http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=136923&title=Belmont%20considers%20ban%20on%20new%20massage%20parlors

I learned from the article that

A recently passed state law shifted permitting responsibility from individual cities to the newly formed California Massage Therapy Council, a nonprofit agency that regulates and standardizes the issuance of massage certificates. The CAMTC recently issued a notice to applicants that if they attended class at 31 suspect massage therapy schools, they need to provide more than just a transcript as proof of education. City officials ... said most massage therapists and practitioners in Belmont went to schools that may not be legitimate and "serve as a conduit for sex workers" ...

For 22 of those "suspect massage therapy schools" see

http://www.camtc.org/MassageProfessionals.aspx

Then I Googled for "Ban on new massage parlors" and got 265 results at

http://tinyurl.com/2bbdwuf

I only read a few of them. I learned that in 1998, San Francisco supervisors unanimously banned new massage parlors in the Tenderloin.
On the other hand (pun intended), I also learned that on 6/22/10,

For the first time in nearly two years, Santa Ana has agreed to allow more massage parlors to open.
But here's the rub (their pun, not mine): new rules, new regulations and a city-run test for prospective masseuses.
The city blacklisted massage parlors in mid-2007 over concerns that they might operate as fronts for prostitution. At the time, the city was seeing a spike in massage-parlor applications and decided public health, safety and welfare demanded a freeze on such permits.

http://www.massageinzhuhai.com.cn/news/zhuhai-massage-062303.htm