NAR Files Amicus Brief Supporting Housing Providers Challenging New York’s Rent Stabilization Law

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), joined by the New York State Association of REALTORS® (NYSAR) and a coalition of industry partners, filed an amicus brief supporting housing providers challenging New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The housing providers argue that the law’s prohibition on vacancy rent increases constitutes an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. 

The RSL applies to buildings with six or more units built before 1974 and limits a housing provider’s ability to raise rents when a unit becomes vacant (vacancy lease) and when a tenant renews a lease (renewal lease). This case focuses on vacancy leases under the RSL, which require owners to rent apartments at rates tied to what prior tenants paid, often decades earlier, without regard to current market conditions or the cost of legally required repairs.  

The consequences are significant. Housing providers estimate that the vacancy cap has removed roughly 24,000 units from the rental market, intensifying the housing shortage and limiting options for renters. For example, Plaintiff RPN Management has vacant two-bedroom units capped at approximately $710 and $860 per month. These rents fall far below the cost of necessary repairs, including work required to bring the apartments into compliance with the law. Other units in the same building command higher, though still capped, rents, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the RSL’s vacancy lease provision.

More broadly, rent stabilized housing under the RSL is not allocated based on financial need. Units with little turnover often remain priced far below comparable apartments that have changed tenants more frequently, creating disparities that bear little relationship to market value or tenant circumstances. 

The amicus brief argues that policies which render housing economically unviable ultimately harm tenants by discouraging reinvestment and reducing supply. Citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the housing provider plaintiffs maintain that regulations depriving owners of all economically beneficial use of property amount to a per se taking requiring just compensation. Although state and city defendants have moved to dismiss the case, NAR and its partners urge the court to address the merits of the housing providers’ claims. 

NAR further argues measures that distort markets and deter investment, particularly for small-scale housing providers, exacerbate supply constraints and undermine long term affordability. In this case, the plaintiffs frame the challenge as a matter of both constitutional principle and practical necessity, warning that policies like the RSL can leave otherwise usable apartments vacant and out of reach in a city already facing acute housing shortages. 

NAR continues to advocate for policies that expand housing availability and protect both tenants and property owners alike. We will continue to monitor any developments in this case and provide updates accordingly.