Free San Francisco Residential Lease Agreement

▶ Watch walk-through

A configurable San Francisco residential lease agreement that generates a signable multi-page PDF. Built to the Rent Ordinance itself — the coverage test that separates rent control from eviction control, the seventeen just causes, the Rent Board licence behind the annual increase, and the surrender-at-term clause Section 37.9F(b) makes void.

San Francisco Admin. Code 37 Just Cause Free PDF 2026 Edition

A San Francisco residential lease agreement is a California lease with a second body of law sitting on top of it: the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, together with Chapter 49 on deposit interest, Chapter 49A on tenant organizing, and duties in the Health and Housing Codes. The single most important thing to understand, and the thing almost every template in circulation gets wrong, is that San Francisco applies two different coverage tests. Rent control and eviction control do not have the same scope. Section 37.9 begins with the words “Notwithstanding Section 37.3”, which is how a large class of units ends up exempt from the rent-increase limits and fully subject to the just-cause eviction rules at the same time. This page states that test explicitly, builds it into the form as a field-driven branch, and then covers what the ordinance requires of the lease document itself — including the ordinary fixed-term surrender clause that Section 37.9F(b) makes void. For the statewide layer, see our California residential lease agreement, which derives every state figure from the statute; this page does not repeat it.

Run the test twice, because there are two of them. A San Francisco dwelling has a just-cause answer and a rent-limit answer, and they are frequently different. Getting this right is the whole job of a San Francisco lease, and it is the field the builder above asks about first.

Test one, just cause. Section 37.9 applies “to all landlords and tenants of rental units as defined in Section 37.2(r)”. Section 37.2(r) defines rental units as all residential dwelling units in the City, together with the land and appurtenant buildings and all housing services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection with their use or occupancy. It then removes four categories, and only four:

• Section 37.2(r)(1) — housing accommodations in hotels, motels, inns, tourist houses, rooming and boarding houses. This is a delay, not an exemption: once an accommodation has been occupied by a tenant for thirty-two continuous days or more it becomes a rental unit subject to the chapter, and the subsection expressly forbids a landlord to bring an action to recover possession in order to avoid that result. An eviction for a purpose Section 37.9(a) does not permit is deemed to be such an action.
• Section 37.2(r)(2) — dwelling units in non-profit cooperatives owned, occupied and controlled by a majority of the residents, or solely owned by a non-profit public benefit corporation whose board is majority-resident and whose by-laws require rent increases to be approved by a majority of residents.
• Section 37.2(r)(3) — accommodations in a hospital, convent, monastery, extended care facility, asylum, or a residential care or adult day health care facility for the elderly operating under a California Department of Social Services licence, and dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education, a high school or an elementary school.
• Section 37.2(r)(4) — dwelling units whose rents are controlled or regulated by a government unit, agency or authority, except as provided in subsections (A) through (D). Those carve-backs matter: units occupied by recipients of tenant-based rental assistance are expressly brought back within “rental units” for the purposes of Section 37.9 and Section 37.9A, and so are qualifying tenant-occupied units under a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit or tax-exempt bond regulatory agreement, along with several categories of new units created under named Planning Code provisions.

Notice what is not on that list. New construction is not on it. Single-family homes are not on it. Condominiums are not on it. Those are exemptions from the rent limits, and they live in Section 37.3, which Section 37.9 expressly overrides. Separately, Section 37.9(b) allows a landlord who resides in the same rental unit with the tenant to evict without just cause — the same unit, not merely the same building, and it is the only genuine route out of just cause in the ordinance.

Test two, rent limits. The annual increase limits in Section 37.3(a) do not reach a dwelling that is newly constructed and first received a certificate of occupancy after June 13, 1979, or that the Rent Board has certified as substantially rehabilitated, under Section 37.3(g)(1). Nor do they reach the rent on a dwelling that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, or a subdivided interest — the single-family home and condominium category — under Section 37.3(d)(1)(A). And they do not reach a unit inside the Section 37.2(r) exclusions.

Two rows of that table deserve a second look. The five-year vacancy-control row is the one that turns a confident “this is a single-family home, so there is no rent control” into a mistake. Section 37.3(f) restores rent control for five years where the landlord ended the previous tenancy by a notice stating a Section 37.9(a)(8), (9), (10), (11), (14) or (17) ground, by a change in terms noticed under California Civil Code 827, or by terminating a government rent-limitation contract; the initial rent for the new tenancy may then be no greater than the previous lawful rent plus allowable increases. Section 37.3(d)(1)(A)(ii) does the same thing for a separately alienable unit whose last tenancy the owner ended under Civil Code 1946.1 or 827, and there the limits continue for the duration of the new tenancy. In two of those cases the landlord also had to notify the Rent Board in writing within ten days of serving the notice and give the tenant a copy of that filing.

The unsold-condominium row is the other. Section 37.3(d)(1)(A)(i) withholds vacancy decontrol from a condominium unit that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value — with a narrow exception for a single unsold unit where all the others have been sold and the subdivider has occupied the remaining one as a principal residence for at least a year after subdivision. A developer holding back unsold units does not get to set market rents on them.

Because Costa-Hawkins pre-empts local control of rent and does not pre-empt local control of the grounds for eviction — and the Rent Ordinance says so in a single sentence of its own text. Section 37.3(d)(4) reads, in full: “Subsection 37.3(d) does not affect the authority of the City and County of San Francisco to regulate or monitor the basis or grounds for eviction.”

That is the Costa-Hawkins line, and it is worth being precise about where it falls. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, California Civil Code 1954.50 and following, does two things to a city like San Francisco. It removes the city’s power to control the rent on a dwelling that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, or that is a subdivided interest — in practice, houses and condominiums. And it removes the city’s power to control the rent on a unit first certified for occupancy after February 1, 1995, or after the local ordinance’s own earlier date, which for San Francisco is June 13, 1979. Section 37.3(d) is San Francisco’s implementation of the first limb and Section 37.3(g) of the second, and Section 37.3(d)(5) states that subsection (d) “is intended to be and shall be construed to be consistent with” the Act.

What Costa-Hawkins does not touch is the question of when a landlord may recover possession at all. That is why an owner of a 2016 apartment building in San Francisco may set the rent at whatever the market bears, raise it without limit, and still be unable to end the tenancy without proving one of seventeen grounds and satisfying the notice, filing and relocation machinery that goes with them. It is also why Section 37.10B(a)(5) exists: the ordinance expressly names, as an act of harassment, “endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit that is exempt from rent increase limitations under Section 37.3(d) or Section 37.3(g) by means of a rent increase that is imposed with an intent to defraud, intimidate, or coerce the tenant into vacating the rental unit in circumvention of Section 37.9”. The ordinance anticipated exactly the manoeuvre the split invites, and made it actionable, listing as evidence of bad faith a rent increase substantially in excess of market rates for comparable units and a rent increase imposed within six months after an attempt to recover possession.

June 13, 1979 — and the 1994 date on the books is a contingency that has not been triggered. This is the kind of detail a page can only get right by reading the subsection rather than the headline.

Section 37.3(g)(1) exempts from the rent limits a dwelling “which is newly constructed and first received a certificate of occupancy after the effective date of Ordinance No. 276-79 (June 13, 1979)”. In November 2024, Ordinance 248-24 added subsection (g)(1)(E), which the ordinance’s own summary of amendments describes as extending the new construction date to June 13, 1994 — “but only if authorized by a future modification or repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act”. The text is explicit about the mechanism: the Board of Supervisors acknowledges that at least through November 5, 2024, California Civil Code Sections 1954.52(a)(1)-(2) preclude the City from updating the date, and provides that “in the event State law is amended or repealed in this regard, said new construction date shall immediately cease to apply, and shall by operation of law pursuant to this subsection (g)(1)(E) be updated to reflect the latest date that State law may allow, up to and including June 13, 1994.”

So the date in force today is 1979. But (g)(1)(E) is a live trigger worth diarising, because it changes the answer for roughly fifteen years of San Francisco housing stock with no further local ordinance required. The subsection even sets the rent that would apply on the day coverage arrived: the initial base rent would be the lawful rent applying as of the date of coverage, or the first lawful rent in effect after that date if none was then in effect. It also confirms that an updated date does not disturb any other exemption a unit may hold.

Everything you fill is written into the document, and the generated lease cites the controlling ordinance section at each point rather than describing it vaguely. Before handing over keys, run proper tenant screening — the lease governs the relationship, screening decides whether you want it. Pair the signed lease with a California move-in / move-out checklist, because the itemized accounting owed in twenty-one days rests on documented condition, and in San Francisco a disputed reduction in housing services is decided on the same evidence.

