SAUL CENTERS, INC. - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File number 1-12254

SAUL CENTERS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6522

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (301) 986-6200

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: N/A

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act    Yes  ¨    No  x.

Indicate by check mark whether registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 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 has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    YES  x    NO  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in the definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer” and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

The number of shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding as of March 1, 2013 was 19,973,600.

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 29, 2012 was $478.8 million.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Registrant incorporates by reference into Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K portions of registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A. The definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained herein constitute forward-looking statements as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. Our future results, financial condition and business may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as “plans,” “intends,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “believes” or similar expressions in this Form 10-K. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Many of the factors that will determine these items are beyond our ability to control or predict. For further discussion of these factors, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K.

For these statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K or the date of any document incorporated by reference. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Form 10-K.

General

Saul Centers, Inc. (“Saul Centers”) was incorporated under the Maryland General Corporation Law on June 10, 1993. Saul Centers operates as a real estate investment trust (a “REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Company is required to annually distribute at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (excluding net capital gains) to its stockholders and meet certain organizational and other requirements. Saul Centers has made and intends to continue to make regular quarterly distributions to its stockholders. Saul Centers, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries and the limited partnerships of which Saul Centers or one of its subsidiaries is the sole general partner, are referred to collectively as the “Company.” B. Francis Saul II serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Saul Centers.

The Company’s principal business activity is the ownership, management and development of income-producing properties. The Company’s long-term objectives are to increase cash flow from operations and to maximize capital appreciation of its real estate.

Saul Centers was formed to continue and expand the shopping center business previously owned and conducted by the B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust, the B.F. Saul Company and certain other affiliated entities, each of which is controlled by B. Francis Saul II and his family members (collectively, “The Saul Organization”). On August 26, 1993, members of The Saul Organization transferred to Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, a newly formed Maryland limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”), and two newly formed subsidiary limited partnerships (the “Subsidiary Partnerships,” and collectively with the Operating Partnership, the “Partnerships”), shopping center and mixed-use properties, and the management functions related to the transferred properties. Since its formation, the Company has developed and purchased additional properties.

3

Table of Contents

The following table lists the properties acquired, developed and/or disposed of by the Company since January 1, 2010.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s properties (the “Current Portfolio Properties”) consisted of 50 shopping center properties (the “Shopping Centers”), seven mixed-use properties which are comprised of office, retail and multi-family residential uses (the “Mixed-Use Properties”) and two (non-operating) development properties. Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties represent reportable business segments for financial reporting purposes. Revenue, net income, total assets and other financial information of each reportable segment are described in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

4

Table of Contents

Organizational Structure

The Company conducts its business through the Operating Partnership and/or directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries. The following diagram depicts the Company’s organizational structure and beneficial ownership of the common and preferred stock of Saul Centers calculated pursuant to Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act as of December 31, 2012.

Management of the Current Portfolio Properties

The Operating Partnership manages the Current Portfolio Properties and will manage any subsequently acquired or developed properties. The management of the properties includes performing property management, leasing, design, renovation, development and accounting duties for each property. The Operating Partnership provides each property with a fully integrated property management capability, with approximately 60 employees at its headquarters office and with an extensive and mature network of relationships with tenants and potential tenants as well as with members of the brokerage and property owners’ communities. The Company currently does not, and does not intend to, retain third party managers or provide management services to third parties.

The Company augments its property management capabilities by sharing with The Saul Organization certain ancillary functions, at cost, such as information technology and payroll services, benefits administration and in-house legal services. The Company also shares insurance administration expenses on a pro rata basis with The Saul Organization. Management believes that these arrangements result in lower costs than could be obtained by contracting with third parties. These arrangements permit the Company to capture greater economies of scale in purchasing from third party vendors than would otherwise be available to the Company alone and to capture internal economies of scale by avoiding payments representing profits with respect to functions provided internally. The terms of all sharing arrangements with The Saul Organization, including payments related thereto, are specified in a written agreement and are reviewed annually by the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

5

Table of Contents

The Company subleases its corporate headquarters space from The Saul Organization at the Company’s share of the cost. A discussion of the lease terms are provided in Note 7, Long Term Lease Obligations, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Principal Offices

The principal offices of the Company are located at 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6522, and the Company’s telephone number is (301) 986-6200. The Company’s internet web address is www.saulcenters.com. Information contained on the Company’s website is not part of this report. The Company makes available free of charge on its website its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Alternatively, you may access these reports at the SEC’s website: www.sec.gov.

Policies with Respect to Certain Activities

The following is a discussion of the Company’s operating strategy and certain of its investment, financing and other policies. These strategies and policies have been determined by the Board of Directors and, in general, may be amended or revised from time to time by the Board of Directors without a vote of the Company’s stockholders.

Operating Strategies

The Company’s primary operating strategy is to focus on its community and neighborhood shopping center business and to operate its properties to achieve both cash flow growth and capital appreciation. Community and neighborhood shopping centers typically provide reliable cash flow and steady long-term growth potential. Management actively manages its property portfolio by engaging in strategic leasing activities, tenant selection, lease negotiation and shopping center expansion and reconfiguration. The Company seeks to optimize tenant mix by selecting tenants for its shopping centers that provide a broad spectrum of goods and services, consistent with the role of community and neighborhood shopping centers as the source for day-to-day necessities. Management believes that such a synergistic tenanting approach results in increased cash flow from existing tenants by providing the Shopping Centers with consistent traffic and a desirable mix of shoppers, resulting in increased sales and, therefore, increased cash flows.

Management believes there is potential for long term growth in cash flow as existing leases for space in the Shopping Centers expire and are renewed, or newly available or vacant space is leased. The Company intends to renegotiate leases where possible and seek new tenants for available space in order to optimize the mix of uses to improve foot traffic through the Shopping Centers. As leases expire, management expects to revise rental rates, lease terms and conditions, relocate existing tenants, reconfigure tenant spaces and introduce new tenants with the goals of increasing occupancy, improving overall retail sales, and ultimately increasing cash flow as economic conditions improve. In those circumstances in which leases are not otherwise expiring, management selectively attempts to increase cash flow through a variety of means, or in connection with renovations or relocations, recapturing leases with below market rents and re-leasing at market rates, as well as replacing financially troubled tenants. When possible, management also will seek to include scheduled increases in base rent, as well as percentage rental provisions, in its leases.

