Updated on June 17, 2025
The tension between local regulations and state laws often sparks intense legal battles, particularly in the realm of tenant and landlord rights. At the heart of the pivotal case of San Francisco Apartment Association et al. v. City and County of San Francisco was the issue of preemption—whether a San Francisco ordinance extending notice periods for certain evictions was overridden by California’s state laws. This case underscored the complexities of balancing local legislative authority with overarching state mandates, highlighting the critical role preemption plays in resolving such conflicts and providing crucial insights for property owners, tenants, and legal professionals alike.
Key Takeaways
- Preemption determines legal authority when local housing laws conflict with California state law.
- State law overrides local ordinances if they directly contradict, fully occupy the field, or show clear legislative intent.
- San Francisco’s extended eviction notice requirements were struck down because they conflicted with the state’s mandatory three‑day notice.
- Landlords and tenants must track both levels of regulation—state and local—to fully understand eviction rights.
- Legal counsel is essential when disputing or enforcing tenant protections involving local-vs-state law conflicts.
Understanding Preemption in Landlord-Tenant Law: A Case Study
The legal principal of preemption stands at the center of many contentious disputes between local and state authorities. Preemption occurs when a higher level of government limits or eliminates the authority of a lower level of government to regulate a specific issue. A recent California case, San Francisco Apartment Association et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, provides a perfect example of how preemption works in practice and why it matters to property owners and tenants alike.
The Fundamental Conflict: Local Ordinance vs. State Law
At it’s core, preemption resolves conflicts between different levels of government. In this landmark case, the conflict arose when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance extending notice periods for certain evictions. The ordinance required landlords to provide a written warning and a ten-day cure period before initiating eviction proceedings for specific “just cause” evictions.
This directly contradicted California’s Unlawful Detainer Act – Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 – which establishes different notice requirements, including a three-day notice period for non-payment of rent evictions.
Overview of the Unlawful Detainer Act
The Unlawful Detainer Act, including Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161, identifies the notice requirements for an unlawful detainer based on the grounds for the unlawful detainer. For example, Section 1161 requires that for an unlawful detainer based on non-payment of rent, the landlord must provide the tenant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.
For more on eviction procedures and legal representation, visit our Unlawful Detainer Eviction Attorney page.
San Francisco’s Rent-Control Ordinance
San Francisco enacted a rent-control ordinance in 1979 which regulated rent and included restrictions on the grounds for eviction including certain “just cause” requirements codified in San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9.
How Do Courts Determine When Preemption Applies?
When analyzing potential preemption issues, courts examine whether:
- The local legislation directly contradicts state law.
- The local law enters an area fully occupied by state law.
- The legislative intent indicates whether state law should override local regulations.
The Court of Appeal’s thorough analysis of preemption principles in this case provides valuable guidance for understanding when local laws must yield to state authority.
The Court’s Ruling on Preemption
Initially, the trial court found partial preemption, ruling that the ordinance was preempted only regarding notice timelines for non-payment of rent. However, the Court of Appeals went further, determining that the entire ordinance was subject to preemption by state law.
The Court of Appeals concluded that preemption applied because the ordinance directly contradicted the state-mandated three-day notice period by forcing landlords to provide an additional 10-day warning and cure period. When such direct conflicts exist, preemption renders the local legislation void.
Resulting Changes to Notice Requirements
The Ordinance amended San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9 by requiring that under certain “just cause” evictions, a landlord should provide a written warning and ten-day cure period prior to initiating eviction proceedings.
The Broader Implications of Preemption
The preemption principle demonstrated in this case has far-reaching implications for property owners, tenants, and local governments:
- It establishes clear boundaries on how municipalities can regulate landlord-tenant relationships.
- It creates predictability across jurisdictions by ensuring state laws take precedence when conflicts arise.
- It highlights the importance of understanding both local ordinances and state statutes when handling eviction matters.
Navigating the Complexities of Preemption
Preemption cases are inherently complex, requiring careful analysis of:
- Statutory language at both state and local levels
- Legislative intent behind competing laws
- Historical context of regulations
- Precedents established in similar cases
This complexity underscores why property owners and tenants benefit from legal guidance when facing issues where local and state laws appear to conflict.
Legal Assistance with Preemption Matters
If you are dealing with challenges related to potential preemption of local ordinances by state law—particularly in eviction proceedings or landlord-tenant disputes—seeking experienced legal counsel is crucial. At Schorr Law, our real estate attorneys have extensive experience with unlawful detainers and preemption cases, offering the guidance needed to navigate these complex legal waters.
For assistance with eviction timelines or conflicts between local and state laws, contact us at 310-954-1877 or fill out our contact form to schedule a consultation.