Seventeen grounds, at Section 37.9(a)(1) through (17), and a landlord must plead and prove that one of them is the dominant motive. They divide into at-fault grounds, where the tenant has done something, and no-fault grounds, where the landlord wants the unit back. Six of the seventeen carry relocation money, four carry a five-year rent restriction on re-renting, and one was added in February 2026.

At-fault grounds. (1) The tenant has failed to pay lawfully owed rent, habitually pays late, or gives cheques frequently returned for insufficient funds — with an express carve-out that nonpayment of a charge prohibited by Police Code Section 919.1 does not count as a failure to pay rent. (2) The tenant has substantially violated a lawful obligation or covenant of tenancy other than surrendering possession, and fails to cure after written notice. (3) The tenant is committing or permitting a nuisance, causing substantial damage, or creating substantial interference with the comfort, safety or enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants, where the activities are severe, continuing or recurring and the nature of the problem is specifically stated in the notice. (4) The tenant is using or permitting the unit to be used for an illegal purpose. (5) The tenant, whose agreement has terminated, has refused after written request to execute a renewal for a further term of like duration on terms materially the same. (6) The tenant has, after written notice to cease, refused the landlord access required by state or local law. (7) A subtenant not approved by the landlord is holding at the end of the term.

Ground (3) carries its own defence. Section 37.9(a)(3.1) makes it a defence to a nuisance eviction that the tenant or a household member is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and the notice is substantially based on those acts — including a possession action founded on complaints of noise, disturbances or the repeated presence of police. The court may consider a protective order, a peace officer’s written report or other written documentation from a qualified third party, and Section 37.9(a)(3.2) requires the landlord to keep information received in confidence from such a tenant in the strictest confidence.

No-fault grounds. (8) The landlord seeks possession in good faith, without ulterior reasons and with honest intent, for the landlord’s own use as a principal residence for at least thirty-six continuous months, or for a qualifying relative on the same terms where the landlord lives in the building. (9) To sell the unit under an approved condominium conversion. (10) To demolish or otherwise permanently remove individual units from housing use, with all permits obtained on or before the date the notice is given. (11) To recover the unit temporarily so that capital improvements or rehabilitation work that would make it hazardous or uninhabitable can be carried out. (12) To carry out substantial rehabilitation. (13) To withdraw all rental units in a structure from rent or lease under the Ellis Act, complying in full with Section 37.9A. (14) To recover the unit temporarily solely for lead remediation or abatement required by San Francisco Health Code Article 11 or 26. (15) To demolish or permanently remove the unit under a development agreement entered into under Administrative Code Chapter 56. (16) Where the tenant’s Good Samaritan Status has expired and the landlord serves notice within sixty days of expiry. (17) To complete a development project requiring a Residential Demolition under Planning Code Section 317, with all necessary permits obtained on or before the date the notice to vacate is given.

Ground (17) is new. Ordinance 3-26, effective February 8, 2026, added it and at the same time narrowed the grounds available under Section 37.9(a)(10). Guides written before February 2026 count sixteen just causes; there are seventeen. Ground (17) also carries its own timing rule imported from Planning Code Section 317.2(b)(2)(A): the effective date of the notice may not fall more than six months before construction starts, reduced to three months for lower-income households, and if the landlord does not proceed with the demolition and re-rents the units, the displaced tenant must be allowed to return at a rent no greater than would have applied had they remained in continuous occupancy.

Ground (8) is the most heavily policed. The landlord must hold at least a 10% recorded ownership interest if they became owner of record on or before February 21, 1991, and at least 20%-5% if later. The landlord may not use the ground if a comparable unit they own is already vacant and available, and must rescind the notice and dismiss any action if one becomes available before possession is recovered. And since January 1, 2018 a landlord who recovers possession under Section 37.9(a)(8) must file a statement of occupancy under penalty of perjury with the Rent Board within ninety days of service, update it every ninety days while still seeking possession, and then file annually for five years after recovering possession, disclosing whether the landlord or relative is actually occupying the unit as a principal residence with at least two forms of supporting documentation, when that occupancy started, and what rent is being charged. Failing to comply carries an escalating administrative penalty under Administrative Code Chapter 100.

Four things beyond what state law requires, and one of them is a filing with the Rent Board within ten days. Section 37.9(c) is short and every element of it is operative.

• State the grounds, in writing, on or before the date the notice to vacate is given. At least one enumerated ground must be the landlord’s dominant motive for recovering possession. In any action the landlord must plead and prove that a ground stated in the notice is the dominant motive, and the tenant may rebut the allegation.
• State the lawful rent, for six of the grounds. For a notice under Section 37.9(a)(8), (9), (10), (11), (14) or (17), the landlord must state in the notice the lawful rent for the unit at the time the notice is issued, before endeavouring to recover possession. That figure is what the five-year restriction in Section 37.3(f) will be measured against.
• Attach the Rent Board’s form, in the tenant’s language. The Board prepares a written form stating that a tenant’s failure to act in time may result in an eviction lawsuit and that advice is available from the Board, and including Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development information about eligibility for affordable-housing programmes. The Board prepares it in English, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog and Russian, and the landlord must attach the copy in the tenant’s primary language, or the English copy where the tenant’s primary language is none of those.
• File it with the Board within ten days. A copy of all notices to vacate except three-day notices to pay rent or quit, together with any additional written document informing the tenant of the grounds, must be filed with the Rent Board within ten days following service.

The state notice periods still set the clock. Nonpayment runs on the three-day notice to pay rent or quit under California Code of Civil Procedure 1161(2), which excludes Saturdays, Sundays and other judicial holidays — a trap on its own, since counting calendar days produces a short and defective notice. A breach of covenant runs on the three-day perform-or-quit notice under Section 1161(3), on the same exclusion. Ending a periodic tenancy runs on at least sixty days’ notice under California Civil Code 1946.1, reduced to thirty days where a tenant has resided in the dwelling less than one year. A San Francisco notice must satisfy the state period and state a Chapter 37 just cause and carry the Board’s form and be filed. Our California eviction notice guide and California eviction process guide cover the state machinery in detail.

One widely repeated rule is not in the ordinance. The deepest ranking San Francisco lease page tells landlords that at-fault evictions require a written notice giving the tenant ten days to cure. That was Section 37.9(o), added by Ordinance 18-22 effective March 14, 2022; the Rent Board’s own annotation to Section 37.9 records that the ordinance was partly enjoined by the San Francisco Superior Court on March 23, 2022 and that Section 37.9 was subsequently revised by SFAA v. CCSF (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1218. There is no Section 37.9(o) in the ordinance the Rent Board publishes today. The only ten-or-more-day cure requirement in Section 37.9 is at Section 37.9(a)(2)(D), and it applies to violations about subletting and the number of occupants.

60% of the Consumer Price Index increase the Rent Board publishes each March 1, and never more than 7%. The mechanism matters more than the number, because the number changes every year.

Section 37.3(a)(1) provides that on March 1 of each year the Board shall publish the increase in the CPI for the preceding twelve months, as made available by the United States Department of Labor. A landlord who has reported the required information about the unit to the Rent Board under Section 37.15 “shall have a license to impose annually a rent increase which does not exceed a tenant’s base rent by more than 60% of said published increase. In no event, however, shall the allowable annual increase be greater than 7%.” For the period March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027 the Rent Board’s published allowable increase is 1.6 percent. The figure for the previous year was 1.4 percent, and the year before that 1.7 percent. Always use the figure published for the period in which the increase takes effect, from the Rent Board’s own rate sheet, rather than a number copied from a guide.

A landlord who does not take the full annual increase may bank it under Section 37.3(a)(2) and impose the accumulated amount on a subsequent anniversary date, subject to the same Section 37.15 licence. Above that, Section 37.3 allows a closed list of further increases, most of which require certification or a petition: capital improvements, rehabilitation, energy conservation and renewable energy improvements certified under Sections 37.7 and 37.8B, with seismic-strengthening capital improvements capped at 10% of base rent in any twelve months; utility cost increases; a 50% passthrough of excess water use penalties on stated conditions and a 50% passthrough of water rate increases attributable to the 2002 water revenue bonds; a general obligation bond passthrough calculated by the Controller; RAP loan amortization; lead remediation costs subject to a 10% annual ceiling; and anything else only by petition for a rental arbitration hearing under Section 37.8.

