California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Blue Chip Properties v. Permanent Rent Control Bd., 170 Cal.App.3d 648, 216 Cal.Rptr. 492 (Cal. App. 1985):
It would appear there is no reason to exempt developers in the process of condominium conversions from regulations that unquestionably apply to the rest of the class of residential landlords. (See People v. H & H Properties (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 894, 902, 201 Cal.Rptr. 687.)
[170 Cal.App.3d 663] Condominium conversions generally require no substantial construction. Moreover, if an owner is not permitted to remove a unit from the rental market, the owner still owns valuable rental income property. To the extent the owner and/or developer have enhanced the building, conversion expenses can be recouped through appreciation and rent increases. Further, the owner remains free to sell the property. (See Nash v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 103, 106, 207 Cal.Rptr. 285, 688 P.2d 894.)
4. Local ordinance not controlling.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.