The Company will also seek growth opportunities in its Washington, D.C. metropolitan area mixed-use portfolio, primarily through development and redevelopment, as evidenced by the recent completion of the development of Clarendon Center in Arlington County, Virginia. Management also intends to negotiate lease renewals or to re-lease available space in the Mixed-Use Properties, while considering the strategic balance of optimizing short-term cash flow and long-term asset value.

It is management’s intention to hold properties for long-term investment and to place strong emphasis on regular maintenance, periodic renovation and capital improvement. Management believes that characteristics such

6

Table of Contents

as cleanliness, lighting and security are particularly important in community and neighborhood shopping centers, which are frequently visited by shoppers during hours outside of the normal work-day. Management believes that the Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties generally are attractive and well maintained. The Shopping Centers and Mixed-Use Properties will undergo expansion, renovation, reconfiguration and modernization from time to time when management believes that such action is warranted by opportunities or changes in the competitive environment of a property. During 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company developed two new shopping centers, Westview Village and Northrock and completed the construction of Clarendon Center, a mixed-use development containing ground floor retail, office and multi-family residential units. The Company will continue its practice of expanding existing properties by undertaking new construction on outparcels suitable for development as free standing retail or office facilities.

Investment in Real Estate or Interests in Real Estate

The Company’s redevelopment and renovation objective is to selectively and opportunistically redevelop and renovate its properties, by replacing below-market-rent leases with strong, traffic-generating anchor stores such as supermarkets and drug stores, as well as other desirable local, regional and national tenants. The Company’s strategy remains focused on continuing the operating performance and internal growth of its existing Shopping Centers, while enhancing this growth with selective retail redevelopments and renovations.

The Company recently acquired two properties located along the Rockville Pike corridor in Montgomery County, Maryland. In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan.

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 325,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

In 2011, the Company acquired three Giant Food-anchored shopping centers located in the Maryland suburbs of the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan area. The three centers, Kentlands Square II, Severna Park MarketPlace and Cranberry Square, total 636,000 square feet of leasable area, of which 98% is leased. The $170.9 million purchase price, including acquisition costs, was financed with (1) $60.0 million from two bridge loans secured by Kentlands Square II and Cranberry Square; (2) a $38.0 million non-recourse permanent loan secured by Severna Park MarketPlace; (3) approximately $17.1 million in cash and borrowings from the Company’s revolving credit facility; and (4) $55.8 million from the issuance of equity to a related party.

In light of the limited amount of quality properties for sale and the escalated pricing of properties that the Company has been presented with or has inquired about over the past year, management believes acquisition opportunities for investment in existing and new Shopping Center and Mixed-Use Properties in the near future is uncertain. Because of the Company’s conservative capital structure, including its cash and capacity under its revolving credit facility, management believes that the Company is positioned to take advantage of additional investment opportunities as attractive properties are located and market conditions improve. (See “Item 1. Business - Capital Policies”). It is management’s view that several of the sub-markets in which the Company operates have, or are expected to have in the future, attractive supply/demand characteristics. The Company will continue to evaluate acquisition, development and redevelopment as integral parts of its overall business plan.

In evaluating a particular redevelopment, renovation, acquisition, or development, management will consider a variety of factors, including (i) the location and accessibility of the property; (ii) the geographic area (with an emphasis on the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan area and the southeastern region of the United States) and demographic characteristics of the community, as well as the local real estate market, including potential for growth and potential regulatory impediments to development; (iii) the size of the property; (iv) the purchase price; (v) the non-financial terms of the proposed acquisition; (vi) the availability of funds or other consideration for the proposed acquisition and the cost thereof; (vii) the “fit” of the property with the Company’s existing portfolio;

7

Table of Contents

(viii) the potential for, and current extent of, any environmental problems; (ix) the current and historical occupancy rates of the property or any comparable or competing properties in the same market; (x) the quality of construction and design and the current physical condition of the property; (xi) the financial and other characteristics of existing tenants and the terms of existing leases; and (xii) the potential for capital appreciation.

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company’s French Market property suffered roof damage during a hail storm. The Company is in the process of obtaining bids to repair the damage and estimates that the cost will be approximately $2.2 million, which is fully covered by insurance, subject to a $50,000 deductible. The Company recognized a gain of approximately $219,000, equal to the excess of the amount of estimated insurance proceeds over the carrying value of the replaced assets. All tenants remained open for business throughout the aftermath of the hail storm.

Although it is management’s present intention to concentrate future acquisition and development activities on community and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metropolitan area and the southeastern region of the United States, the Company may, in the future, also acquire other types of real estate in other areas of the country as opportunities present themselves. While the Company may diversify in terms of property locations, size and market, it does not set any limit on the amount or percentage of assets that may be invested in any one property or any one geographic area.

The Company intends to engage in such future investment or development activities in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of its status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and that will not make the Company become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. Equity investments in acquired properties may be subject to existing mortgage financings and other indebtedness or to new indebtedness which may be incurred in connection with acquiring or refinancing these investments.

Investments in Real Estate Mortgages

While the Company’s current portfolio and business objectives emphasize equity investments in commercial and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties, the Company may, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, invest in mortgages, participating or convertible mortgages, deeds of trust and other types of real estate interests consistent with its qualification as a REIT. The Company does not presently invest, nor does it intend to invest, in real estate mortgages.

Investments in Securities of or Interests in Persons Engaged in Real Estate Activities and Other Issues

Subject to the requirements to maintain REIT qualification, the Company may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities. The Company does not presently invest, nor does it intend to invest, in any securities of other REITs.

Dispositions

In 2012, the Company sold for $2.0 million the 77,000 square foot West Park shopping center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and recognized a $1.1 million gain and sold for $4.0 million the 54,900 square feet Belvedere shopping center in Baltimore, Maryland and recognized a gain of $3.4 million.

In 2010, the Company sold its Lexington property for $8.1 million and recognized a gain of $3.6 million.

8

Table of Contents

The Company may elect to dispose of other properties if, based upon management’s periodic review of the Company’s portfolio, the Board of Directors determines that such action would be in the best interest of the Company’s stockholders.