Two limits sit outside that list and are easy to miss. Section 37.3(a)(11)(A) bars a landlord from imposing an increase solely because a tenant has added an occupant to an existing tenancy, including a newborn child or a family member as defined in Housing Code Section 401 — and says the prohibition applies notwithstanding a rental agreement or lease that specifically permits a rent increase for additional occupants. A per-occupant escalator in a rent-limited San Francisco lease does not work. Read subsection (C) before you rely on that, though, because it is the limiter almost every secondary summary drops: Section 37.3(a)(11)(C) says that rent increases otherwise permitted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act “are not prohibited or limited by this Section 37.3(a)(11)”. Where Costa-Hawkins frees the rent for the dwelling — a separately alienable home or condominium under Section 37.3(d)(1)(A), or a post-1979 building under Section 37.3(g)(1) — subsection (A) does not restrict an increase Costa-Hawkins independently allows. Subsection (B) adds a second limit in the landlord’s favour: the landlord may still petition the Rent Board under Section 37.3(a)(8) for costs associated with occupants added under Section 37.9(a)(2)(C). The rule is real, and it is a rule about rent-limited units. And Section 37.3(c) provides that a tenant who subleases may charge a subtenant no more rent, on initial occupancy, than the tenant is then paying the landlord. Our California rent increase guide covers the state notice periods that still apply on top.

Without a Section 37.15 report, the landlord has no licence to impose the annual increase at all — and the tenant does not owe the increase for the months the licence was suspended. No ranking page explains this, though one mentions in passing that “a landlord must be licensed in order to increase rent” without saying where the licence comes from.

Section 37.15 was added by Ordinance 265-20. It requires owners of residential dwelling units subject to Chapter 37 to report certain information about their units to the Rent Board on a form the Board prepares, under penalty of perjury, with a single owner’s report sufficing for a jointly owned unit. Every owner must report the mailing address of each unit and whether it is owner-occupied. If the unit is not owner-occupied, the owner must also report the name and business contact information of the owner or of any property manager designated to address habitability issues; the business registration number if any; the approximate square footage and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms; whether the unit is vacant or occupied and when that began; the start and end dates of any other vacancies or occupancies in the previous twelve months; and, for tenant-occupied units, the base rent reported in two-hundred-and-fifty-dollar increments together with which utilities the base rent includes.

The timetable is staggered. Units other than condominiums in buildings of ten or more units had to be reported by July 1, 2022, updated by March 1, 2023 and annually by March 1 each year thereafter. Condominium units and units in buildings with fewer than ten units began reporting on March 1, 2023, updated annually by March 1. Any change in the name or business contact information of the owner or designated property manager must be reported within thirty days.

Section 37.15(e) is the enforcement mechanism, and it is unusually direct. If a landlord has substantially complied, the landlord receives the licence to impose rent increases under Sections 37.3(a)(1) and (2). If not, “the license to impose rent increases shall be temporarily suspended during the period of the landlord’s noncompliance.” Filing later restores the licence prospectively only, and the subsection adds that “a tenant shall not be obligated to pay the increased rent for months during the period of suspension.” Section 37.15(d) also records what the Board may and may not do with the data: it creates a housing inventory for inspection, investigation, analysis, monitoring and reporting, and the Board “shall not use the information to operate a rental registry within the meaning of California Civil Code Sections 1947.7 – 1947.8.”

Serving the increase notice is not the whole duty, and a nonconforming increase is null and void. Section 37.3(b) requires that “on or before the date upon which a landlord gives a tenant legal notice of a rent increase, the landlord shall inform the tenant, in writing” of the composition of the increase.

Specifically: which portion reflects the annual increase and any banked amount; which portion reflects costs for increased operating and maintenance expenses, rents for comparable units, or capital improvements, rehabilitation, energy conservation improvements or renewable energy improvements certified under Section 37.7, noting that a certified operating-and-maintenance increase may not exceed 7%; which portion is a passthrough of gas and electricity charges, of increased water bill charges attributable to the November 2002 water revenue bonds under Section 37.3(a)(5)(B), or of general obligation bond measure costs under Section 37.3(a)(6), each of which must be explained in writing on a form provided by the Board; and which portion amortizes a RAP loan under Section 37.3(a)(7). For a tenant receiving tenant-based rental assistance these notice requirements are in addition to anything the assistance programme requires.

Then Section 37.3(b)(5), one sentence under the heading Nonconforming Rent Increases: “Any rent increase which does not conform with the provisions of this section shall be null and void.” Not voidable, not reducible — void. That is why the itemization is a compliance step rather than a courtesy, and why a landlord relying on a generic rent-increase letter in San Francisco is exposed even where the percentage is correct.

Yes, and the duty reaches every San Francisco landlord subject to California Civil Code 1950.5, not only landlords of rent-controlled units. This is Administrative Code Chapter 49, and it is a genuine city-level addition to the state deposit rules that no ranking template mentions.

Section 49.2(a) requires a landlord subject to Civil Code 1950.5 to pay simple interest on all security deposits held for at least one year, with an exception where the rent is assisted or subsidised by a government unit, agency or authority. Section 49.1 borrows the state definition of a security deposit, so the duty reaches any payment, fee, deposit or charge held against default in rent, damage to the premises or cleaning at the end of the tenancy — which is to say, whatever the landlord calls it.

Section 49.2(b) fixes the timing: beginning on the date the deposit has been held for one year, and annually thereafter on the same month and day, the tenant must be given the unpaid accrued interest either as a direct payment or as a credit against rent, with the choice between the two belonging to the landlord. Section 49.2(c) fixes the exit: on termination, a tenant whose deposit has been held a year or more is entitled to a pro-rata payment of any unpaid accrued interest no later than two weeks after the tenant has vacated. That is a separate and shorter clock than the twenty-one calendar days California allows for the itemized accounting of the deposit itself, and a landlord who diarises only the state deadline will be a week late on the city one.

The rate is a mechanism, not a fixed number. Section 49.2(f) makes the Rent Board determine the rate effective March 1 of each year, and Section 49.2(f)(3) provides that for March 1, 2015 and every year since, the Board calculates it as the annual average of the 90-Day AA Financial Commercial Paper Interest Rate published by the Federal Reserve for the immediately preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest tenth. For March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027 the published rate is 4.2 percent; the previous year was 5.0 percent and the year before 5.2 percent. Section 49.2(g) says which rate to use: the rate in effect on the date the annual payment falls due, or the rate in effect on the date the tenant vacates for a pro-rata payment.

Two more provisions matter to drafting. Section 49.2(e) allows a landlord who seeks reimbursement of the annual Rent Board fee under Section 37A.6 to deduct that fee from the next interest payment owed — the only lawful offset. And Section 49.4 makes any waiver by a tenant of rights under Chapter 49 void as contrary to public policy, so a lease clause disclaiming deposit interest is not merely unenforceable, it is void. Our California security deposit guide covers the state cap, the twenty-one-day accounting and the photograph duties that sit underneath.

No. Section 37.9F(b) makes it void as contrary to public policy, and almost every general lease template in circulation contains one. If there is a single reason a San Francisco landlord should not use a generic California lease, this is it.

Section 37.9F was added by Ordinance 78-20 in June 2020, under the heading Circumvention of Tenant Protections. Its findings are unusually candid: as market rents rise, “landlords of rent-controlled units have a greater incentive to prevent long-term tenancies”, and the section addresses “the growing efforts among some landlords to induce their tenants into believing that they are required to vacate their units at a specific time designated in the lease or agreement, despite existing law to the contrary.”

Subsection (b) then provides that, consistent with Sections 37.9(a)(2) and 37.9(e), “any provision of any lease or rental agreement that purports to require a tenant to vacate a rental unit at the expiration of a stated term, or that purports to characterize a tenant’s failure to vacate the rental unit at the end of the stated term as a just cause for eviction … shall be void as contrary to public policy, and a landlord may not attempt to recover possession of the unit without just cause.” The only exceptions are where Chapter 37 itself expressly authorises a fixed-term tenancy, such as the Good Samaritan provisions, or expressly authorises eviction without just cause, such as Section 37.9(b).

What that means in practice is that a San Francisco fixed term is a rent commitment and a notice arrangement, not an end date for the tenancy. When the term expires the tenancy continues on the same terms until it is ended in a way the ordinance permits. The nearest just cause is Section 37.9(a)(5), and it is narrow: it reaches a tenant whose agreement has terminated and who, after written request or demand by the landlord, has refused to execute a written extension or renewal for a further term of like duration on terms materially the same as before, provided those terms do not conflict with Chapter 37. Simply remaining in occupation after the term ends is not a ground. The builder on this page therefore generates no surrender clause and says so on the face of the document.

