UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

Form 10-QSB

(Mark One)

[X]

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007

[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

For the transition period from _________to _________

Commission file number 0-8639

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

California	94-2382571
(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	(Identification No.)

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)

Check whether the issuer (i) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X   No ___

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes __ No   X_

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

BALANCE SHEET

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

March 31, 2007

Assets
Cash and cash equivalents		$    251
Receivables and deposits		414
Other assets		243
Investment property:
Land	$    946
Buildings and related personal property	17,924
	18,870
Less accumulated depreciation	(15,672)	3,198
		$  4,106
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable		$     87
Tenant security deposit liabilities		102
Accrued property taxes		64
Other liabilities		198
Due to affiliates (Note B)		4,482
Mortgage note payable		9,453
Partners' Deficit
General partner	$ (3,168)
Limited partners (49,191 units issued and
outstanding)	(7,112)	(10,280)
		$  4,106

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007	2006
Revenues:
Rental income	$   926	$   861
Other income	80	61
Total revenues	1,006	922
Expenses:
Operating	529	464
General and administrative	50	46
Depreciation	258	270
Interest	269	245
Property taxes	63	64
Total expenses	1,169	1,089
Net loss	$  (163)	$  (167)
Net loss allocated to general partner (1%)	$    (2)	$    (2)
Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%)	(161)	(165)
	$  (163)	$  (167)
Net loss per limited partnership unit	$ (3.27)	$ (3.35)

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

	Limited
	Partnership	General	Limited
	Units	Partner	Partners	Total
Original capital contributions	49,196	$     1	$49,196	$ 49,197
Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2006	49,191	$(3,166)	$(6,951)	$(10,117)
Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2007	--	(2)	(161)	(163)
Partners' deficit at
March 31, 2007	49,191	$(3,168)	$(7,112)	$(10,280)

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007	2006
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$   (163)	$   (167)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation	258	270
Amortization of loan costs	14	14
Bad debt expense	7	14
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	(66)	(111)
Other assets	(83)	(66)
Accounts payable	8	102
Tenant security deposit liabilities	9	6
Accrued property taxes	64	64
Other liabilities	5	(6)
Due to affiliates	57	108
Net cash provided by operating activities	110	228
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(111)	(100)
Cash flows used in financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable	(42)	(39)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents	(43)	89
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	294	149
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$    251	$    238
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$    155	$    129
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash flow activity:
Property improvements and replacements in accounts
payable	$     33	$     15

Included in property improvements and replacements for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 is approximately $24,000 and $16,000 of property improvements and replacements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A – Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Consolidated Capital Growth Fund (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Article 310(b) of Regulation S-B.  Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of ConCap Equities, Inc. (the "General Partner"), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2007, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in t he Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006. The General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other standards require assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value and does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the information used in developing fair value estimates. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, such as the reporting entity’s own data. SFAS No. 157 requires fair value measurements to be disclosed by level within the fair va lue hierarchy. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnership does not anticipate that the adoption of SFAS No. 157 will have a material effect on the Partnership’s financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”. SFAS No. 159 permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between entities that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnership has not yet determined whether it will elect the fair value option for any of its financ ial instruments.

Note B – Transactions with Affiliated Parties

The Partnership has no employees and depends on the General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities.  The Partnership Agreement provides for certain payments to affiliates for services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.  

Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's property as compensation for providing property management services.

The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $49,000 and $46,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which is included in operating expenses.

Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $41,000 and $39,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which is included in general and administrative expenses and investment property.  The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $4,000 and $7,000, respectively.  At March 31, 2007, less than $1,000 in reimbursements was due to the General Partner and is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying balance sheet.

The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 9% of the total distributions made to the limited partners from "cash available for distribution" (as defined in the Partnership Agreement) to be paid to the General Partner for executive and administrative management services. No fees were earned or paid for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006.

During 2004, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $830,000 to assist in paying city taxes related to the sales of two investment properties and to fund replacement reserves at The Lakes Apartments.  During 2005, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $2,720,000 to cover the closing costs and the deficiency between the prior mortgage payoff and the new mortgage on The Lakes Apartments and approximately $217,000 for property and Partnership operations and capital improvements.  There were no advances made to the Partnership during the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006. Interest is accrued at the prime rate plus 2% (10.25% at March 31, 2007) and interest expense amounted to approximately $112,000 and $93,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.  At March 31, 2007, the total balance of advances and accrued interest due to an af filiate of the General Partner was approximately $4,482,000 and is included in due to affiliates on the balance sheet.

The Partnership insures its property up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability.  The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the General Partner.  During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $122,000 for hazard insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration.  Additional charges will be incurred by the Partnership during 2007 as other insurance policies renew later in the year. The Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $111,000 for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration during the year ended December 31, 2006.

