Updated August 17, 2026
72 units in Reseda. Bought 11 June 2015 for $12,800,000. Sold 26 February 2021 for $17,000,000.
That is $177,777 a unit to $236,111 a unit — a gain of $4,200,000, or 32.8% over five years and eight months. Annualised, about 5.1% a year on the price alone, before any of the income the building produced along the way.
I closed both ends. That is unusual, and it is what makes the transaction worth writing about: two verified prices on the same asset, six years apart, with nothing inferred.
Every valuation argument in Los Angeles multifamily runs into the same objection: your comparable is a different building. Different vintage, different unit mix, different condition, different tenancy profile. Adjustments get made and the adjustments are where the disagreement lives.
A repeat sale removes that entirely. Same 72 units, same address, same street, same submarket. Whatever the difference between $12.8 million and $17 million represents, it is not a difference in the building.
Three things, in order of contribution.
Rent growth on turnover. Reseda through the second half of the 2010s saw genuine rent appreciation, and a 72-unit building turns units continuously. Every turn reset a unit toward market, and six years of that compounds into the rent roll a 2021 buyer capitalized.
Cap rate compression. The 2015 buyer and the 2021 buyer were pricing in different interest rate environments. Some of the $4.2 million is the market paying more for the same dollar of income.
Scale. Seventy-two units is large enough to attract buyers that a twelve-unit building never sees — regional private capital and small institutions, with cheaper debt and lower return thresholds. Buildings of this size in the San Fernando Valley have a deeper bid than their per-unit pricing suggests.
5.1% a year.
That is the honest annualised figure, and it is a long way from the story people tell about Los Angeles real estate. It is a good result. It is not a spectacular one, and it took nearly six years of ownership — collecting rents, turning units, funding capital, managing a 72-unit rent roll — to produce it.
The income the building generated across those six years is the other half of the return and is not in these numbers. But the price appreciation, standing alone, is 5.1% a year. Any seller modeling a hold decision on an assumption materially above that should be able to say specifically why their building beats this one.
Reseda in 2015–2021 is not Reseda in 2026. That period had falling cap rates and an RSO with an 8% ceiling. The 2026 rewrite caps the LA City allowable increase at 4%, and the current published rate is 3%. The rent-growth engine that produced part of this gain now runs slower on any unit that does not turn.
Seventy-two units is not twelve. Scale changes the buyer pool, the financing and the operating economics. A small building in the same submarket did not necessarily track this.
One asset is not a market. It is a well-documented data point, not a trend line. For the broader per-unit picture across the submarkets where I have transacted, the Transaction Index is the honest reference.
Turnover is the engine. Nearly all the rent growth in that six-year window arrived through units turning and re-letting at market, not through the annual allowable increase. If your building has a real turnover history, that is the single most valuable piece of evidence you can hand a buyer — and it is almost never in a marketing package unless someone asks for it.
Scale is a genuine pricing factor in the Valley. If you own something in this size range, the buyer pool is broader than the per-unit comps suggest, and the marketing should be reaching regional capital rather than only local private buyers.
Model your hold honestly. Six years produced 32.8%. That is a real, verifiable outcome from a real building, and it is a better basis for a hold-or-sell decision than a number someone remembers from 2021.
A seller looking at these figures today has to layer on three things that did not apply to the 2021 buyer: the RSO rewrite's lower ceiling, insurance that has repriced hard across the county since the January 2025 fires, and Measure ULA — which on a $17 million sale inside the City of Los Angeles would carry 5.5% of the gross price, roughly $935,000, against a transaction that paid none in 2021.
That last one alone would consume more than a fifth of this building's entire six-year price gain.
Two verified prices on one 72-unit building, six years apart: up $4.2 million, 32.8%, about 5.1% a year. Good, unspectacular, and entirely driven by turnover in a period when turnover was allowed to do more work than it is now. If you own a Valley building of this size, the useful question is not what Reseda did between 2015 and 2021 — it is how many of your units have actually turned, and what they achieved when they did.
Thinking about selling? Get a no-obligation evaluation on your building.
Request Free Evaluation →