Capital Policies

The Company has established a debt capitalization policy relative to asset value, which is computed by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from the properties in the Company’s portfolio rather than relative to book value. The Company has used a measure tied to cash flow because it believes that the book value of its portfolio properties, which is the depreciated historical cost of the properties, does not accurately reflect the Company’s ability to incur indebtedness. Asset value, however, is somewhat more variable than book value, and may not at all times reflect the fair market value of the underlying properties. As a general policy, the Company intends to maintain a ratio of its total debt to total asset value of 50% or less and to actively manage the Company’s leverage and debt expense on an ongoing basis in order to maintain prudent coverage of fixed charges. Given the Company’s current debt level, it is management’s belief that the ratio of the Company’s debt to total asset value is below 50% as of December 31, 2012.

The organizational documents of the Company do not limit the absolute amount or percentage of indebtedness that it may incur. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, reevaluate the Company’s debt capitalization policy in light of current economic conditions, relative costs of capital, market values of the Company property portfolio, opportunities for acquisition, development or expansion, and such other factors as the Board of Directors then deems relevant. The Board of Directors may modify the Company’s debt capitalization policy based on such a reevaluation without shareholder approval and consequently, may increase or decrease the Company’s debt to total asset ratio above or below 50% or may waive the policy for certain periods of time, subject to maintaining compliance with financial covenants within existing debt agreements. The Company selectively continues to refinance or renegotiate the terms of its outstanding debt in order to achieve longer maturities, and obtain generally more favorable loan terms, whenever management determines the financing environment is favorable.

The Company intends to finance future acquisitions and developments and to make debt repayments by utilizing the sources of capital then deemed to be most advantageous. Such sources may include undistributed operating cash flow, secured or unsecured bank and institutional borrowings, proceeds from the Company’s Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan, proceeds from the sale of properties and private and public offerings of debt or equity securities. Borrowings may be at the Operating Partnership or Subsidiary Partnerships’ level and securities offerings may include (subject to certain limitations) the issuance of Operating Partnership interests convertible into common stock or other equity securities.

Other Policies

The Company has the authority to offer equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise acquire its common stock or other securities in the open market or otherwise, and may engage in such activities in the future. The Company expects, but is not obligated, to issue common stock to holders of units of the Operating Partnership upon exercise of their redemption rights. The Company has not engaged in trading, underwriting or agency distribution or sale of securities of other issuers other than the Operating Partnership and does not intend to do so. The Company has not made any loans to third parties, although the Company may in the future make loans to third parties. In addition, the Company has policies relating to related party transactions discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Competition

As an owner of, or investor in, community and neighborhood shopping centers and mixed-use properties, the Company is subject to competition from an indeterminate number of companies in connection with the acquisition, development, ownership and leasing of similar properties. These investors include investors with access to significant capital, such as domestic and foreign corporations and financial institutions, publicly traded and privately held REITs, private institutional investment funds, investment banking firms, life insurance companies and pension funds.

9

Table of Contents

Competition may reduce properties available for acquisition or development or increase prices for raw land or developed properties of the type in which the Company invests. The Company faces competition in providing leases to prospective tenants and in re-letting space to current tenants upon expiration of their respective leases. If tenants decide not to renew or extend their leases upon expiration, the Company may not be able to re-let the space. Even if the tenants do renew or the Company can re-let the space, the terms of renewal or re-letting, including the cost of required renovations, may be less favorable than current lease terms or than expectations for the space. This risk may be magnified if the properties owned by our competitors have lower occupancy rates than the Company’s properties. As a result, these competitors may be willing to make space available at lower prices than the space in the Current Portfolio Properties.

Management believes that success in the competition for ownership and leasing property is dependent in part upon the geographic location of the property, the tenant mix, the performance of property managers, the amount of new construction in the area and the maintenance and appearance of the property. Additional competitive factors impacting the Company’s properties include the ease of access to the properties, the adequacy of related facilities such as parking, and the demographic characteristics in the markets in which the properties compete. Overall economic circumstances and trends and new properties in the vicinity of each of the Current Portfolio Properties are also competitive factors.

Finally, retailers at our Shopping Centers face increasing competition from outlet stores, discount shopping clubs and other forms of marketing goods, such as direct mail, internet marketing and telemarketing. This competition may reduce percentage rents payable to us and may contribute to lease defaults or insolvency of tenants.

Environmental Matters

The Current Portfolio Properties are subject to various laws and regulations relating to environmental and pollution controls. The impact upon the Company from the application of such laws and regulations either prospectively or retrospectively is not expected to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s property operations. As a matter of policy, the Company requires an environmental study be performed with respect to a property that may be subject to possible environmental hazards prior to its acquisition to ascertain that there are no material environmental hazards associated with such property.

Employees

As of March 1, 2013, the Company employed approximately 60 persons at its headquarters office, including seven leasing officers. None of the Company’s employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Management believes that its relationship with employees is good.

Recent Developments

After several challenging years in the financial and real estate markets, there have been recent signs of economic improvement. During the last several quarters, the Company has seen modestly improved retail sales and retail leasing activity across its portfolio; however, rents remain under pressure. Office space demand throughout the Company’s properties slowed during 2012 and early 2013, primarily due to uncertainty surrounding federal government spending levels.

While overall consumer confidence appears to have improved, retailers continue to be cautious about capital allocation when implementing store expansion. Vacancies continue to remain elevated compared to pre-recession levels; however, the Company’s overall leasing percentage on a comparative same property basis, which excludes the impact of properties not in operation for the entirety of the comparable periods, at December 31, 2012 increased to 91.9% from 90.7% at December 31, 2011, an increase in space leased of approximately 107,000 square feet, primarily caused by the leasing of a portion of the space vacated by major shopping center tenants in 2011.

In February 2013, Saul Centers sold, in an underwritten public offering, 5.6 million depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share of 6.875% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, providing net cash proceeds of approximately $134.8 million. The depositary shares may be redeemed at the Company’s option, in whole or in part, at the $25.00 liquidation preference, plus accumulated dividends to but not including the redemption date, on or after February 12, 2018. The depositary shares pay an annual dividend of $1.71875 per share, equivalent to 6.875% of the $25.00 liquidation preference. The first dividend is scheduled to be paid on April 15,

10

Table of Contents

2013 and cover the period from February 12, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The Series C preferred stock has no stated maturity, is not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and is not convertible into any other securities of the Company except in connection with certain changes in control or delisting events. Investors in the depositary shares generally have no voting rights, but will have limited voting rights if the Company fails to pay dividends for six or more quarters (whether or not declared or consecutive) and in certain other events. The proceeds from the offering were used to (a) partially redeem the Company’s 8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and related depositary shares and (b) redeem in full all of the Company’s 9% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and related depositary shares.

