisco. Similar vacancy tax proposals have surfaced in other California cities, raising serious constitutional and policy concerns about government overreach into private housing decisions.

Next steps

The appeal is now fully briefed and awaits the scheduling of oral argument before the California Court of Appeal.

09/10/2025

Thank you Leslie Hu and Pierce’s Pledge for sharing your story and advocacy to save children from custody battles. I miss you sweet Pierce and for all of my friends, clients and fellow attorneys, I truly hope that you will get involved to save children. There is a way to safely store your weapons during custody battles and now thanks to the San Francisco police department, You can do it for free. There is also a gun storage map on the website for Pierce‘s pledge. Please help and support this amazing organization and this amazing woman who is carrying on Pierce‘s legacy. 💚💚💚💚💚💚

https://www.piercespledge.org

07/09/2025

California Landlords

On June 26, 2025, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District published a decision in Eshagian v. Cepeda that will impact how landlords prepare and serve three-day notices to pay or quit.

While the notice evaluated in the case was not an SFAA or CAA form, SFAA and CAA are recommending that members temporarily cease use of SFAA or CAA three-day notices, unless advised otherwise by their attorney, while revised forms are developed in light of the new ruling.

In Eshagian v. Cepeda, the court held that the three-day notice was invalid because it failed to provide essential information needed for an "ordinary tenant" to reasonably understand their deadline to pay and avoid eviction. Specifically, "the notice did not state when the notice period commenced or ended, nor did it inform (the tenant)...when the notice was served, which commenced the three-day period."

The court did not provide instructions on what notices must include to meet the "ordinary tenant" standard, but SFAA and CAA's current understanding is that:

• Notices must inform the tenant of the date the notice period commences (typically the date of service).
• Notices should specify that Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays are excluded from the count.

SFAA and CAA's current three-day notices are arguably already compliant because they inform tenants that the period begins upon service of the notice, and that Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays do not count. Nonetheless, SFAA and CAA strongly recommend that members do not use an existing SFAA or CAA three-day notice without first consulting with an attorney until revised forms are released.

SFAA and CAA are actively working to review and update our respective three-day notices to ensure compliance with this new standard. SFAA and CAA expect to release revised forms by Friday, July 11, 2025.

Thank you.

04/30/2025

CAA derails rent control measure, likely for rest of 2025!!!!

The California Apartment Association has successfully derailed legislation that sought to impose stricter statewide rent caps and broader eviction controls, likely halting the proposal for the rest of 2025.

Less than a week after advancing from the Assembly Housing Committee, the proposal by Assemblyman Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, was pulled from consideration and removed from Tuesday's Assembly Judiciary Committee agenda. The move effectively stalls the bill’s progress, likely until at least 2026.

The bill, known as AB 1157, proposed sweeping changes to California’s existing rent cap law, AB 1482, by reducing allowable rent increases to 2% plus inflation, removing exemptions for single-family homes and condominiums, and eliminating the law’s 2030 sunset date.

CAA, which testified against the bill during last week’s housing committee hearing, welcomed the news that the measure would not advance this year. CAA has consistently warned that the legislation would worsen California’s housing shortage by discouraging investment and new housing construction.

“This outcome reflects the power of a coordinated effort between CAA’s lobbying team and our members,” said Tom Bannon, chief executive officer for the California Apartment Association. “Thousands of rental housing providers wrote letters to lawmakers, and more than 150 came to the Capitol to oppose this bill in person. Their voices, combined with strategic advocacy from our government affairs team, played a key role in halting this damaging legislation.”

During the April 24 hearing, Debra Carlton, CAA’s executive vice president of state public affairs, cited the Legislative Analyst’s Office in explaining how rent control policies restrict supply and exacerbate unaffordability. Carlton also noted a sharp decline in multifamily housing permits following the qualification of Proposition 33, a failed 2024 ballot measure seeking to expand rent control. Further, she reminded committee members that many owners of single-family rental homes are still recovering financially from the inability to collect rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additional concerns came from pro-housing groups, including California YIMBY and YIMBY Action, who warned that AB 1157 could unintentionally worsen the state’s housing shortage. Critics noted that the bill would extend price controls to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one of the few housing types to see consistent growth in recent years.

Opposition to the proposal came from a broad coalition of rental property owners, many of whom traveled to Sacramento last week to voice their concerns. Opponents emphasized that expanding rent control to single-family homes and eliminating the sunset date for rent caps would place further strain on small rental housing providers and limit future housing production. They also pointed out that California voters have rejected similar rent control expansions at the ballot box three times in recent years.

Although the proposal will not move forward this year, CAA remains vigilant and committed to opposing policies that undermine housing creation and property rights.

03/12/2025

Effective March 18, 2025, the San Francisco Rent stabilization and arbitration Board’s new address with be 25 Van Ness Avenue , Suite 700,San Francisco, CA 94102

All notices and forms must have this new address on it and no other address and you must include the phone number and the website for the rent board

02/04/2025

California Landlords

Security deposit law update re: carpet cleaning
January 31, 2025

The security deposit law provides for the cleaning of the premises upon termination of the tenancy necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancy.

Effective Jan. 1, 2025, the law was clarified by AB 2801 to specify that a tenant cannot be charged for professional carpet cleaning unless reasonably necessary to return the premises to the same level of cleanliness as at move in, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear.

This law also requires landlords to support deductions from the deposit with photographs (starting April 1, 2025

01/18/2025

For those interested here is the United States Supreme Court decision that was unanimous with regard to TikTok

 It’s 27 pages but it’s a very good read, that analyzes national security versus the first amendment rights that TikTok and their users claimed when arguing the ban is illegal