In Palacio de Anza v. Palm Springs Rent Review Com. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 116, after directly inquiring about and relying on particular city rent control provisions then in effect, the plaintiff purchased an apartment complex. He thereafter petitioned the city for a hardship rent increase on the basis of a provision that had allowed for the inclusion of purchase money financing interest payments as allowable costs for the purpose of calculating net operating income. (Palacio, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 119.) After the city denied his request and the trial court denied his petition for writ of mandate, but before judgment was entered, the city adopted a provision repealing the rent control provision on which the plaintiff had relied. (Id. at p. 120.) The court determined that the repeal of the previously applicable provision did not moot the plaintiff's appeal, but nor did the rent control provisions create a statutory right of action. "Rather, those enactments created land-use property rights which became vested in Palacio when the financing of the apartment purchase was undertaken in reliance on the existing rent-control laws. In this sense, Palacio enjoys a situation or status analogous to that of one who has established the right to pursue a nonconforming use on land following a zoning change. " (Ibid.)