Not since April 1, 2020. Section 37.9F(c) makes it unlawful to use, or allow to be used, a rental unit for a “Non-Tenant Use”, defined as occupancy by a person or entity who is not a “tenant” within Section 37.2(t) — that is, someone entitled by written or oral agreement, approved sub-tenancy, or sufferance to occupy a residential dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.

The section names the examples: renting a unit to a corporate entity or other non-natural person, or using a unit as housing for one’s employees, licensees or independent contractors rather than one’s tenants. Any provision of an agreement entered into on or after April 1, 2020 purporting to allow an unauthorized Non-Tenant Use is void as contrary to public policy, and the occupants are instead deemed tenants under Section 37.2(t) — which is to say the structure does not merely fail, it converts into the thing it was designed to avoid. Four exceptions apply: an agreement authorising a Non-Tenant Use entered into before April 1, 2020, for its existing duration; a lawful short-term rental under Administrative Code Chapter 41A; a unit provided to an employee as a condition of employment to help maintain or manage a building the landlord owns or manages, such as a resident manager; and a unit an organisation with 501(c)(3) status provides in furtherance of a primary mission of providing housing, or of education by housing teachers.

Section 37.9F(d) adds the disclosure duty. From April 1, 2020, every online listing for a rental unit — excluding listings by a landlord or master tenant who will live in the same unit — must contain a legible disclosure in at least twelve-point font containing this exact text: “This unit is a rental unit subject to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which limits evictions without just cause, and which states that any waiver by a tenant of their rights under the Rent Ordinance is void as contrary to public policy.” The same text should also appear in print advertisements where practicable. The Rent Board receives referrals about non-compliant listings, notifies the landlord in writing, and may impose an administrative penalty of up to one hundred dollars a day after a three-business-day correction period, subject to a per-listing ceiling. Enforcement of Section 37.9F more broadly runs to civil penalties of up to twice the amount paid or received for the unit during the unlawful period, with each unit a separate violation, and attorney’s fees to a prevailing City Attorney or qualifying non-profit.

Buyouts are among the most heavily regulated instruments in San Francisco, not the lightly regulated alternative to eviction the ranking pages describe. One of them says in terms that “unlike just cause evictions, buyout agreements are less regulated”. Section 37.9E, added by Ordinance 225-14 and amended most recently by Ordinance 3-26, says otherwise, and it applies to all landlords and tenants of rental units under Section 37.2(r), notwithstanding Section 37.3.

A Buyout Agreement is an agreement in which the landlord pays the tenant money or other consideration to vacate. An agreement settling a pending unlawful detainer action is not one, and neither is an agreement for a tenant to move into a substitute unit under Planning Code Section 317.2(d)(2)(D)(ii). Buyout Negotiations means any discussion or bargaining, oral or written, about the possibility of entering one. The sequence is fixed and each step precedes the next:

• Disclosure before negotiations. Prior to commencing buyout negotiations, the landlord must give each tenant in the unit a written disclosure on a Rent Board form carrying twelve items: that the tenant has a right not to enter negotiations or an agreement; that the tenant may consult an attorney; that the tenant may rescind for up to forty-five days after full execution; that the tenant may visit the Rent Board for information about other buyout agreements in the neighbourhood; a list of tenants’ rights organisations with contact details; a statement that information about tenants’ rights is available from the Board’s office, counselling line and website; an explanation of the Subdivision Code Section 1396(e)(4) consequences for a landlord who enters buyout agreements; where the landlord is an entity, the names of everyone within it who will conduct negotiations and everyone with decision-making authority over the terms; anything else the Board requires; a space for the tenant to sign and date; Mayor’s Office of Housing information about the buyout’s effect on the tenant’s eligibility for City affordable-housing programmes; and Planning Department information about the buyout’s effect on relocation assistance and other benefits if the property is redeveloped. The landlord keeps the signed form for five years with a record of the date and method of service.
• Declaration filed with the Board before negotiations. After giving the disclosure and still before negotiating, the landlord files a declaration under penalty of perjury with the Rent Board on a Board form giving the landlord’s name, business address, business email and business telephone; the name of each tenant with whom the landlord intends to negotiate; the address of the unit and the Assessor’s Parcel Number of the building; and the date and method of the disclosure. The Board publishes the information with the tenants’ identities redacted.
• A thirty-day cooling period before signature. Every buyout agreement must be in writing and “may be executed no sooner than 30 days after Buyout Negotiations commenced”. The landlord gives each tenant a copy at execution.
• Prescribed statements, each initialled. The agreement must carry, in bold type of at least fourteen points and close to the signature line, the statutory cancellation statement telling the tenant they may cancel on or before the forty-fifth day, how to cancel, where to send the cancellation, and what happens if the landlord fails to file. It must also carry the fourteen-point statements that the tenant has a right not to enter a buyout agreement, may consult an attorney or a tenants’ rights organisation, and may search the Rent Board’s database; the Subdivision Code Section 1396(e)(4) condominium-conversion statement with the question whether the tenant believes they are senior, disabled or catastrophically ill; and, for agreements entered on or after the 2026 amendment, a warning that a tenant displaced by a demolition project may be entitled to relocation assistance under Planning Code Section 317.2 which the buyout may give up. Each statement needs a line for each tenant’s initials.
• Forty-five days to rescind. The tenant may rescind for up to and including forty-five days after execution by all parties.
• Filing by the fifty-ninth day. If the tenant does not rescind, the landlord must file a copy of the agreement with the Rent Board no later than the fifty-ninth day. If the landlord does not, the tenant may file a copy and may void any language in the agreement in which the tenant waived rights or released claims, and any provision purporting to limit, restrict or prevent the tenant from doing so is itself void and unenforceable.

An agreement that fails any of these requirements “shall not be effective and may be rescinded by the tenant at any time”, and so may one missing any of the required initials. The Rent Board’s findings explain why the machinery is this heavy: buyouts were being used to obtain what a no-fault eviction would obtain while avoiding the relocation payments, the re-rental restrictions and the condominium-conversion consequences that follow a no-fault eviction.

The amount is republished every March 1, and the figures printed in the codified ordinance text are the 2006 base amounts. This is the clearest example on this page of a codified number that has not been the real number for twenty years, and two ranking pages print it as though it were current.

Section 37.9C applies to a Covered No-Fault Eviction Notice, meaning a notice to quit based on Section 37.9(a)(8), (10), (11) or (12). An Eligible Tenant is any authorized occupant of the rental unit, regardless of age, who has resided in the unit for twelve or more months — so a child who has lived there a year counts, which is a point most summaries miss. Each Eligible Tenant is entitled to a base amount, half payable at service of the notice to quit and half when the unit is vacated, subject to a maximum per unit; and each Eligible Tenant who is sixty years of age or older or disabled within California Government Code 12955.3, and each household with at least one Eligible Tenant and at least one child under eighteen, is entitled to an additional payment, half within fifteen calendar days of the landlord receiving written notice of entitlement with supporting evidence and half on vacating.

Section 37.9C(e)(3) is the indexing provision: “Commencing March 1, 2007, these relocation expenses, including the maximum relocation expenses per unit, shall increase annually, rounded to the nearest dollar, at the rate of increase in the ‘rent of primary residence’ expenditure category of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Region for the preceding calendar year, as that data is made available by the United States Department of Labor and published by the Board.” For a notice served between March 1, 2026 and February 28, 2027, the Rent Board’s published figures are eight thousand two hundred forty-five dollars per Eligible Tenant, a per-unit ceiling of twenty-four thousand seven hundred thirty-three dollars, and an additional five thousand four hundred ninety-seven dollars for each elderly or disabled tenant or household with minor children.

It is worth seeing what those three figures grew from, because it shows how far a codified number can drift from a payable one. The amounts printed in Section 37.9C(e)(1) and (e)(2) are the 2006 bases: four thousand five hundred dollars per Eligible Tenant, a ceiling of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars for all Eligible Tenants in the same unit, and three thousand dollars for each senior, disabled or minor-child entitlement. All three have been indexed every March 1 since 2007, and all three are still in the ordinance text a reader will find if they look the section up. The codified figures are not the payable figures and have not been since 2007 — the Rent Board’s annually published sheet is.