The Company had access to debt and preferred equity at attractive terms and pricing during 2012 and early 2013. The Company maintains a ratio of total debt to total asset value of under 50%, which allows it to obtain additional secured borrowings if necessary. And, as of December 31, 2012, amortizing fixed-rate mortgage debt with staggered maturities from 2013 to 2027, represented approximately 93.6% of the Company’s notes payable, thus minimizing refinancing risk. The Company has two fixed-rate debt maturities scheduled for 2013, one of which was refinanced on February 27, 2013. Management currently expects to repay in full the $6.8 million remaining balance on the second loan on or before its maturity in July 2013. The floating-rate debt of the Company is comprised of a $14.9 million loan secured by Northrock shopping center, which was refinanced on February 27, 2013 and $38.0 million outstanding under the $175.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility.

Acquisition and Development Activity

A significant contributor to the Company’s recent growth in its Shopping Center portfolio has been its land acquisitions and subsequent development, redevelopment of existing centers and operating property acquisition activities. Redevelopment activities reposition the Company’s centers to be competitive in the current retailing environment. These redevelopments typically include an update of the facade, site improvements and reconfiguring tenant spaces to accommodate tenant size requirements and merchandising evolution. During the period January 1, 2010 through February 28, 2013, the Company acquired eight operating neighborhood shopping center properties. Since January 1, 2010, the Company’s leasable area has grown by approximately 13.1% (1.1 million square feet), from 8.4 million square feet to approximately 9.5 million square feet.

2012 / 2011 / 2010 Acquisitions, Developments and Redevelopments

Ashland Square Phase I

On December 15, 2004, the Company purchased for $6.3 million, a 19.3 acre parcel of land in Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia. The Company has an approved site plan to develop a grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping center totaling approximately 160,000 square feet. Capital One Bank operates a branch on the site and the Company previously executed a lease with CVS. During 2012, the Company completed site work for two pads, constructed a 6,500 square foot building that has been leased to a restaurant and CVS constructed a 13,000 square foot pharmacy building. Both facilities have opened for business and the cost to the Company was approximately $3.0 million. The balance of the center is being marketed to grocers and other retail businesses, with a development timetable yet to be finalized.

Clarendon Center

In late 2010, the Company substantially completed construction of a mixed-use project which includes approximately 42,000 square feet of retail space, 171,000 square feet of office space, 244 apartments and 600 underground parking spaces, on two city blocks, adjacent to the Clarendon Metro Station in Arlington County, Virginia. Development costs are expected to total approximately $195.0 million upon the completion of final office tenant improvements. As of December 31, 2012, 208,900 square feet (97.9%) of the commercial space (comprising of all of the retail space and 167,200 square feet (97.4 %) of the office space) as well as 244 apartments (100.0%), were leased.

Westview Village

In November 2007, the Company purchased for $5.0 million, a 10.4 acre site in the Westview development on Buckeystown Pike (MD Route 85) in Frederick, Maryland. Construction was substantially completed in 2009 on a development that totals approximately 98,000 square feet of commercial space, including 60,000 square feet of retail shop space, 11,000 square feet of retail pads and 30,000 square feet of office space. Total construction and development costs, including land, lease-up and tenant improvement costs, are projected to be approximately $26.5 million. As of December 31, 2012, 56,600 square feet of retail space and 26,700 square feet of office space, or approximately 85.4% of the total space, had been leased.

11

Table of Contents

Northrock

In January 2008, the Company purchased for $12.5 million, approximately 15.4 acres of undeveloped land in Warrenton, Virginia, located at the southwest corner of the U. S. Route 29/211 and Fletcher Drive intersection. The Company constructed Northrock shopping center, a neighborhood shopping center totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of leasable area. Approximately 80.6% of the project was leased at December 31, 2012, including a 52,700 square foot Harris Teeter supermarket store, 27,800 square feet of small shop space, and pad leases with Capital One Bank and Longhorn Steakhouse. Total construction and development costs, including land, lease-up and tenant improvement costs, are projected to be approximately $27.9 million.

Seven Corners

During 2010, the Company expanded the Seven Corners shopping center by approximately 6,000 square feet. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers opened in November 2010 in a newly-constructed, free-standing building. The Company also completed construction of parking lot, landscaping and site lighting improvements to enhance the common areas.

11503 Rockville Pike

On October 1, 2010, the Company purchased for $15.6 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike (Route 355), near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property, which was fully leased to two tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 297,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company intends to redevelop the property but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Metro Pike Center

On December 17, 2010, the Company purchased for $34.3 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 67,000 square feet of retail space located on the west side of Rockville Pike (Route 355) near the White Flint Metro Station in Montgomery County, Maryland. The property was acquired subject to the assumption of a $16.2 million mortgage loan and a corresponding interest rate swap with a fair value of $0.5 million. The property, which was 83.6% leased at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 807,000 square feet of rentable mixed use space. The Company does not anticipate redeveloping the property in the foreseeable future.

4469 Connecticut Ave

On February 17, 2011, the Company purchased for $1.7 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 3,000 square feet of retail space located adjacent to the Company’s Van Ness Square in Washington D.C. The property is unoccupied and will be included in the project to redevelop Van Ness Square.

Kentlands Square II

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $74.5 million Kentlands Square II, and incurred acquisition costs of $1.1 million. Kentlands Square II is a 241,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in Montgomery County, the state’s most populous and affluent county. More than 38,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $114,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1993, is 95.8% leased and is anchored by a 61,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 104,000 square foot Kmart. The property is adjacent to the Company’s Kentlands Square I, which is anchored by Lowe’s Home Improvement and Kentlands Place.

Severna Park MarketPlace

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $61.0 million Severna Park MarketPlace, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.8 million. Severna Park MarketPlace is a 254,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Severna Park, Maryland, in Anne Arundel County. More than 15,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $112,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1974 and renovated in 2000, is 100% leased and is anchored by a 63,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 92,000 square foot Kohl’s.

Cranberry Square

On September 23, 2011, the Company purchased for $33.0 million Cranberry Square, and incurred acquisition costs of $0.5 million. Cranberry Square is a 140,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center located in Westminster, Maryland, in Carroll County. More than 12,000 households, with annual household incomes averaging over $72,000, are located within a three-mile radius of the center. The center was constructed in 1991, is 92.2% leased and is anchored by a 56,000 square foot Giant Food supermarket and a 24,000 square foot Staples.