Note C - Contingencies

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership u nits; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the “Appeal”) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court’s use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the “state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review”.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order striking the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class act ion settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings. The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objector’s Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objector’s Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector’s Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. On December 14, 2006, Objector filed his Appellant’s Brief.  The Partnership and its affiliates, as well as counsel of the Settlement Class, have not yet filed their briefs in response.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.   In June 20 05 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. On March 28, 2007, the court issued an opinion decertifying the collective action on both issues.  The court held that the members of the collective action are not similarly situated and the case may not proceed as a collective action.  The nine named plaintiffs still maintain their individual causes of action. The California and Maryland cases are still pending as they were stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation matters involving it or its investment property that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business.

Environmental

Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility.   Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws.  These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its property, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its property.

Mold

The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements.  The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure.  Affiliates of the General Partner have implemented policies, procedures, third-party audits and training and the General Partner believes that these measures will prevent or eliminate mold exposure and will minimize the effects that mold may have on residents.  To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions.  Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the General Partner can make no assura nce that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

ITEM 2.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION

The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending cla ims and any adverse outcomes and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Partnership's remaining investment property consists of one apartment complex. The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006:

	Average Occupancy
Property	2007	2006
The Lakes	91%	90%
Raleigh, North Carolina

The Partnership’s financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment property, interest rates on mortgage loans, costs incurred to operate the investment property, general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions, accordingly, there is no guarantee that the General Partner wi ll be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnership’s financial results.

Results of Operations

The Partnership’s net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2007 was approximately $163,000, compared to a net loss of approximately $167,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006.  Net loss decreased due to an increase in total revenues partially offset by an increase in total expenses.  Total revenues increased due to an increase in both rental and other income. Rental income increased due to increases in both the occupancy and the average rental rate at the Partnership’s investment property. Other income increased due to increased application fees, laundry income and tenant utility reimbursements at the property.

Total expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2007 increased due to an increase in operating, general and administrative and interest expenses partially offset by a decrease in depreciation expense. Property tax expense remained relatively constant for the comparable period. Operating expense increased due to increases in property and insurance expenses and property management fees partially offset by a decrease in maintenance expense. Property expense increased due to an increase in salaries and related employee benefits at the Partnership’s investment property. Insurance expense increased due to an increase in insurance premiums. Property management fees increased as a result of the increase in rental income on which such fees are based. Maintenance expense decreased due to a decrease in contract services and building repair costs at the Partnership’s investment property. Interest expense increased due to an increase in the variab le interest rate charged on the advances outstanding to an affiliate of the General Partner and an increase in interest on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership’s investment property due to the increase in its variable interest rate.  Depreciation expense decreased due to assets becoming fully depreciated during the first quarter of 2006 at the Partnership’s investment property partially offset by property improvements and replacements being placed into service during the past twelve months which are now being depreciated.

General and administrative expenses increased for the three months ended March 31, 2007 due to an increase in management reimbursements to the General Partner. Included in general and administrative expense for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At March 31, 2007, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $251,000 compared to approximately $238,000 at March 31, 2006. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $43,000 since December 31, 2006 is due to approximately $111,000 and $42,000 of cash used in investing and financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $110,000 of cash provided by operating activities. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash used in financing activities consisted of payments made on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership’s property. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.

During 2004, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $830,000 to assist in paying city taxes related to the sales of two investment properties and to fund replacement reserves at The Lakes Apartments.  During 2005, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $2,720,000 to cover the closing costs and the deficiency between the prior mortgage payoff and the new mortgage on The Lakes Apartments and approximately $217,000 for property and Partnership operations and capital improvements.  There were no advances made to the Partnership during the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006. Interest is accrued at the prime rate plus 2% (10.25% at March 31, 2007) and interest expense amounted to approximately $112,000 and $93,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.  At March 31, 2007, the total balance of advances and accrued interest due to an af filiate of the General Partner was approximately $4,482,000 and is included in due to affiliates on the balance sheet.

The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state, local, legal and regulatory requirements. The General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance.  For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance. Capital improvements planned for the Partnership's property are detailed below.

The Lakes Apartments

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Partnership completed approximately $120,000 of capital improvements at The Lakes Apartments, consisting primarily of building improvements, floor covering replacements, clubhouse renovations, and water and sewer upgrades. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow.  The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property.  While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2007.  Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.

Capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations, from Partnership reserves or from advances from an affiliate of the General Partner. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.