The Ellis Act scale is different in a way that catches people, and not only in its size. Section 37.9A relocation for a withdrawal of units runs on its own higher published scale — for a notice served between March 1, 2026 and February 28, 2027 the Rent Board publishes eleven thousand one hundred ten dollars and five cents per tenant, a per-unit ceiling of thirty-three thousand three hundred thirty dollars and thirteen cents, and seven thousand four hundred forty-three dollars and ninety cents additional. The trap is the age: the Section 37.9C additional payment runs to a tenant who is sixty years or older, while the Section 37.9A additional payment runs to a tenant who is sixty-two years or older. A landlord who carries the familiar figure of sixty across to an Ellis withdrawal pays the wrong people, and a tenant aged sixty or sixty-one who expects the senior addition on an Ellis notice is expecting something the section does not give.

A short displacement is governed by a third scheme again: a temporary displacement of fewer than twenty days falls under California Civil Code 1947.9 on a published daily rate rather than under Section 37.9C, and Section 37.9(m) indexes that daily rate every March 1 on the same San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose measure. Ordinance 3-26 also added a further entitlement inside Section 37.9(a)(11): where a lower-income tenant is required to vacate for more than three months for capital improvement work, the Board calculates additional monthly relocation assistance equal to the difference between the tenant’s rent and the San Francisco Housing Authority Payment Standard for that unit size, or the cost of interim housing if lower, payable monthly for up to thirty-nine months while the tenant awaits an offer to return.

The procedural duties are as important as the money. On or before the date a Covered No-Fault Eviction Notice is served, the landlord must notify all occupants in writing of the right to payment and its amount, describe the additional amounts available for senior, disabled and minor-child households, and provide a copy of Section 37.9C. Within ten days after service the landlord must file a copy of that notification with the Rent Board together with a copy of the notice to vacate and proof of service. Paying relocation with one notice covers further notices on the same ground for the same unit served within one hundred and eighty days; the money is separate from any deposit; and accepting it waives nothing.

Long-tenured seniors, long-tenured disabled tenants, catastrophically ill tenants of five years, and households with a child or an educator during the school year. Sections 37.9(i) and 37.9(j) create two separate protections with a shared procedure.

Under Section 37.9(i), a landlord may not recover possession under Section 37.9(a)(8) if the landlord has or receives notice, at any time before recovery of possession, that any tenant in the unit is sixty years of age or older and has resided in the unit for ten years or more; is disabled within the meaning of Section 37.9(i)(1)(B)(i) — disabled or blind within the federal Supplemental Security Income and California State Supplemental Program and determined by that programme to qualify, or by another method the Rent Board approves — and has resided there ten years or more; or is catastrophically ill, meaning disabled as so defined and suffering from a life-threatening illness certified by a primary care physician, and has resided there five years or more. The protection does not apply where the landlord owns only one rental unit in the building, or in the narrow situation described in Section 37.9(i)(2) where every other unit the landlord owns in the building they live in is occupied by a similarly protected tenant and the relative moving in is sixty or older.

Under Section 37.9(j), it is a defence to an eviction under Section 37.9(a)(8), (9), (10), (11), (12) or (17) that a child under the age of eighteen or an educator resides in the unit, is a tenant or has a custodial or family relationship with a tenant, the tenant has resided in the unit for twelve months or more, and the effective date of the notice of termination falls during the school year. The defence does not apply where the landlord is temporarily evicting or temporarily severing housing services to perform mandatory Building Code Chapter 34B seismic work with the notice and compensation Administrative Code Chapter 65A requires.

Both protections run through the same thirty-day procedure. Within thirty days of personal service of the landlord’s written request — or, at the landlord’s option, of a notice of termination — the tenant must submit a statement with supporting evidence claiming protected status. The landlord’s request or notice must carry a warning that failing to submit a statement within the thirty days is deemed an admission that the tenant is not protected, and the landlord must file a copy of the request or notice with the Rent Board within ten days of serving it. A landlord may challenge the claim by requesting a Rent Board hearing or by commencing eviction proceedings, and in either forum the tenant bears the burden of proving protected status. No civil or criminal liability attaches to a landlord merely for requesting or challenging a claim.

It can say what it likes; Section 37.9(a)(2) decides what happens next, and silence for fourteen days is approval. This is a rule that operates “notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary”, which is the ordinance’s way of saying the drafting does not matter.

On subletting, Section 37.9(a)(2)(A) provides that a landlord may not endeavour to recover possession as a result of a sublet where the landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublet following a written request by the tenant, so long as the tenant continues to reside in the unit and the sublet constitutes a one-for-one replacement of the departing tenant. And: “If the landlord fails to respond to the tenant in writing with a description of the reasons for the denial of the request within 14 days of receipt of the tenant’s written request, the tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the landlord.”

On added occupants, the same fourteen-day deemed-approval rule appears twice more. Section 37.9(a)(2)(B) covers a request to add a tenant’s child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a relative, or the spouse or domestic partner of a tenant. Section 37.9(a)(2)(C) covers a request to add any additional occupant. In both cases a reasonable refusal may not be based on the proposed occupant’s lack of creditworthiness where that person will not be legally obligated to pay rent, and under (C) it may not be based on the number of occupants the lease itself allows. What it may be based on is the total number of occupants exceeding the lesser of two figures: (i) two persons in a studio, three in a one-bedroom, four in a two-bedroom, six in a three-bedroom or eight in a four-bedroom unit; or (ii) the maximum permitted under state law and other local codes such as the Building, Fire, Housing and Planning Codes. Under (C) a landlord who lives in the same unit as the tenant may also refuse on that ground.

Section 37.9(a)(2)(D) then adds the procedural step. Before endeavouring to recover possession for a violation of an obligation about subletting or occupancy limits, the landlord must serve a written notice of the violation giving the tenant an opportunity to cure in ten or more days. The tenant may cure by making a written request to add the occupants, or by other reasonable means including removing the additional or unapproved occupant. This is the only ten-day cure requirement in Section 37.9, and it is confined to this subject.

Parking, storage, laundry, decks, patios and gardens are housing services, and removing one needs just cause and a rent reduction. The definition sits inside Section 37.2(r), which is why it is easy to miss: the same subsection that defines rental units also protects what comes with them.

Section 37.2(g) defines housing services as services provided by the landlord connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit, “including, but not limited to: quiet enjoyment of the premises, without harassment by the landlord as provided in Section 37.10B; repairs; replacement; maintenance; painting; light; heat; water; elevator service; laundry facilities and privileges; janitor service; refuse removal; furnishings; telephone; parking; rights permitted the tenant by agreement.” Section 37.2(r) then names specific items — garage facilities, parking facilities, driveways, storage spaces, laundry rooms, decks, patios or gardens on the same lot, and kitchen facilities or lobbies in single room occupancy hotels — and provides that they “may not be severed from the tenancy by the landlord without just cause as required by Section 37.9(a)”. It goes further: any severance, substantial reduction or removal of a housing service, even if permitted under Section 37.9(a), must be offset by a corresponding reduction in rent, and either the landlord or the tenant may file a petition with the Rent Board to determine the amount.

There is one carefully drawn exception. A landlord may temporarily sever one or more of the listed services to perform mandatory earthquake retrofit work required by Building Code Chapter 34B if four conditions are met: the notice to temporarily sever required by Administrative Code Section 65A.2 has been given; all necessary permits were obtained on or before that notice; the service is severed only for the minimum time required and never longer than Building Code Section 106A.4.4 Table B allows; and the service is fully restored immediately on completion. In that case the tenant is entitled not to a rent reduction but to compensation or a substitute housing service under Administrative Code Chapter 65A. A tenant may also petition the Rent Board to decide whether a proposed accessory dwelling unit under Planning Code Section 207(c)(4) would sever, substantially reduce or remove a housing service — and the ordinance says plainly that issuing a permit for such a unit “does not, in and of itself, constitute a just cause for the purpose of severing a housing service.”

The practical drafting point is that a San Francisco lease should list the housing services supplied, by name and number where possible: one garage space, storage locker four, shared laundry, rear garden access. The builder above has a field for exactly that. A service that was never written down is a service the parties will argue about later, and the argument is one the Rent Board resolves by reducing the rent.

Seventy degrees Fahrenheit, three feet above the floor, in every habitable room — and the lease has to say who pays for it. San Francisco Housing Code Section 701 is one of the few provisions in this area that expressly hands a question back to the parties.

