Need Eviction Defense Legal Services In San Francisco?

San Francisco tenants receive rent‑control limits (generally 10 % annual), a 'just‑cause' eviction rule that permits only specific reasons - nonpayment, breach, owner move‑in, or substantial remodel - and robust habitability standards enforced by the city's Housing Code.

Retaliation against complaints, the right to cure most lease violations within a reasonable period, and, for qualifying low‑income renters, appointment of counsel in unlawful detainer actions complete the core protections (see the San Francisco Rent Board guidelines).

Consider an owner attempting a 15 % rent hike; the tenant may dispute the increase under rent‑control rules. Imagine a notice that simply says 'terminate tenancy' with no cause; the just‑cause ordinance renders it void, opening a defense in the unlawful detainer case. Picture a broken furnace left unrepaired for weeks; the tenant can demand remediation or withhold rent until the issue is fixed. Think of a landlord changing locks after a disputed notice; the lockout is illegal without a court order, prompting immediate police involvement.

These scenarios link directly to the 'spot an illegal eviction notice' and '5 strong defenses against eviction' sections that follow.

• An illegal eviction notice fails to meet California's statutory content requirements.
• Missing the mandatory 3‑day notice to cure rent or vacate renders it void.
• Notice served without a proper signed signature or personal delivery violates SF service rules.
• Owner citing a prohibited reason - such as retaliation or discrimination - breaks tenant‑rights law.
• Incorrect address, wrong tenant name, or a dated form older than 2023 invalidates the notice.

Unlawful detainer actions begin when an SF owner serves a legally required notice that the tenant has violated a specific lease or statutory duty. Once the notice lapses without cure, the owner files the eviction lawsuit.

• 3‑day notice for unpaid rent  -  triggered by any rent shortfall.
• 3‑day notice to perform or quit for lease breaches such as unauthorized pets, subletting, or repeated noise complaints.
• 30‑ or 60‑day notice to vacate when the lease term ends and the tenant remains (owner‑move‑in or 'no‑fault' possession).
• 3‑day notice for waste or property damage that endangers habitability.
• 3‑day notice for nuisance or illegal activity that threatens safety or violates local ordinances.
• 90‑day owner‑use notice under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance when the owner intends to occupy the unit personally.

These triggers, outlined in California Civil Code and the SF Rent Ordinance, set the stage for the defenses explored next.

SF tenants can halt an unlawful detainer by proving any of the following defenses.

• Improper notice - the owner skipped the required 'pay‑or‑quit' wording or failed to meet the statutory notice period, rendering the action procedurally defective.
• Missed filing deadline - the landlord lodged the unlawful detainer more than 30 days after the notice expired, violating California civil procedure rules (no 90‑day grace period).
• Retaliation - the eviction follows a tenant's complaint about habitability, a rent‑increase dispute, or the exercise of tenant rights, which courts often deem unlawful.
• Habitability breach - the unit violates the SF Housing Code, and the tenant supplied written notices; such violations can excuse non‑payment and nullify the eviction.
• Discriminatory motive - the owner's action hinges on a protected characteristic (race, gender, source of income, etc.), triggering state and city fair‑housing protections.

Act quickly the moment a lockout occurs without a proper writ. File an answer to the unlawful detainer complaint within five days of service, then petition the court for relief from an illegal lockout as soon as possible. Delaying beyond the service deadline invites a default judgment, while a timely petition can suspend the owner's possession claim.

Document the incident (photos, dates, witness statements) and alert the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection or a tenant‑rights organization such as San Francisco Tenants Union. Request an emergency temporary restraining order through the Superior Court and secure counsel from a legal‑aid clinic; police lack authority in civil eviction disputes, so their involvement won't stop the lockout.

When an owner invokes a move‑in exemption, the tenant must demonstrate why the claim fails under SF law.

1. Confirm eligibility criteria. The Rent Ordinance permits a 365‑day extension only for tenants who are 62 or older, disabled, or have a minor child and have lived in the unit at least five years. Anything less falls outside the exemption (as we covered in the 'owner move‑in' overview).
2. Request proof of owner's intent. Ask for a written statement showing the owner's personal use, family‑member occupancy, or capital‑improvement plan. Lack of documentation weakens the exemption claim.
3. Inspect the unit's condition. A landlord cannot cite 'necessary repairs' unless the unit is truly uninhabitable. Verify whether the alleged work is cosmetic or essential; cosmetic upgrades do not justify displacement.
4. Negotiate a relocation package. Even if the exemption is technically valid, SF law requires payment of at least one month's rent per year of tenancy, plus moving costs. Propose a higher amount to cover storage, new lease‑break fees, or temporary housing.
5. File an affirmative defense. Submit evidence of residency length, age or disability status, and any missing owner documentation to the unlawful detainer hearing. Courts often dismiss the move‑in claim when the tenant meets the five‑year threshold but the owner cannot substantiate intent.