12

Table of Contents

1500 Rockville Pike

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $23.0 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 52,700 square feet of retail space located on the east side of Rockville Pike near the Twinbrook Metro Station. The property, which was 90.5% leased to multiple tenants at December 31, 2012, is zoned for up to 745,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

5541 Nicholson Lane

In December 2012, the Company purchased for $12.2 million, including acquisition costs, approximately 20,100 square feet of mixed-use space, which was 40.5% leased to multiple tenants, located on the east side of Rockville Pike and adjacent to 11503 Rockville Pike, which was purchased in 2010. The property, when combined with 11503 Rockville Pike, will provide zoning for up to 331,000 square feet of rentable mixed-use space for a total development potential of up to 622,000 square feet. The Company intends to redevelop the site but has not committed to any redevelopment plan or time table.

Van Ness Square

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

13

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

Carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. If any of the events or developments described below were actually to occur, the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

In this section, unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Saul Centers, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership.

The global financial crisis and economic slowdown may have an adverse impact on our business, our tenants’ business and our results of operations.

The continuation or worsening of the recent credit market disruption and global economic crisis may continue to have an adverse effect on the fundamentals of our business and results of operations, including overall market occupancy and rental rates. While recent economic data appear to reflect some stabilization of the economy and credit markets, a continuation of these challenging economic conditions could have a negative effect on the financial condition of our tenants or lenders, which may expose us to increased risks of default by these parties.

In the event of a continuation of this disruption in the economy and capital markets, there can be no assurance we will not experience material adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations or real estate values.

Potential consequences of a continuation of the credit crisis and global economic slowdown include:

Revenue from our properties may be reduced or limited if the retail operations of our tenants are not successful.

The global and domestic economies have recently experienced a significant contraction of credit markets and resulting slowdown in business and consumer spending. We believe that consumers in recent years have cut back their discretionary spending in response to credit constraints, unemployment, a reduction in home equity values, highly volatile fuel and other commodity prices, and general economic uncertainty. Revenue from our properties depends primarily on the ability of our tenants to pay the full amount of rent due under their leases on a timely basis. The amount of rent we receive from our tenants generally will depend in part on the success of our tenants’ retail operations, making us vulnerable to general economic downturns and other conditions affecting the retail industry. Some tenants may terminate their occupancy due to an inability to operate profitably for an extended period of time, impacting the Company’s ability to maintain occupancy levels.

Any reduction in our tenants’ ability to pay base rent or percentage rent may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Small business tenants and anchor retailers which lease space in the Company’s properties may experience a deterioration in their sales or other revenue, or experience a constraint on the availability of credit necessary to fund operations, which in turn may adversely impact those tenants’ ability to pay contractual base rents and operating expense recoveries. Some of our leases provide for the payment, in addition to base rent, of additional rent above the base amount according to a specified percentage of the gross sales generated by the tenants. Decreasing sales revenue by retail tenants could adversely impact the Company’s receipt of percentage rents required to be paid by tenants under certain leases.

14

Table of Contents

Our ability to increase our net income depends on the success and continued presence of our shopping center “anchor” tenants and other significant tenants.

Our net income could be adversely affected in the event of a downturn in the business, or the bankruptcy or insolvency, of any anchor store or anchor tenant. Our largest shopping center anchor tenant is Giant Food, which accounted for 5.0% of our total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012. The closing of one or more anchor stores prior to the expiration of the lease of that store or the termination of a lease by one or more of a property’s anchor tenants could adversely affect that property and result in lease terminations by, or reductions in rent from, other tenants whose leases may permit termination or rent reduction in those circumstances or whose own operations may suffer as a result. This could reduce our net income.

We may experience difficulty or delay in renewing leases or leasing vacant space.

We derive most of our revenue directly or indirectly from rent received from our tenants. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration, leases for space in our properties may not be renewed, the space and other vacant space may not be re-leased, or the terms of renewal or re-lease, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than previous lease terms. Constraints on the availability of credit to office and retail tenants, necessary to purchase and install improvements, fixtures and equipment, and fund start-up business expenses, could impact the Company’s ability to procure new tenants for spaces currently vacant in existing operating properties or properties under development. As a result, our results of operations and our net income could be reduced.

We have substantial relationships with members of The Saul Organization whose interests could conflict with the interests of other stockholders.

Influence of Officers, Directors and Significant Stockholders.

Three of our executive officers, Mr. Saul, and our President, Thomas H. McCormick, and our Executive Vice President-Real Estate, J. Page Lansdale, are members of The Saul Organization, and persons associated with The Saul Organization constitute four of the 14 members of our Board of Directors. In addition, as of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul had the potential to exercise control over 8,696,000 shares of our common stock representing 43.8% of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock. Mr. Saul also beneficially owned, as of December 31, 2012, 6,914,000 units of the Operating Partnership. In general, these units are convertible into shares of our common stock on a one-for-one basis. The ownership limitation set forth in our articles of incorporation is 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities (which includes both common and preferred stock). As of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owned common stock representing approximately 36.0% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities. Members of the Saul Organization are permitted under our articles of incorporation to convert Operating Partnership units into shares of common stock or acquire additional shares of common stock until The Saul Organization’s actual ownership of common stock reaches 39.9% in value of our equity securities. As of December 31, 2012, 987,000 of the 6,914,000 units of the Operating Partnership would have been permitted to convert into additional shares of common stock, and would have resulted in Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owning common stock representing approximately 39.9% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities.

As a result of these relationships, members of The Saul Organization will be in a position to exercise significant influence over our affairs, which influence might not be consistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders. Except as discussed below, we do not have any written policies or procedures for the review, approval or ratification of transactions with related persons.

Management Time.

Our Chief Executive Officer, President, Executive Vice President-Real Estate and Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer are also officers of various entities of The Saul Organization. Although we believe that these officers spend sufficient management time to meet their responsibilities as our officers, the amount of management time devoted to us will depend on our specific circumstances at any given point in time. As a result, in a given period, these officers may spend less than a majority of their management time on our matters. Over extended periods of time, we believe that our Chief Executive Officer will spend less than a majority of his management time on Company matters, while our President, Executive Vice President-Real Estate and Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer may or may not spend less than a majority of their time on our matters.