Section 701(a)(1) requires every dwelling unit, guest room and congregate residence to be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a minimum room temperature of seventy degrees Fahrenheit, which the section notes is 21.1 degrees Centigrade, at a point three feet above the floor in all habitable rooms. Section 701(a)(2) requires the heat to be furnished from heating units located within the dwelling or from ductwork openings in its walls, floor or ceiling, and forbids any direct opening for heat between an exit corridor and the unit. Section 701(a)(4) requires the facilities to be installed and maintained safely and in accordance with the Building Code, and Section 701(b) requires individual heaters to be permanently attached and properly wired to the Electrical Code.

Then Section 701(a)(3), in a single sentence: “The cost of maintaining heat as required by this subsection (a) shall be a matter of agreement between the landlord and tenant.” A San Francisco lease that does not answer that question leaves a statutory allocation open, and the allocation is about cost only — the duty to provide facilities capable of reaching the required temperature stays with the landlord whatever the lease says about the bill.

Where the heating system is not under the tenant’s control, Section 701(d) is prescriptive. A locking or non-tamperable temperature-sensing device with a tolerance of one and a half degrees Fahrenheit must be centrally located within the building in a habitable room to which heat is provided, whether occupied or not, and may not be installed in a manager’s or an owner’s unit except in an owner-occupied residential condominium. The device must cut heat production when the room temperature exceeds the required figure and reactivate the system when it drops below. A timeclock set to provide the required amount and hours of heat must be installed at or near the heating source, with a thermostat bypass switch wired in parallel for testing, and remotely located switches that override the timeclock are prohibited. Hotels run on a separate standard in Section 701(c): sixty-eight degrees measured midway between the heating unit and the furthest wall, three feet above the floor, available for thirteen hours a day between five and eleven in the morning and three and ten at night.

Failing to provide required heat is not only a Housing Code violation. Under Section 37.10B(a)(1) a bad-faith failure to provide housing services required by contract or by state, county or local housing, health or safety laws is an act of tenant harassment, and under Section 37.10B(c)(1) a violation of Section 37.10B(a)(1) through (3) is a substantial and significant decrease in services for which the tenant may petition the Rent Board for a rent reduction. Our California habitability guide covers the statewide warranty that sits underneath.

Two city duties that no ranking San Francisco lease page mentions, both timed to the moment of leasing. The deepest ranker states that San Francisco has no city-specific lease disclosures at all; these are two of the reasons that is wrong.

The bed bug history. San Francisco Health Code Article 11A, Section 621(d), provides that with the exception of tourist hotels, “at the request of a prospective tenant, a property owner and/or property manager shall furnish to the tenant written disclosure of the unit’s bed bug infestation and abatement history for the previous two years. If there is no history of bed bug infestation, the property owner or manager shall disclose that fact in writing. Such written disclosure must be signed by the property owner and/or manager and tenant prior to the date the property owner and/or manager initially delivers possession of the premises to the tenant.” Three details make this different from the state notice. It is a history, not general information. It runs to a two-year lookback. And it must be signed by both parties before possession changes hands, which makes it a document to complete at signing rather than a leaflet to hand over. California Civil Code 1954.603 separately requires a general information notice about bed bugs before creating a new tenancy; the two are not substitutes, and a San Francisco lease should carry both. Section 621(c) also requires owners and managers to investigate infestation complaints and to record and abate confirmed infestations in conformity with the Department of Public Health’s rules under Health Code Section 581, and requires tenants to comply with those rules too.

The smoking designation. San Francisco Health Code Article 19M, Section 19M.2, binds an owner or manager of a Multi-Unit Housing Complex with less than 100% smoke free residential rental units to do five things: designate each residential unit as either smoke free or smoking optional; include the designation in residential vacancy listings; provide a rental applicant with a list showing which units in the building are smoking optional before offering a unit to that applicant; disclose in writing to any applicant whether the unit for rent is designated smoke free or smoking optional before entering into the new lease; and develop and maintain a master list identifying each smoking optional unit, notifying tenants that it is available on request in the leasing office or from building management.

The scope limiter for that duty sits in a different article, which is exactly the shape of rule that gets misread. Section 19M.1(a) defines a Multi-Unit Housing Complex by reference to Health Code Article 19F, Section 1009.21, and Section 1009.21(k) defines it as “a public or private building, or portion thereof, containing two or more dwelling or other housing units”, expressly including live/work units, apartment buildings, condominiums, senior citizen residences, nursing homes, housekeeping rooms, residential and single room occupancy hotels, and group housing. Two or more units. A San Francisco duplex that is not entirely smoke free is inside Article 19M. Section 19M.3 required the initial designation to be finalised by the end of 2013 for owners of fifty or fewer units in the City and by the end of 2014 for owners of fifty-one or more, on written notice to each existing tenant with at least thirty days to comment. California Civil Code 1947.5 separately requires a landlord who prohibits or limits smoking to specify the areas in the lease, and the builder above collects that too.

No, and the prohibition is drafted to catch every workaround. Administrative Code Section 37.13 is short, specific, and absent from every template we reviewed.

Section 37.13(a) requires a landlord to provide a minimum of one key or key-set per rental unit for each adult occupant, without charge — not one set per unit, one per adult. Section 37.13(b) lets a tenant request additional keys for convenience, giving examples that include admitting a service provider, a delivery person, a houseguest or a relative, and requires the landlord to provide them within fourteen days of the tenant’s written request stating the reasons, unless the landlord timely denies the request in writing.

Section 37.13(b)(1) is the operative sentence for drafting: when providing requested additional keys, “the landlord may charge only for the documented cost of replicating the additional keys/key-sets, which cost shall be paid by the tenant upon delivery of the requested additional keys/key-sets. Additional keys/key-sets shall be provided without requiring any other costs, fees, deposits, or terms or conditions of any kind whatsoever.” Section 37.13(b)(2) allows a denial only for good reason, such as unlawful occupancy in the unit or the tenant’s pattern of lease violation, and only in writing, stating specific reasons, within fourteen days.

The remedy is a rent reduction. Section 37.13(b)(4) provides that an unreasonable denial, a failure to respond within fourteen days by providing either the keys or a written denial, or the imposition of a prohibited condition, “constitutes a substantial decrease in housing services, for which the Administrative Law Judge may order a corresponding reduction in rent.” A landlord who ignores a key request for a fortnight has reduced the rent.

No — and the prohibition is written as a lease rule with a date on it. Administrative Code Chapter 49A, Residential Tenant Communications, was rewritten by Ordinance 032-22 in 2022 and amended again in 2023.

Section 49A.3(a) provides that a landlord may neither prohibit nor interfere with an occupant of a rental unit, or a guest invited by an occupant, using the common areas of that building to engage in Organizing Activities. Section 49A.2 defines those as initiating contact with tenants, including door-to-door surveys, to ascertain interest in or seek support for forming a Tenant Association; joining or supporting a Tenant Association; and distributing literature, requesting or providing information, offering assistance, convening meetings — which may occur without a landlord or landlord representative present — or otherwise acting on behalf of one or more tenants in the building regarding issues of common interest. Section 49A.3(b) permits literature to be hung on unit doors or, where that is impractical, placed on the floor in front of them, provided it names a distributor a tenant may contact to opt out. Section 49A.3(c) allows the landlord reasonable time, place and manner requirements, “so long as the requirements would not effectively prohibit or substantially interfere with Organizing Activities.”

Section 49A.3(d) is the lease rule: “Lease agreements entered into or amended on or after January 1, 2022 may not waive a tenant’s right to engage in Organizing Activities as set forth in this Chapter 49A. Any provision of any lease agreement entered into or amended on or after January 1, 2022 that purports to waive a tenant’s right to engage in Organizing Activities as set forth in this Chapter 49A shall be void as contrary to public policy.”

Section 49A.4 goes further and creates an obligation to meet. Tenants in a building with five or more rental units may establish a Tenant Association by giving the landlord a petition signed by tenants representing at least 50% of the occupied units. Once certified, the landlord and the association must confer with each other in good faith about housing services and conditions, community life, landlord-tenant relations, rent increases and other issues of common concern; the section gives examples of good faith including maintaining a designated point of contact, responding to reasonable requests for information, allowing participation by non-resident advocates, allowing limited-English speakers time to obtain translation, providing and adhering to timelines for habitability concerns, and putting agreements in writing. On fourteen days’ written request — or a single standing request for a regularly scheduled series — the landlord or a representative must attend at least one association meeting per calendar quarter, staying until the agenda is complete unless the meeting runs past two hours. A landlord may require recertification not more than once every three years. Section 49A.4(f) excepts buildings whose landlord is a non-profit organised under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).