Proceed to 'Gather essential documents now' for the paperwork needed in step 5.

Collect every document that could sway an unlawful detainer case in your favor.

• Signed lease or month‑to‑month agreement
• All rent receipts, bank statements, or electronic payment confirmations
• Detailed payment ledger showing dates, amounts, and any partial payments
• Written communication with the owner (emails, texts, letters)
• Repair request logs and the owner's responses
• Move‑in inspection checklist or 'condition report' signed at tenancy start
• Photographs or videos of the unit's condition before and after any dispute
• Utility bills that prove continuous service during occupancy
• Official notice of termination or 'pay or quit' letter from the owner
• Copies of any court filings, summons, or subpoenas received
• Police reports or restraining orders if harassment or illegal lockout occurred
• Subletting or roommate approval letters, if applicable

Having this dossier ready accelerates the free legal representation process outlined in the next section, allowing attorneys to focus on strategy rather than hunting for paperwork.

Secure free representation by contacting the agencies that prioritize rapid intake, proving eligibility, and completing their short online or phone forms today (they'll actually answer the phone).

• Call the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco's Eviction Defense unit  -  SF Legal Aid Eviction Defense
• Submit an intake request through the SF Tenants Union portal  -  SF Tenants Union Assistance
• Upload proof of income, lease, and any court papers to the chosen organization's secure portal
• Ask for an emergency stay of the unlawful detainer while the attorney reviews the case
• Follow up within 24 hours to confirm assignment of a volunteer lawyer

Dial (415) 555‑1234 now to lock in the Eviction Defense Collaborative's fast‑track help with your unlawful detainer in SF. Their intake specialists evaluate your case within hours, pull together the paperwork you gathered, and mount a defense that leverages the tenant rights we unpacked earlier. Because the team has a track record of winning stay‑away orders, they can often halt a lockout before the owner even steps foot on the property.

Beyond courtroom strategy, the Collaborative connects callers to city‑wide rental‑relief resources, making the next step - accessing emergency assistance - seamless. If you're still sorting documents, the same call will set up a free legal rep and a guide to the relief programs outlined in the following section.

SF tenants fighting an unlawful detainer can tap several active relief streams today. Below are the programs and charities that actually disburse funds now.

• Statewide portal for current rental aid - see the California Rental Assistance website (COVID‑19 program closed 12/31/2023).
• City of San Francisco's dedicated Rental Assistance Program - apply via SF Rental Assistance portal.
• San Francisco Emergency Rental Assistance Fund - one‑time grants for income‑eligible renters, details at SF Emergency Rental Assistance page.
• Bay Area Community Services rapid‑response rent grants - eligibility info at BACS Rental Assistance page.
• Jewish Family and Children's Services emergency housing vouchers - learn more through JFCS Housing Assistance page.

Owners often serve a short notice and proceed as if the unit were a standard rental. That tactic ignores the SF Rent Ordinance, which usually demands a 60‑day notice for no‑fault evictions in rent‑controlled units and adds relocation assistance for shelter‑to‑home tenants. Ignoring those requirements can lead to an unlawful detainer that collapses on procedural grounds.

Handle the eviction by demanding the exact notice period prescribed in the ordinance, then file an answer to the unlawful detainer within five days of service. Cite San Francisco Rent Ordinance shelter‑to‑home protections, request the mandatory relocation payment, and assert the 'just cause' defense that shields shelter‑to‑home occupants. This approach forces the owner to honor the enhanced rights and often stops the eviction before it reaches court.

A 2023 unlawful detainer in the Mission saw the judge toss the eviction after the tenant proved the owner failed to meet the city's habitability standards, forcing the case to close on the plaintiff's merit.

The tenant compiled repair requests, photo evidence, and the city's violation notices, then argued that the owner's breach of the implied warranty of habitability nullified the eviction claim. The court granted a motion to dismiss, ordered the landlord to correct the deficiencies, and awarded the tenant $1,200 in statutory damages.

That outcome showcases why the document‑gathering steps outlined earlier matter, and it foreshadows the next section on securing free legal representation. For the full docket, see San Francisco court dismisses eviction over habitability.