Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)

Citation: Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Parent Document: Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2026-05-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10859038/apartment-assn-of-los-angeles-... ↗

Full Text

1,796 chars

25
state law,” and “if a local ordinance ‘ “attempted to prohibit
conduct proscribed or permitted by state law[,] either explicitly or
implicitly, it would be preempted.” ’ ” (Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th
at p. 149; Riverside, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 743.) Under
contradiction preemption, “ ‘state law may preempt local law
when local law prohibits not only what a state statute “demands”
but also what the statute permits or authorizes.’ ” (Chevron,
supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 149, quoting City of Riverside, at p. 763
(conc. opn. of Liu, J.).)
       As we explained in Pasadena, the court in “Palmer/Sixth
Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2009)
175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (Palmer/Sixth) dealt with a local ordinance
that had indirect effects similar to those engendered by [the
Relocation Assistance Ordinance]. That ordinance required
developers of residential units to build a certain number of
‘affordable dwelling units’ to be rented at specified below-market
rates. (Id. at pp. 1400-1401.) The ordinance further provided
that a developer could avoid compliance with this affordable
housing requirement by paying an ‘in lieu’ fee that the city would
use to build affordable housing units elsewhere. (Ibid.) The
appellate court held the Costa-Hawkins Act preempted the
affordable housing requirement because it was ‘hostile or inimical
to Civil Code section 1954.53 by denying [the developer] the right
to establish the initial rental rates for the affordable housing
units that are required to be built under [the ordinance].’
(Palmer/Sixth, at p. 1410.) The court rejected the city’s
argument that the alternative in lieu fee did not conflict with the
Costa-Hawkins Act. (Id. at p. 1411.) The court explained the in
lieu fee was ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the affordable housing

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text