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 0-10273

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III

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

California	94-2653686
(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 (1) 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 PROPERTIES III

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

March 31, 2007

Assets
Cash and cash equivalents		$    43
Receivables and deposits		56
Other assets		175
Investment property:
Land	$   125
Buildings and related personal property	4,776
	4,901
Less accumulated depreciation	(3,484)	1,417
		$ 1,691
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable		$    87
Tenant security deposit liabilities		41
Accrued property taxes		26
Other liabilities		156
Due to affiliates (Note B)		503
Mortgage note payable		3,042
Partners' Deficit
General partners	$(1,536)
Limited partners (158,572 units issued and
outstanding)	(628)	(2,164)
		$ 1,691

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007	2006
Revenues:
Rental income	$   343	$   323
Other income	33	35
Total revenues	376	358
Expenses:
Operating	196	165
General and administrative	47	59
Depreciation	59	72
Interest	71	89
Property taxes	26	21
Total expenses	399	406
Loss from continuing operations	(23)	(48)
Loss from discontinued operations (Notes A and C)	--	(948)
Gain from sale of discontinued operations (Note C)	--	9,937
Net (loss) income	$   (23)	$ 8,941
Net (loss) income allocated to general partners (4%)	$    (1)	$   358
Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (96%)	(22)	8,583
	$   (23)	$ 8,941
Per limited partnership unit:
Loss from continuing operations	$ (0.14)	$ (0.30)
Loss from discontinued operations	--	(5.74)
Gain from sale of discontinued operations	--	60.16
Net (loss) income	$ (0.14)	$ 54.12

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

	Limited
	Partnership	General	Limited
	Units	Partners	Partners	Total
Original capital contributions	158,945	$     1	$  79,473	$ 79,474
Partners' deficit
at December 31, 2006	158,572	$(1,535)	$    (606)	$ (2,141)
Net loss for the three
months ended March 31, 2007	--	(1)	(22)	(23)
Partners' deficit
at March 31, 2007	158,572	$(1,536)	$    (628)	$ (2,164)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007	2006
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net (loss) income	$   (23)	$ 8,941
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Gain from sale of discontinued operations	--	(9,937)
Depreciation	59	121
Amortization of loan costs	3	6
Loss on early extinguishment of debt	--	960
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	(3)	(60)
Other assets	(50)	(13)
Due to affiliates	39	27
Accounts payable	38	84
Tenant security deposit liabilities	1	(33)
Accrued property taxes	26	21
Other liabilities	11	(49)
Net cash provided by operating activities	101	68
Cash flows from investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(143)	(153)
Net proceeds from sale of discontinued operations	--	10,578
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities	(143)	10,425
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable	(29)	(59)
Repayment of mortgage note payable	--	(3,717)
Advances from affiliate	87	18
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	58	(3,758)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents	16	6,735
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	27	89
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$    43	$ 6,824
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$    58	$   165
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
Property improvements and replacements included in
accounts payable	$    --	$    24

At December 31, 2006, approximately $83,000 of property improvements and replacements were included in accounts payable, and are included in property improvements and replacements for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A – Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Consolidated Capital Properties III (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 Item 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 the general partner of the Partnership, 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 month period 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 th e consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. The General Partner is wholly-owned by Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.

In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006 reflects the operations of Ventura Landing Apartments as loss from discontinued operations due to its sale on March 31, 2006 (see Note C).

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued 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 value 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 consolidated 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 payments to affiliates for services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates of the General Partner on behalf of the Partnership.

Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from both of the Partnership's properties as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $19,000 and $36,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which are included in operating expenses and loss from discontinued operations.

Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $58,000 and $44,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.  These amounts are included in general and administrative expenses, investment property, and gain from sale of discontinued operations.  The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property and gain from sale of discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $30,000 and $18,000, respectively.  At March 31, 2007, approximately $39,000 of such reimbursements were owed to affiliates of the General Partner and are included in due to affiliates.

The Partnership Agreement provides for a special management fee equal to 9% of the total distributions made to the limited partners from cash flow from operations to be paid to the General Partner for executive and administrative management services.  During the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, no special management fees were paid as no distributions from cash flow from operations were made.

During the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $87,000 and $18,000, respectively, to fund operations and capital improvements at Village Green Apartments.  Interest is accrued at the prime rate plus 2% (10.25% at March 31, 2007) and was approximately $11,000 and $20,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. There were no payments made on outstanding advances during the three months ended March 31, 2007 or 2006. At March 31, 2007, there were approximately $464,000 of outstanding advances and associated accrued interest owed to an affiliate of the General Partner. Subsequent to March 31, 2007, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $36,000 to fund operations at Village Green Apartments.

The Partnership insures its properties 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 properties 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 $28,000 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 $45,000 for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration during the year ended December 31, 2006.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner is entitled to receive a commission equal to 3% of the aggregate disposition price of sold properties. The Partnership paid a commission of $108,000 to the General Partner related to the sale of Professional Plaza in 1999.  This amount is subordinate to the limited partners receiving their original capital contributions plus a cumulative preferred return of 6% per annum of their adjusted capital investment, as defined in the Partnership Agreement. If the limited partners have not received these returns when the Partnership terminates, the General Partner will be required to return this amount to the Partnership. It is not presently expected that the limited partners will receive these returns when the Partnership terminates. Accordingly, no such commission was paid to the General Partner related to the March 2006 sale of Ventura Landing Apartments.