The Partnership's assets are thought to be generally sufficient for any near-term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering the investment property of approximately $9,453,000 was refinanced under a permanent credit facility (“Permanent Credit Facility”) with Fannie Mae, which has a maturity of September 15, 2007, with one five-year extension option. The Permanent Credit Facility includes properties in other partnerships that are affiliated with the general partner of the Partnership. The Permanent Credit Facility creates separate loans for each property that are not cross-collateralized or cross-defaulted with the other property loans. The loan has a variable interest rate of the Fannie Mae discounted mortgage-backed security index plus 85 to 105 basis points depending upon certain performance criteria, which rate is currently 6.05% at March 31, 2007 per annum, and resets monthly. Monthly principal payments are required based on a 30-year amortization schedule using the interest rate in effect during the first month that any property is in the Permanent Credit Facility. The loans are prepayable without penalty. The General Partner will attempt to refinance such indebtedness and/or sell the property prior to such maturity. If the property cannot be refinanced or sold for a sufficient amount, the Partnership will risk losing the property through foreclosure.

In accordance with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the new mortgage, the payment of the mortgage may be accelerated at the option of the lender if an Event of Default, as defined in the loan agreement occurs. Events of Default include, but are not limited to nonpayment of monthly interest and reserve requirements and nonpayment of amounts outstanding on or before the maturity date. An affiliate of the General Partner has entered into a guaranty agreement with the lender.

The Partnership made no distributions during the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of cash generated from operations, and the timing of the debt maturity, property sale and/or refinancing. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. In light of the amounts accrued and payable to an affiliate of the General Partner at March 31, 2007, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners during 2007 or subsequent periods.

Other

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 33,133.75 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 67.36% of the outstanding Units at March 31, 2007. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unit holders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 67.36% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity.

Impairment of Long-Lived Asset

Investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless the carrying amount of the asset is not recoverable.  If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the property may not be recoverable, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by comparing the carrying amount to the Partnership’s estimate of the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property.   If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate undiscounted future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the estimated fair value of the property.

Real property investment is subject to varying degrees of risk.  Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership’s investment property.  These factors include, but are not limited to, general economic climate; competition from other apartment communities and other housing options; local conditions, such as loss of jobs or an increase in the supply of apartments that might adversely affect apartment occupancy or rental rates; changes in governmental regulations and the related cost of compliance; increases in operating costs (including real estate taxes) due to inflation and other factors, which may not be offset by increased rents; and changes in tax laws and housing laws, including the enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating multi-family housing.  Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership’s asset.

Revenue Recognition

The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less.  The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area.  Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.  The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.

ITEM 3.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a)

Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnership’s management, with the participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

(b)

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership u nits; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the “Appeal”) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court’s use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the “state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review”.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order striking the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class act ion settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings. The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objector’s Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objector’s Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector’s Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. On December 14, 2006, Objector filed his Appellant’s Brief.  The Partnership and its affiliates, as well as counsel of the Settlement Class, have not yet filed their briefs in response.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.   In June 20 05 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. On March 28, 2007, the court issued an opinion decertifying the collective action on both issues.  The court held that the members of the collective action are not similarly situated and the case may not proceed as a collective action.  The nine named plaintiffs still maintain their individual causes of action. The California and Maryland cases are still pending as they were stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

ITEM 5.

OTHER INFORMATION

None.

ITEM 6.

EXHIBITS

See Exhibit Index.

SIGNATURES

In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

	CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND
	By:   ConCap Equities, Inc.
	General Partner
Date: May 11, 2007	By:   /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President
Date: May 11, 2007	By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit

 3

Certificate of Limited Partnership, as amended to date.

3a

Amendment to the Limited Partnership Agreement dated December 22, 2005 filed with the Registrant’s Form 10-KSB dated December 31, 2005.

10.40 a)

Multifamily Note dated August 29, 2005 between Consolidated Capital Growth Fund, a California Limited Partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K dated August 29, 2005)

10.40 b)

Guaranty dated August 29, 2005 by AIMCO Properties, L.P. for the benefit of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K dated August 29, 2005)

10.40 c)

Replacement Reserve and Security Agreement dated August 29, 2005 between Consolidated Capital Growth Fund, a California Limited Partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K dated August 29, 2005)

10.40 d)

Assignment of Security Instrument dated August 29, 2005 between GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation and Fannie Mae. (Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K dated August 29, 2005)

10.40 e)

Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement dated August 29, 2005 between Consolidated Capital Growth Fund, a California Limited Partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Form 8-K dated August 29, 2005)

31.1

Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2

Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital Growth Fund;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 11, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of ConCap Equities Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital Growth Fund;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 11, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership

Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital Growth Fund (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

      /s/Martha L. Long

Name: Martha L. Long

Date: May 11, 2007

      /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name: Stephen B. Waters

Date: May 11, 2007

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.