As we stand on the cusp of transformation in the commercial real estate industry, one cannot help but recall the sage words: “With great power comes great responsibility.” In an era marked by technological advancements occurring at a blistering pace, the real estate industry (commercial, industrial, residential, office, hotel and every other class of real estate) stands on the brink of transformation and the seemingly limitless promise and power of generative artificial intelligence (AI) looms large as both a disruptor and a savior. There is no ignoring it, just like virtually every other industry, the real estate industry is changing rapidly through the use of AI, and if you aren’t adapting your business to account for those changes, you are putting your business at significant risk. Traditionally, change in the commercial real estate industry has been akin having an oil tanker make a 180-degree turn – slow, laborious and infrequent. The changes that have been brought upon by AI are more like making a 180-degree turn in a Ferrari – fast, easy and frequent. However, these competitive and rapid shifts, while alluring, come with increased risks and the need to proactively manage those risks. The questions on everyone’s mind are: (i) Can AI really predict the future success of a project, (ii) how trustworthy is AI, (iii) how is AI going to change my business and (iv) what do I need to be worried about? Every day, public and private organizations are working towards answering those questions, not only developing reliable tools, but regulating the use of those tools to insure an even playing field. Continue Reading AI is Changing the Real Estate Industry. How Will It Impact Your Business?

As the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) continues to expand its jurisdictional reach, investors, property owners, and landlords should be aware of a growing focus on real estate transactions. Bridging a perceived gap between CFIUS’ mandate to safeguard U.S. national security and foreign investment in the U.S. real estate market, the U.S. Department of Treasury recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would strengthen CFIUS’ jurisdiction over real estate transactions. Specifically, the NPRM would greatly expand the list of military installations that could raise national security concerns, empowering CFIUS to review transactions involving the surrounding real estate; and expand the term “military installation” to encompass a larger number of sensitive facilities. These proposed changes are in response to a recent comprehensive assessment conducted by the Department of Defense regarding its military installations, and reflect the perception that real estate transactions in close proximity to sensitive USG facilities may convey strategic advantages to U.S. adversaries.Continue Reading Soil and Security: The Broadening Scope of CFIUS in Real Estate Transactions

To address the housing crisis in California, Senate Bill 684 (SB 684), passed in 2023 but effective as of July 1, 2024, aims to simplify the approval process for small-scale for-sale housing projects, facilitate a quicker development process, and help to alleviate the state’s housing shortage. Specifically, SB 684 mandates local agencies to ministerially approve proposed subdivisions for housing projects that result in 10 or fewer parcels, provided they meet specific criteria.[1] Applications for up to 10 units as part of a housing development on lots subdivided using this process and for building permits for construction of the units are also ministerial.[2] This streamlined, CEQA-exempt approval process applies to tract maps on lots zoned for multifamily residential development, no larger than 5 acres, substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses[3] and “infill” sites.Continue Reading Big Streamlining for Small Subdivision Developers

Until recently, local policies on homelessness have been guided by two controversial rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2022) 50 F.4th 787.[1] However, the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) 603 U.S. ____, is likely to transform local jurisdictions’ policy approaches to managing homelessness. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the city’s ban on camping and parking overnight on public property.Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That the Eighth Amendment Does Not Prevent Enforcement of Local Camping Bans, Authorizing a Significant Shift in Local Policies on Homelessness

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step toward conscribing the power of federal agencies, abandoning the “Chevron doctrine” and its requirement that federal courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Court’s much-anticipated decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, Sec’y of Commerce and Relentless Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), requires federal courts to exercise independent judgement to interpret statutory language without deference to the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the law. The Court’s opinion continues a trend toward less deferential judicial review of agency decision making and is expected to encourage a spate of challenges to federal regulations and other agency actions, potentially providing some relief for regulated businesses.Continue Reading Loper Bright and Relentless 101: What Regulated Businesses Need to Know at the Dawn of the Post-Chevron Era

The New York City Council voted to approve a modified version of the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity (“COYEO”) text amendment, the second in a trio of City of Yes initiatives which aim to: (1) promote sustainability (the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, which passed on December 6, 2023); (2) update the City’s zoning tools to support economic growth and resiliency (City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, which passed on June 6, 2024); and (3) spur the development of affordable housing (the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, which entered public review on April 29, 2024).Continue Reading City Council Approves City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, with Modifications

Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs)[1] can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes of action that could be brought. For instance, in California, a DIF may be challenged under the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), and only DIFs that were “imposed neither generally nor ministerially, but on an individual and discretionary basis” could invoke the Takings Clause embedded in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[2] This limitation on developers’ ability to utilize the Takings Clause meant that courts would not apply the “Nollan/Dolan test” to DIFs generally applicable to a broad class of property owners pursuant to legislative action.[3]Continue Reading What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Creating certainty in the inherent uncertainty of the future is the name of the game when it comes to drafting commercial leases. When courts overrule provisions that the parties to the lease have agreed upon, however, that supposed certainty goes out the window. This fact pattern played out recently in Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (4th Dist., Case No. D079905) (“Epochal”), when the California Court of Appeal ruled that a limitation of liability clause in a lease that purported to release the landlord from liability for failing to disclose asbestos was against public policy and not enforceable.Continue Reading New Court Ruling Pokes Holes in Contractual Limitation of Liability Language in Commercial Leases

New York City’s rent-related laws have once again survived judicial scrutiny, and evaded Supreme Court review. In 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, a group of New York City landlords (“Petitioners”) filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the City and State of New York, the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board, and multiple state and New York City officials (“Respondents”), seeking a declaration that New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law, as amended in 2019 (“RSL”), violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the Eastern District Court granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the motion to dismiss, and on February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ petition for certiorari, declining to review the RSL.Continue Reading SCOTUS Declines to Review New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law