Free San Francisco Residential Lease Agreement
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.
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.
San Francisco Lease Rules at a Glance
Just Causes for Eviction
17
Allowable Annual Increase
1.6% to Feb 2027
Deposit Interest Rate
4.2% to Feb 2027
Notice Filing With Rent Board
10 Days
Three San Francisco Rules That Catch Landlords Out
First, the standard “tenant shall surrender the premises at the end of the term” clause is void here. Section 37.9F(b) voids any provision requiring a tenant to vacate at the expiration of a stated term or treating a failure to vacate as a just cause, and every generic template we found in the search results contains one. Second, the annual increase needs a licence, not just a notice. Section 37.15 requires the unit to be reported to the Rent Board, and Section 37.15(e) suspends the licence to impose an increase during any period of noncompliance — with the tenant not obligated to pay the increase for the months in that period. Third, the relocation figures in the published ordinance text are two decades out of date. Section 37.9C(e)(3) has indexed them to the local Consumer Price Index every March 1 since 2007, and the current published amount per eligible tenant is roughly eighty per cent higher than the number two ranking pages still print.
Does the San Francisco Rent Ordinance Cover This Unit?
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.
| Unit | Rent limits (Sec. 37.3) | Just cause (Sec. 37.9) | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apartment, certificate of occupancy before June 13, 1979 | Covered | Covered | 37.2(r); 37.3(a) |
| Apartment, certificate of occupancy after June 13, 1979 | Exempt | Covered | 37.3(g)(1); 37.9 opening |
| Single-family home, separately alienable | Exempt | Covered | 37.3(d)(1)(A); 37.3(d)(4) |
| Condominium sold separately to a bona fide purchaser | Exempt | Covered | 37.3(d)(1)(A); 37.9 opening |
| Unsold condominium still held by the subdivider | Covered | Covered | 37.3(d)(1)(A)(i) |
| Certified substantial rehabilitation | Exempt | Covered | 37.2(s); 37.3(g)(1) |
| Any exempt unit where the owner ended the last tenancy by a no-fault notice in the past five years | Back under control | Covered | 37.3(f); 37.3(d)(1)(A)(ii) |
| Hotel room occupied thirty-two continuous days | Covered | Covered | 37.2(r)(1) |
| Landlord lives in the same unit as the tenant | Depends on the unit | Not required | 37.9(b) |
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.
Why Is a Unit Exempt From Rent Control but Not From Eviction Control?
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.
Is the San Francisco New-Construction Date 1979 or 1994?
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.
How to Fill Out This San Francisco Lease Agreement
1. Name the parties, the manager and the owner
California Civil Code 1962 requires the lease to name the person authorized to manage the premises and the owner or the owner’s agent for service of process, each with a telephone number and a usual street address at which personal service may be made, and to state to whom and in what form rent is paid.
2. Run the coverage test twice
Answer the Section 37.2(r) class question and the Section 37.3 rent-limit question separately. The generated lease records both answers, and tells the parties in terms when they differ.
3. Set the term — without a surrender clause
Section 37.9F(b) voids a clause requiring the tenant to vacate at the end of a stated term. The builder writes an initial term and a plain statement that the end of that term does not end the tenancy.
4. Set rent, and record the licence
The annual increase is 60% of the Rent Board’s published March 1 figure, capped at 7%, and Section 37.15 requires the unit to be reported before it may be imposed at all. Select the reporting status honestly; the lease prints the consequence either way.
5. Total the security and choose the interest method
The cap is California’s. The interest is San Francisco’s: Chapter 49 requires simple interest on a deposit held a year or more, paid annually as a direct payment or a rent credit at the landlord’s choice.
6. Allocate utilities, heat and housing services
San Francisco Housing Code 701(a)(3) leaves the cost of the required heat to the parties, so the lease has to settle it. List parking, storage, laundry and outdoor space explicitly: under Section 37.2(r) they are housing services that cannot be severed without just cause.
7. Check the ten San Francisco blocks and the California set
Coverage, the annual increase and licence, deposit interest, buyout rights, relocation, organizing rights, keys, the bed bug history, the smoking designation and heat — then the statewide disclosures the California layer still requires.
8. Generate, sign, deliver and report
Download the PDF and sign. Civil Code 1962 requires a copy to the tenant within fifteen days. Then confirm the unit is reported to the Rent Board under Section 37.15, and update the report by March 1 each year.
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.
San Francisco Residential Lease Agreement Builder
1. Parties
Civ. Code 1962 requires the lease to name the person authorized to manage the premises and the owner or the owner’s agent for service of process, each with a telephone number and a usual street address, and to state to whom and in what form rent is paid. Admin. Code 37.9E also requires a landlord entity to name, before any buyout negotiation, everyone who will negotiate and everyone with decision-making authority.
2. Premises and the Rent Ordinance Coverage Test
This is the part of a San Francisco lease that no general template answers. Rent control and eviction control have different scopes. Section 37.9 opens “Notwithstanding Section 37.3”, so the just-cause rules reach every “rental unit” under Section 37.2(r) whatever the build date. The rent-increase limits in Section 37.3 do not. Answer both questions separately below and the generated lease will record both answers.
3. Term
Section 37.9F(b) voids any provision requiring the tenant to vacate at the end of a stated term, or treating a failure to vacate as a just cause. A San Francisco fixed term sets the term; it does not end the tenancy. This builder never generates a surrender-at-term clause.
4. Rent and the Annual Increase
5. Security Deposit and San Francisco Deposit Interest
The cap is California’s. The interest is San Francisco’s: Administrative Code Chapter 49 requires simple interest on any deposit held a year or more, paid annually on the anniversary and pro rata no later than two weeks after the tenant vacates, at a rate the Rent Board sets each March 1. Section 49.4 makes a waiver void.
6. Utilities, Heat and Housing Services
Housing Code 701 requires heat capable of 70 degrees Fahrenheit three feet above the floor in every habitable room, and Section 701(a)(3) sends the cost of that heat back to the parties to agree — so the lease must answer it. Under Section 37.2(r) parking, storage, laundry, decks, patios and gardens are housing services that may not be severed without just cause and must be offset in rent if reduced.
7. San Francisco Disclosures and Ordinance Terms
These ten blocks are what makes this a San Francisco lease rather than a California lease with a San Francisco address on it. They are checked on by default because each one attaches to an ordinary San Francisco tenancy.
8. California Disclosures
The state layer still applies in full. Our California lease agreement page derives each of these from the statute; here they are carried so the generated document is complete.