15

Table of Contents

Exclusivity and Right of First Refusal Agreements.

We will acquire, develop, own and manage shopping center properties and will own and manage other commercial properties, and, subject to certain exclusivity agreements and rights of first refusal to which we are a party, The Saul Organization will continue to develop, acquire, own and manage commercial properties and own land suitable for development as, among other things, shopping centers and other commercial properties. Therefore, conflicts could develop in the allocation of acquisition and development opportunities with respect to commercial properties other than shopping centers and with respect to development sites, as well as potential tenants and other matters, between us and The Saul Organization. The agreement relating to exclusivity and the right of first refusal between us and The Saul Organization generally requires The Saul Organization to conduct its shopping center business exclusively through us and to grant us a right of first refusal to purchase commercial properties and development sites in certain market areas that become available to The Saul Organization. The Saul Organization has granted the right of first refusal to us, acting through our independent directors, in order to minimize potential conflicts with respect to commercial properties and development sites. We and The Saul Organization have entered into this agreement in order to minimize conflicts with respect to shopping centers and certain of our commercial properties.

Shared Services.

We share with The Saul Organization certain ancillary functions, such as computer and payroll services, benefits administration and in-house legal services. The terms of all sharing arrangements, including payments related thereto, are reviewed periodically by our Audit Committee, which is comprised solely of independent directors. Included in our general and administrative expenses or capitalized to specific development projects, for the year ended December 31, 2012, are charges totaling $6.0 million, related to such shared services, which included rental payments for the Company’s headquarters lease, which were billed by The Saul Organization. Although we believe that the amounts allocated to us for such shared services represent a fair allocation between us and The Saul Organization, we have not obtained a third party appraisal of the value of these services.

The B. F. Saul Insurance Agency of Maryland, Inc., a subsidiary of the B. F. Saul Company and a member of The Saul Organization, is a general insurance agency that receives commissions and counter-signature fees in connection with our insurance program. Such commissions and fees amounted to approximately $373,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Related Party Rents.

We sublease space for our corporate headquarters from a member of The Saul Organization, the building of which is owned by another member of The Saul Organization. The lease commenced in March 2002, was extended for five years through March 2017, and provides for base rent escalated at 3% per year, with payment of a pro-rata share of operating expenses over a base year amount. The Company and The Saul Organization entered into a Shared Services Agreement whereby each party pays a portion of the total rental payments based on a percentage proportionate to the number of employees employed by each party. The Company’s rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $850,000. Although the Company believes that this lease has terms comparable to what would have been obtained from a third party landlord, it did not seek bid proposals from any independent third parties when entering into its new corporate headquarters lease.

Conflicts Based on Individual Tax Considerations.

The tax basis of members of The Saul Organization in our portfolio properties which were contributed to certain partnerships at the time of our initial public offering in 1993 was substantially less than the fair market value thereof at the time of their contribution. In the event of our disposition of such properties, a disproportionately large share of the gain for federal income tax purposes would be allocated to members of The Saul Organization. In addition, future reductions of the level of our debt, or future releases of the guarantees or indemnities with respect thereto by members of The Saul Organization, would cause members of The Saul Organization to be considered, for federal income tax purposes, to have received constructive distributions. Depending on the overall level of debt and other factors, these distributions could be in excess of The Saul Organization’s bases in their Partnership units, in which case such excess constructive distributions would be taxable.

Consequently, it is in the interests of The Saul Organization that we continue to hold the contributed portfolio properties, that a portion of our debt remains outstanding or is refinanced and that The Saul Organization guarantees and indemnities remain in place, in order to defer the taxable gain to members of The Saul Organization. Therefore, The Saul Organization may seek to cause us to retain the contributed portfolio properties, and to refrain from reducing our debt or releasing The Saul Organization guarantees and indemnities, even when such action may

16

Table of Contents

not be in the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders. In order to minimize these conflicts, decisions as to sales of the portfolio properties, or any refinancing, repayment or release of guarantees and indemnities with respect to our debt, will be made by the independent directors.

Ability to Block Certain Actions.

Under applicable law and the limited partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, consent of the limited partners is required to permit certain actions, including the sale of all or substantially all of the Operating Partnership’s assets. Therefore, members of The Saul Organization, through their status as limited partners in the Operating Partnership, could prevent the taking of any such actions, even if they were in the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders.

The amount of debt we have and the restrictions imposed by that debt could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $827.8 million of debt outstanding, $774.9 million of which was long-term fixed-rate debt secured by 35 of our properties and $52.9 million of which was variable-rate debt due under a secured bank loan ($14.9 million) and our revolving credit facility ($38.0 million).

We currently have a general policy of limiting our borrowings to 50 percent of asset value, i.e., the value of our portfolio, as determined by our Board of Directors by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from our portfolio. Our organizational documents contain no limitation on the amount or percentage of indebtedness which we may incur. Therefore, the Board of Directors could alter or eliminate the current limitation on borrowing at any time. If our debt capitalization policy were changed, we could increase our leverage, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect our operating cash flow and our ability to make expected distributions to stockholders, and in an increased risk of default on our obligations.

We have established our debt capitalization policy relative to asset value, which is computed by reference to the aggregate annualized cash flow from the properties in our portfolio rather than relative to book value. We have used a measure tied to cash flow because we believe that the book value of our portfolio properties, which is the depreciated historical cost of the properties, does not accurately reflect our ability to borrow. Asset value, however, is somewhat more variable than book value, and may not at all times reflect the fair market value of the underlying properties.

The amount of our debt outstanding from time to time could have important consequences to our stockholders. For example, it could:

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on, or to refinance, our indebtedness will depend primarily on our future performance, which to a certain extent is subject to economic,

17

Table of Contents

financial, competitive and other factors described in this section. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from our business in the future to service our debt or meet our other cash needs, we may be required to refinance all or a portion of our existing debt, sell assets or obtain additional financing to meet our debt obligations and other cash needs. Our ability to refinance, sell assets or obtain additional financing may not be possible on terms that we would find acceptable.

We are obligated to comply with financial and other covenants in our debt that could restrict our operating activities, and the failure to comply could result in defaults that accelerate the payment under our debt.