Note C – Disposition of Investment Property

On March 31, 2006, the Partnership sold Ventura Landing Apartments to a third party for a gross sale price of approximately $11,862,000. The net proceeds realized by the Partnership were approximately $10,578,000 after payment of closing costs and a prepayment penalty owed by the Partnership. The Partnership used approximately $3,717,000 of the net proceeds to repay the mortgage encumbering the property. The Partnership realized a gain of approximately $10,003,000 as a result of the sale, of which approximately $9,937,000 was recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2006, which is included in gain from sale of discontinued operations. In addition, the Partnership recorded a loss on the early extinguishment of debt of approximately $960,000 as a result of the write-off of loan costs and a prepayment penalty, which is included in loss from discontinued operations. Also included in loss from discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006 is approximately $12,000 of income, including revenues of approximately $380,000.

Note D – 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 cla ss action 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 consolidated financi al 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 consolidated 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 investment property consists of one apartment complex.  The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for each of the three month periods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006:

	Average Occupancy
Property	2007	2006
Village Green Apartments	93%	97%
Altamonte Springs, Florida

The General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy at Village Green Apartments to the soft rental market in the Altamonte Springs area.

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 $23,000 as compared to net income of approximately $8,941,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006 reflects the operations of Ventura Landing Apartments as loss from discontinued operations due to its sale on March 31, 2006.

On March 31, 2006, the Partnership sold Ventura Landing Apartments to a third party for a gross sale price of approximately $11,862,000. The net proceeds realized by the Partnership were approximately $10,578,000 after payment of closing costs and a prepayment penalty owed by the Partnership. The Partnership used approximately $3,717,000 of the net proceeds to repay the mortgage encumbering the property. The Partnership realized a gain of approximately $10,003,000 as a result of the sale, of which approximately $9,937,000 was recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2006 and is included in gain from sale of discontinued operations. In addition, the Partnership recorded a loss on the early extinguishment of debt of approximately $960,000 as a result of the write-off of loan costs and a prepayment penalty, which is included in loss from discontinued operations. Also included in loss from discontinued operations for the three months ended Ma rch 31, 2006 is approximately $12,000 of income, including revenues of approximately $380,000.

The Partnership’s loss from continuing operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007 was approximately $23,000 as compared to loss from continuing operations of approximately $48,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006.  The decrease in loss from continuing operations is due to an increase in total revenues and a decrease in total expenses. The increase in total revenues is due to an increase in rental income. Other income remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. The increase in rental income is due to an increase in the average rental rate, partially offset by a decrease in occupancy at Village Green Apartments.  

The decrease in total expenses is due to decreases in depreciation, interest and general and administrative expenses, partially offset by increases in operating and property tax expenses. The decrease in depreciation expense is due to assets placed into service at the Partnership’s investment property in previous years becoming fully depreciated during the fourth quarter of 2006. Interest expense decreased primarily due to decreases in interest expense on advances from an affiliate of the General Partner and interest expense on unpaid reimbursements to the General Partner as a result of lower average outstanding balances. The increase in operating expenses is primarily due to increases in insurance expense as a result of an increased hazard insurance premium and routine repairs and maintenance expense at the Partnership’s investment property. Property tax expense increased primarily due to an increase in the assessed value of the Partners hip’s investment property.

General and administrative expenses decreased primarily due to a decrease in the costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies. Also included in general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement and costs associated with 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 $43,000, compared to approximately $6,824,000 at March 31, 2006. The increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $16,000, from December 31, 2006, is due to approximately $101,000 and $58,000 of cash provided by operating and financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $143,000 of cash used in investing activities.  Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances received from an affiliate of the General Partner, partially offset by payments of principal made on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership’s investment property. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements.  The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.  

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 properties to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state, and 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.

During the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Partnership completed approximately $60,000 of capital improvements at Village Green Apartments, consisting primarily of fire safety upgrades and floor covering replacement. These improvements were funded from operations. 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, Partnership reserves or 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 Partnership’s investment property of approximately $3,042,000 requires monthly payments of principal and interest until the loan matures in August 2021, at which time the loan is scheduled to be fully amortized.  

There were no distributions made to the partners during the three months ended March 31, 2007 or 2006.  Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, 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 affiliates of the General Partner at March 31, 2007, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations after 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 interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 88,471.50 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 55.79% 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, unitholders 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 55.79% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to control all 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 consolidated 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 cla ss action 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 consolidated financi al 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 PROPERTIES III
	By:   CONCAP EQUITIES, INC.
	General Partner
Date: May 10, 2007	By:   /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President
Date: May 10, 2007	By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PARTNERS III

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number

Description of Exhibit

3.1

Certificate of Limited Partnership, as amended to date (Exhibit 3 to the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1991, is incorporated herein by reference).

3.2

Partnership Agreement dated May 22, 1980 is incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Prospectus of the Registration dated August 17, 1981 as filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b) under the Act.

10.52

Multifamily Note dated July 23, 2001 between ConCap Village Green Associates, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. (Incorporated by reference to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2001.)

10.53

Purchase and Sale Contract between Consolidated Capital Properties III, a California limited partnership, and the affiliated Selling Partnerships and The Bethany Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, dated November 2, 2005 and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.53 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 2, 2005.

10.54

Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract between Consolidated Capital Properties III, a California limited partnership, and the affiliated Selling Partnerships and The Bethany Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, dated February 9, 2006 and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.54 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 9, 2006.

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 the equivalent of the 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 Properties III;

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 10, 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 Properties III;

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 10, 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 Properties III (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 10, 2007

      /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name: Stephen B. Waters

Date: May 10, 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.