Section 49A.5 supplies the teeth. A tenant’s right to engage in Organizing Activities, to receive assistance from a Tenant Association representative, and to have Organizing Activities occur in their building, all qualify as a “Housing Service” under Section 37.2(g) — so a landlord’s failure to comply, including a failure to confer or to attend meetings in good faith, may support a Rent Board petition for a substantial decrease in housing services, which is to say a rent reduction.

Fifteen listed acts, each unlawful when done in bad faith, and the list binds the landlord’s agents, contractors, subcontractors and employees as well as the landlord. Section 37.10B was adopted by Proposition M in 2008 and amended in 2019 and 2020, and it is where several ordinary property-management habits become actionable.

The listed acts are: interrupting, terminating or failing to provide housing services required by contract or by state, county or local housing, health or safety laws; failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or law; failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs once undertaken, or failing to follow appropriate industry repair, containment or remediation protocols designed to minimise exposure to noise, dust, lead, paint, mold, asbestos or other building materials with potentially harmful health impacts; abusing the landlord’s right of access; influencing or attempting to influence a tenant to vacate through fraud, intimidation or coercion; attempting to coerce a tenant to vacate with offers of payment accompanied by threats or intimidation; continuing to offer payments to vacate after the tenant has said in writing that they no longer wish to receive such offers; threatening the tenant by word or gesture with physical harm; violating any law prohibiting discrimination on the listed grounds; interfering with the tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment as California law defines it; refusing to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment; refusing to cash a rent cheque for over thirty days; interfering with the tenant’s right to privacy; requesting information that violates that right, expressly including residence or citizenship status or a social security number; and other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of a lawful occupant, where they cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause the occupant to vacate or to surrender or waive rights.

The fifth of those has a San Francisco-specific illustration written into it, and it is the direct counterpart of the coverage split. Influencing a tenant to vacate through fraud, intimidation or coercion expressly includes “endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit that is exempt from rent increase limitations under Section 37.3(d) or Section 37.3(g) by means of a rent increase that is imposed with an intent to defraud, intimidate, or coerce the tenant into vacating the rental unit in circumvention of Section 37.9(a), 37.9A, 37.9B, or 37.9C”, with evidence of bad faith including a rent increase substantially in excess of market rates for comparable units and a rent increase imposed within six months after an attempt to recover possession.

Remedies are layered. A violation of subsections (a)(1) through (3) is a substantial and significant decrease in services under Section 37.2(g), for which the tenant may petition the Rent Board for a rent reduction. A conviction is a misdemeanour carrying a fine of up to one thousand dollars or up to six months in the county jail or both. Any person, including the City, may bring a civil action on a preponderance standard, and a violation may be asserted as an affirmative defence in an unlawful detainer action. Damages run to not less than three times actual damages including mental or emotional distress, or statutory damages of one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, with mental-distress damages trebled only on a finding of knowing violation or reckless disregard, plus attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff and punitive damages in a proper case under Civil Code 3294. One caution: the Rent Board’s compilation prints subsections (a)(7) and (c)(6) while its own annotation records that Larson v. CCSF (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263 struck both and limited Rent Board remedies under (c)(1) to violations of (a)(1) through (3). The section was amended after that decision, so the printed text is most likely a valid re-enactment, but a landlord or tenant relying on subsection (c)(6) specifically should take advice rather than rely on the printed page.

No, and it has not been since October 14, 2024. Section 37.10C, added by Ordinance 224-24 and amended by Ordinance 169-25 effective October 6, 2025, is one of the newest provisions in the ordinance and appears on no lease template in the search results.

Subsection (a) makes it unlawful to sell, license or otherwise provide to San Francisco landlords any algorithmic device that sets, recommends or advises on rents or occupancy levels that may be achieved for residential dwelling units in San Francisco. Subsection (b) makes it unlawful for a landlord to use such a device when setting rents or occupancy levels, and provides that each separate month a violation exists or continues, and each separate unit for which the device was used, is a separate and distinct violation.

The definitions do real work. An “algorithmic device” is a device commonly known as revenue management software that uses one or more algorithms to perform calculations of non-public competitor data concerning local or statewide rents or occupancy levels, for the purpose of advising a landlord whether to leave a unit vacant or what rent it may obtain. It includes a product that incorporates such a device, but excludes a report publishing existing rental data in an aggregated manner that does not recommend rents or occupancy levels for future leases, and excludes a product used to establish rent or income limits under affordable-housing programme guidelines. “Non-public competitor data” means information not available to the general public, including actual rent prices, occupancy rates and lease start and end dates, regardless of whether it is attributable to a specific competitor or anonymised, and regardless of whether it comes from a competitor at all.

The City Attorney may sue for damages, injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties of up to one thousand dollars per violation. A tenant may sue for injunctive relief, damages and the same civil penalties, and the court shall award a prevailing tenant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Then the sentence that matters for lease drafting: “A lease provision that limits a prevailing tenant from obtaining attorneys’ fees shall not be enforceable against a tenant’s claim for attorneys’ fees that arises under this subsection (d)(2).” A qualifying non-profit with a primary mission of protecting San Francisco tenants may bring the same action. Ordinance 169-25 extended the same enforcement authority to tenants’ rights organisations.

For eviction, Chapter 37 displaces the state just-cause statute outright. For rent, the two are separate questions and both have to be answered. Conflating them is the commonest error in this area after the coverage split itself.

On just cause, the ordinance settles it by an express finding. Section 37.1(d) records: “In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1946.2(g)(1)(B), the Board of Supervisors finds that this Chapter 37 further limits the permissible reasons for termination of a residential tenancy and provides additional tenant protections as compared to California Civil Code Section 1946.2, which the California Legislature adopted as part of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The Board of Supervisors therefore finds that this Chapter 37 is more protective of tenants than Section 1946.2, and intends that this Chapter 37 shall apply rather than Section 1946.2.” Civil Code 1946.2(g)(1)(B) is the provision that lets a local just-cause ordinance more protective than the state statute govern instead of it, and San Francisco has invoked it in terms. The grounds for ending a San Francisco tenancy are the seventeen in Section 37.9(a), and the twelve-month and twenty-four-month occupancy thresholds in the state statute do not gate them.

On rent, no such displacement happens, and the analysis is per-unit. Where Chapter 37’s limits reach a unit, they are far lower than the state cap and the state cap is beside the point. Where Chapter 37’s limits do not reach a unit — a post-1979 apartment building, a separately alienable house or condominium, a certified substantial rehabilitation — the state cap in Civil Code 1947.12 has to be tested on its own terms and its own exemptions, which are not the same exemptions. The state statute exempts housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous fifteen years, on a rolling basis, and exempts a separately alienable single-family home or condominium only where the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation or an LLC with a corporate member and the statutory exemption statement appears in the lease. A San Francisco apartment building completed in the mid-1980s is outside Chapter 37’s rent limits and, being more than fifteen years old, inside the state cap. That combination is common and is worth working out per property rather than assuming.

Note what the state exemption statement does and does not do. Including it in a San Francisco lease may secure exemption from the state rent cap and the state just-cause statute. It has no effect at all on Chapter 37, because Section 37.9 applies to all rental units notwithstanding Section 37.3, and because Section 37.1(d) has already displaced Civil Code 1946.2 for San Francisco tenancies. The builder above offers that statement as a conditional block and says so on the face of the generated lease. Our California lease agreement page covers the state cap, its exemptions and the exemption statement in full.

All of them. The city layer adds duties; it does not subtract any. A San Francisco lease needs the statewide set as well as the ten city blocks, which is why this builder generates both.

The statewide set is the Megan’s Law database notice required verbatim in every lease by California Civil Code 2079.10a; the owner and manager identification required by Civil Code 1962, with the fifteen-day delivery duty attached; the bed bug information notice under Civil Code 1954.603, which is not the same document as the San Francisco two-year history; the two mold duties under Health and Safety Code 26147 and 26148; the military ordnance notice under Civil Code 1940.7 where the landlord has actual knowledge of a former ordnance location within a mile; the flood hazard notice under Government Code 8589.45 for leases from July 1, 2018; the shared gas or electric meter disclosure and written arrangement under Civil Code 1940.9; the federal lead-based paint disclosure for pre-1978 housing; and, conditionally, the demolition permit notice under Civil Code 1940.6 and the methamphetamine remediation order notice under Health and Safety Code 25400.28. The state rent cap exemption statement is a further conditional block.