Our secured debt generally contains customary covenants, including, among others, provisions:

Our unsecured debt generally contains various restrictive covenants. The covenants in our unsecured debt include, among others, provisions restricting our ability to:

Our ability to meet some of the covenants in our debt, including covenants related to the condition of the property or payment of real estate taxes, may be dependent on the performance by our tenants under their leases.

In addition, our line of credit requires us and our subsidiaries to satisfy financial covenants. The material financial covenants require us, on a consolidated basis, to:

As of December 31, 2012, we were in compliance with all such covenants. If we were to breach any of our debt covenants and did not cure the breach within any applicable cure period, our lenders could require us to repay the debt immediately, and, if the debt is secured, could immediately begin proceedings to take possession of the property securing the loan. Some of our debt arrangements are cross-defaulted, which means that the lenders under those debt arrangements can put us in default and require immediate repayment of their debt if we breach and fail to cure a covenant under certain of our other debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt covenants could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations and the market value of our shares.

18

Table of Contents

Our development activities are inherently risky.

The ground-up development of improvements on real property, which is different from the renovation and redevelopment of existing improvements, presents substantial risks. In addition to the risks associated with real estate investment in general as described elsewhere, the risks associated with our remaining development activities include:

Redevelopments and acquisitions may fail to perform as expected.

Our investment strategy includes the redevelopment and acquisition of community and neighborhood shopping centers that are anchored by supermarkets, drugstores or high volume, value-oriented retailers that provide consumer necessities. The redevelopment and acquisition of properties entails risks that include the following, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations:

Our ability to grow will be limited if we cannot obtain additional capital.

Our growth strategy includes the redevelopment of properties we already own and the acquisition of additional properties. Because we are required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our taxable income each year to continue to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes, in addition to our undistributed operating cash flow, we rely upon the availability of debt or equity capital to fund our growth, which financing may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. The debt could include mortgage loans from third parties or the sale of debt securities. Equity capital could include our common stock or preferred stock. Additional financing, refinancing or other capital may not be available in the amounts we desire or on favorable terms. Our access to debt or equity capital depends on a number of factors, including the general state of the capital markets, the market’s perception of our growth potential, our ability to pay dividends, and our current and potential future earnings. Depending on the outcome of these factors, we could experience delay or difficulty in implementing our growth strategy on satisfactory terms, or be unable to implement this strategy.

19

Table of Contents

Our performance and value are subject to general risks associated with the real estate industry.

Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets, and, consequently, the value of our investments, are subject to the risk that if our properties do not generate revenue sufficient to meet our operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will be adversely affected. As a real estate company, we are susceptible to the following real estate industry risks:

Many real estate costs are fixed, even if income from our properties decreases.

Our financial results depend primarily on leasing space in our properties to tenants on terms favorable to us. Costs associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a property is not fully occupied, rental rates decrease, or other circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. As a result, cash flow from the operations of our properties may be reduced if a tenant does not pay its rent or we are unable to rent our properties on favorable terms. Under those circumstances, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays, and may incur substantial legal costs. Additionally, new properties that we may acquire or develop may not produce any significant revenue immediately, and the cash flow from existing operations may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with that property until the property is fully leased.

Competition may limit our ability to purchase new properties and generate sufficient income from tenants.

Numerous commercial developers and real estate companies compete with us in seeking tenants for properties and properties for acquisition. This competition may:

Retailers at our shopping center properties also face increasing competition from outlet stores, discount shopping clubs, and other forms of marketing of goods, such as direct mail, internet marketing and telemarketing. This competition may reduce percentage rents payable to us and may contribute to lease defaults and insolvency of tenants. If we are unable to continue to attract appropriate retail tenants to our properties, or to purchase new properties in our geographic markets, it could materially affect our ability to generate net income, service our debt and make distributions to our stockholders.

20

Table of Contents

We may be unable to sell properties when appropriate because real estate investments are illiquid.

Real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly. In addition, there are some limitations under federal income tax laws applicable to real estate and to REITs in particular that may limit our ability to sell our assets. We may not be able to alter our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. Our inability to respond quickly to adverse changes in the performance of our investments could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our obligations and make distributions to our stockholders.

Our insurance coverage on our properties may be inadequate.

We carry comprehensive insurance on all of our properties, including insurance for liability, fire, flood, terrorism and rental loss. These policies contain coverage limitations. We believe this coverage is of the type and amount customarily obtained for or by an owner of real property assets. We intend to obtain similar insurance coverage on subsequently acquired properties.

As a consequence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and other significant losses incurred by the insurance industry, the availability of insurance coverage has decreased and the prices for insurance have increased. As a result, we may be unable to renew or duplicate our current insurance coverage in adequate amounts or at reasonable prices. In addition, insurance companies may no longer offer coverage against certain types of losses, such as losses due to terrorist acts and toxic mold, or, if offered, the expense of obtaining these types of insurance may not be justified. We therefore may cease to have insurance coverage against certain types of losses and/or there may be decreases in the limits of insurance available. If an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of our insured limits occurs, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the property, but still remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property. Material losses in excess of insurance proceeds may occur in the future. Also, due to inflation, changes in codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors, it may not be feasible to use insurance proceeds to replace a building after it has been damaged or destroyed. Events such as these could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations, including distributions to our stockholders.

Environmental laws and regulations could reduce the value or profitability of our properties.

All real property and the operations conducted on real property are subject to federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to hazardous materials, environmental protection and human health and safety. Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, we and our tenants may be required to investigate and clean up certain hazardous or toxic substances released on or in properties we own or operate, and also may be required to pay other costs relating to hazardous or toxic substances. This liability may be imposed without regard to whether we or our tenants knew about the release of these types of substances or were responsible for their release. The presence of contamination or the failure to properly remediate contamination at any of our properties may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease those properties or to borrow using those properties as collateral. The costs or liabilities could exceed the value of the affected real estate. We are not aware of any environmental condition with respect to any of our properties that management believes would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets or results of operations taken as a whole. The uses of any of our properties prior to our acquisition of the property and the building materials used at the property are among the property-specific factors that will affect how the environmental laws are applied to our properties. If we are subject to any material environmental liabilities, the liabilities could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations.

