5
The SMRCCA prohibits a lessor from serving any notice or bringing an action to
recover possession of a rent-controlled unit unless “[t]he tenant has failed to pay the rent to
which the landlord is entitled under the rental housing agreement and this Article.” (SMRCCA,
art. XVIII, § 1806, subd. (a)(1).) The charter also provides that if a “tenant’s spouse . . . ha[s]
lived in the unit for at least one year at the time the tenant vacates the unit due to death or
incapacitation, the landlord is prohibited from taking any action to obtain possession of the unit
from the tenant’s spouse . . . on the ground that the spouse . . . [is] not authorized to occupy the
unit.” (Id., subd. (c).) Rent that exceeds the permissible ceiling is unlawful. (SMRCCA, art.
XVIII, § 1805, subd. (a)(3).) A lessor’s failure to comply with these provisions of the
SMRCCA is an affirmative defense to an eviction. (SMRCCA, art. XVIII, §§ 1805, subd.
(h)(2), 1806, subd. (f).)
A legislative enactment is preempted when it is contrary or inimical to state law.
(California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena, supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at p. 229.) An
ordinance is inimical if it permits what state law forbids or prohibits what state law demands.
(Ibid.) “‘[N]o inimical conflict will be found where it is reasonably possible to comply with
both the state and local laws.’” (Ibid.) “There is generally a ‘strong presumption that
legislative enactments “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and
unmistakably appears.”’ [Citations.] ‘“[A]bsent a clear indication of preemptive intent from
the Legislature,” we presume that local regulation “in an area over which [the local
government] traditionally has exercised control” is not preempted by state law. [Citation.]
“The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of
demonstrating preemption.”’” (Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of
Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 752.)
Enacted in 1995, Costa-Hawkins “established ‘what is known among landlord-tenant
specialists as “vacancy decontrol,” declaring that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of
law,” all residential landlords may, except in specified situations, “establish the initial rental
rate for a dwelling or unit.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] The effect of this provision was to permit
landlords ‘to impose whatever rent they choose at the commencement of a tenancy.’ [Citation.]