Three of them pick up a San Francisco consequence. The shared meter disclosure engages Section 37.2(r) as well as Civil Code 1940.9: service supplied in connection with the use or occupancy of the unit is a housing service, so shifting the cost of an outside area onto the tenant’s meter is a reduction that must be offset by a rent reduction, quite apart from the written arrangement the state statute requires. The mold duty engages Section 37.10B(a)(3), which makes a bad-faith failure to follow appropriate mold containment or remediation protocols during work an act of harassment. And lead engages three separate San Francisco provisions: Health Code Articles 11 and 26 govern lead hazards, Section 37.9(a)(14) makes a temporary displacement solely for lead remediation a just cause carrying Administrative Code Chapter 72 relocation rights, and Section 37.3(e) creates a rebuttable presumption that a lead hazard was caused or created by the landlord’s deferred maintenance, so the cost of remediating it may not be passed through to tenants as a capital improvement or an operating expense unless the landlord rebuts the presumption. Our California lead paint disclosure form covers the federal document itself.

Equally, neither California nor San Francisco requires a radon disclosure, a tenant asbestos disclosure, a carbon monoxide disclosure, a medical cannabis disclosure or the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement in a residential lease. Health and Safety Code 25915 directs its asbestos notice to the owner’s own employees in a pre-1979 building, not to tenants, and Civil Code 1102.6 prescribes the transfer disclosure statement for sales of residential real property. One ranking San Francisco template lists a “medical marijuana use disclosure” among San Francisco requirements; no San Francisco ordinance imposes one.

Nine, and most of them are void rather than merely unenforceable — which matters, because striking a void clause does not authorise the conduct it was meant to license. Section 37.9(e) supplies the general rule in eleven words: “Any waiver by a tenant of rights under this Chapter 37 shall be void as contrary to public policy.” There is no exception, no carve-out for a negotiated term, and no severability argument that saves the conduct.

• Any waiver of Chapter 37 rights — Section 37.9(e). Section 49.4 says the same of Chapter 49 deposit-interest rights.
• A surrender-at-the-end-of-term clause, or one treating a failure to vacate at term end as a just cause — Section 37.9F(b).
• A clause allowing an unauthorized Non-Tenant Use, such as renting to a company — Section 37.9F(c)(2), which also deems the occupants tenants.
• A waiver of the right to engage in Organizing Activities, in a lease entered into or amended on or after January 1, 2022 — Section 49A.3(d).
• A per-occupant rent escalator, on a rent-limited unit — Section 37.3(a)(11)(A) applies “notwithstanding a rental agreement or lease that specifically permits a rent increase for additional occupants”. Subsection (C) preserves increases the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act independently permits, so this one turns on Coverage Test Two rather than applying flatly across the city.
• A key deposit, or any other charge, fee, deposit, term or condition for additional keys beyond documented replication cost — Section 37.13(b)(1).
• A clause limiting a prevailing tenant’s attorney fees on an algorithmic rent-setting claim — Section 37.10C(d)(2) makes it unenforceable against that claim.
• A buyout provision closing off the late-filing remedy — Section 37.9E(f)(2) voids any provision purporting to limit, restrict or prevent a tenant from filing a copy of the agreement or voiding its waiver and release language once the landlord has missed the fifty-ninth day.
• A one-sided attorney fee clause — not void, but converted. California Civil Code 1717 construes it as running to whichever party prevails and makes a waiver of that reciprocity void.

San Francisco’s attorney-fee position is worth stating precisely because it is unlike anything else. The city does not ban a fee clause. What it does is layer statutory, mostly one-way fee entitlements on top of the state’s reciprocity rule, and then say in one place that a lease may not limit them. Section 37.9(f) awards reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a wrongful-eviction action, which also carries damages of not less than three times actual damages including mental or emotional distress. Section 37.10B(c)(5) awards fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a harassment action, and Section 37.10B(c)(6) directs the court to award a prevailing tenant fees and costs incurred in defending a possession action unless the sole basis of the notice to quit is Section 37.9(b). Section 37.10C(d)(2) awards them to a prevailing tenant and disables any contrary lease provision. Section 37.9F(e)(2) awards them to a prevailing City Attorney or non-profit. None of those depends on the lease saying anything, and the last of them says the lease cannot say otherwise.

Finally, the enforcement stack behind Section 37.9(e) is not merely civil. Section 37.9(e) makes it unlawful for a landlord, or any person who wilfully assists a landlord, to endeavour to recover possession other than as Section 37.9(a) or (b) allows, and provides that doing so without a substantial basis in fact is a misdemeanour subject to the fines and penalties in Section 37.10A. Section 37.9(f) then supplies the treble-damages civil remedy, available to the tenant or the Rent Board, and Section 37.11A supplies a further civil action for charging rent above the chapter’s limits, for retaliation and for related conduct.

Enough that the leading page’s first substantive sentence is false. We rendered the live search results for this query and read what each ranking page actually says, then checked every claim against the ordinance text the Rent Board publishes. The pattern is not thinness; it is confident error.

• “San Francisco currently has no city-specific residential lease agreement requirements or disclosures.” This opens the deepest ranking page. Chapter 37 alone supplies the Section 37.9F(d) listing text, the Section 37.3(b) rent-increase itemization, the Section 37.13 key rules and the Section 37.9E buyout disclosures; Chapter 49 supplies the deposit-interest terms; Chapter 49A supplies a non-waiver rule aimed squarely at lease drafting; Health Code Section 621(d) and Article 19M each supply a disclosure timed to the moment of leasing; and Housing Code 701(a)(3) sends a cost allocation back to the lease to settle. The same page’s own template almost certainly contains the clause Section 37.9F(b) voids.
• “The landlord must pay each tenant a total of four thousand five hundred dollars.” Printed by two ranking pages. That is the 2006 base figure in Section 37.9C(e)(1). Section 37.9C(e)(3) has indexed it every March 1 since 2007, and the published amount for a notice served in the current period is roughly eighty per cent higher, with a separate per-unit ceiling and a separate additional payment for senior, disabled and minor-child households that neither page mentions.
• “For at-fault evictions, landlords must provide tenants with a written notice stating that they have ten days to cure the violation.” That was Section 37.9(o), added in March 2022, partly enjoined within nine days, and absent from the ordinance today following SFAA v. CCSF (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1218. The only ten-day cure requirement in Section 37.9 concerns subletting and occupancy limits.
• “Unlike just cause evictions, buyout agreements are less regulated.” Section 37.9E requires a Board-form disclosure, a declaration filed with the Board, a thirty-day cooling period, initialled fourteen-point statements, a forty-five-day rescission right and filing by the fifty-ninth day, with the tenant able to void every waiver and release in the agreement if the landlord is late.
• A “medical marijuana use disclosure” listed as a San Francisco requirement. No such ordinance exists. The real San Francisco smoking duty is the Article 19M designation, and its scope limiter — two or more units — sits in Section 1009.21(k) of a different article.
• “We’ve got you covered on all San Francisco laws and ordinances.” Advertised by a lease-builder whose San Francisco page then states only California rules, including the pre-2024 claim that “security deposits cannot exceed the cost of two months’ rent if you do not furnish the property”. California’s cap has been one month’s rent for most landlords since July 1, 2024.
• Silence on the licence, the itemization, the interest and the split. One page notes in passing that a landlord must be licensed to raise the rent without saying that the licence comes from Section 37.15 reporting or that losing it means the tenant does not owe the increase. None sets out the Section 37.3(b) itemization or the Section 37.3(b)(5) nullity rule. None mentions Chapter 49 deposit interest. And only the Rent Board’s own page — which is not a lease template — states the coverage split correctly.

To be fair to the Rent Board’s page: it is accurate, current on the seventeen grounds, and states the split plainly, including that “some tenancies that are exempt from the rent increase limitations of the Ordinance are still subject to the eviction provisions of the Ordinance”. Some secondary guides published before February 2026 still count sixteen just causes. The gap this page fills is not that nobody knows the law; it is that no lease-generating page applies it.

Sources verified 2026-08-06 against the Rent Board’s complete published Rent Ordinance, amended June 29, 2026, and the Rent Board’s rate sheet for March 2026. Where an annual figure is quoted, use the Rent Board’s published figure for the period in which the notice or payment falls; every one of them is republished each March 1.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.