We cannot predict what other environmental legislation or regulations will be enacted in the future, how existing or future laws or regulations will be administered or interpreted or what environmental conditions may be found to exist on the properties in the future. Compliance with existing and new laws and regulations may require us or our tenants to spend funds to remedy environmental problems. Our tenants, like many of their competitors, have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs associated with complying with these laws and regulations, which will adversely affect their potential profitability. Generally, our tenants must comply with environmental laws and meet remediation requirements. Our leases typically impose obligations on our tenants to indemnify us from any compliance costs we may incur as a result of the environmental conditions on the property caused by the tenant. If a tenant fails to or cannot comply, we could be forced to pay these costs. If not addressed, environmental conditions could impair our ability to sell or re-lease the affected properties in the future or result in lower sales prices or rent payments.

21

Table of Contents

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) could require us to take remedial steps with respect to newly acquired properties.

The properties, as commercial facilities, are required to comply with Title III of the ADA. Investigation of a property may reveal non-compliance with the ADA. The requirements of the ADA, or of other federal, state or local laws, also may change in the future and restrict further renovations of our properties with respect to access for disabled persons. Future compliance with the ADA may require expensive changes to the properties.

The revenue generated by our tenants could be negatively affected by various federal, state and local laws to which they are subject.

We and our tenants are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local laws and regulations, such as local licensing requirements, consumer protection laws and state and local fire, life-safety and similar requirements that affect the use of the properties. The leases typically require that each tenant comply with all regulations. Failure to comply could result in fines by governmental authorities, awards of damages to private litigants, or restrictions on the ability to conduct business on such properties. Non-compliance of this sort could reduce our revenue from a tenant, could require us to pay penalties or fines relating to any non-compliance, and could adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a property.

Failure to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes would cause us to be taxed as a corporation, which would substantially reduce funds available for payment of distributions.

We believe that we are organized and qualified as a REIT, and currently intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes under the Code. However, the IRS could successfully assert that we are not qualified as such. In addition, we may not remain qualified as a REIT in the future. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions. The complexity of these provisions and of the applicable income tax regulations that have been issued under the Code by the United States Department of Treasury is greater in the case of a REIT that holds its assets in partnership form. Certain facts and circumstances not entirely within our control may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. For example, in order to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income in any year must be derived from qualifying rents and other income. Satisfying this requirement could be difficult, for example, if defaults by tenants were to reduce the amount of income from qualifying rents. Also, we must make annual distributions to stockholders of at least 90% of our net taxable income (excluding capital gains). In addition, new legislation, new regulations, new administrative interpretations or new court decisions may significantly change the tax laws with respect to qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification. If we fail to qualify as a REIT:

We believe that the Operating Partnership is treated as a partnership, and not as a corporation, for federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to challenge successfully the status of the Operating Partnership as a partnership for federal income tax purposes:

22

Table of Contents

We may be required to incur additional debt to qualify as a REIT.

As a REIT, we must make annual distributions to stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income. We are subject to income tax on amounts of undistributed REIT taxable income and net capital gain. In addition, we would be subject to a 4% excise tax if we fail to distribute sufficient income to meet a minimum distribution test based on our ordinary income, capital gain and aggregate undistributed income from prior years. We intend to make distributions to stockholders to comply with the Code’s distribution provisions and to avoid federal income and excise tax. We may need to borrow funds to meet our distribution requirements because:

In these circumstances, we might have to borrow funds on unfavorable terms and even if our management believes the market conditions make borrowing financially unattractive.

The structure of our leases may jeopardize our ability to qualify as a REIT.

If the IRS were to challenge successfully the characterization of one or more of our leases of properties as leases for federal income tax purposes, the Operating Partnership would not be treated as the owner of the related property or properties for federal income tax purposes. As a result, the Operating Partnership would lose tax depreciation and cost recovery deductions with respect to one or more of our properties, which in turn could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. Although we will use our best efforts to structure any leasing transaction for properties acquired in the future so the lease will be characterized as a lease and the Operating Partnership will be treated as the owner of the property for federal income tax purposes, we will not seek an advance ruling from the IRS and do not intend to seek an opinion of counsel that the Operating Partnership will be treated as the owner of any leased properties for federal income tax purposes. Thus, the IRS could successfully assert that future leases will not be treated as leases for federal income tax purposes, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

To maintain our status as a REIT, we limit the amount of shares any one stockholder can own.

The Code imposes certain limitations on the ownership of the stock of a REIT. For example, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares of capital stock may be owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code). To protect our REIT status, our articles of incorporation restrict beneficial and constructive ownership (defined by reference to various Code provisions) to no more than 2.5% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities by any single stockholder with the exception of members of The Saul Organization, who are restricted to beneficial and constructive ownership of no more than 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities.

The constructive ownership rules are complex. Shares of our capital stock owned, actually or constructively, by a group of related individuals and/or entities may be treated as constructively owned by one of those individuals or entities. As a result, the acquisition of less than 2.5% or 39.9% in value of our issued and outstanding equity securities, by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity (or another) to own constructively more than 2.5% or 39.9% in value of the outstanding stock. If that happened, either the transfer or ownership would be void or the shares would be transferred to a charitable trust and then sold to someone who can own those shares without violating the respective ownership limit.

As of December 31, 2012, Mr. Saul and members of The Saul Organization owned common stock representing approximately 36.0% in value of all our issued and outstanding equity securities. In addition, members of The Saul Organization beneficially owned Operating Partnership units that are, in general, convertible into our common stock on a one-for-one basis. Members of the Saul Organization are permitted under our articles of incorporation to convert Operating Partnership units into shares of common stock or acquire additional shares of common stock until The Saul Organization’s actual ownership of common stock reaches 39.9% in value of our equity securities.

The Board of Directors may waive these restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The Board has authorized the Company to grant waivers to look-through entities, such as mutual funds, in which shares of equity stock owned by

23

Table of Contents

the entity are treated as owned proportionally by individuals who are the beneficial owners of the entity. Even though these entities may own stock in excess of the 2.5% ownership limit, no individual beneficially or constructively would own more than 2.5%. The Board of Directors has agreed to waive the ownership limit with respect to certain mutual funds and similar investors. In addition, the Board of Directors has agreed to waive the ownership limit with respect to certain bank pledgees of shares of our common stock and units issued by the Operating Partnership and held by members of The Saul Organization.

The ownership restrictions may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of our control that might involve a premium price for our equity stock or otherwise be in the stockholders’ best interest.

The lower tax rate on dividends of regular corporations may cause investors to prefer to hold stock of regular corporations instead of REITs.

On May 28, 2003, the President signed into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (as extended by subsequent legislation, which we refer to collectively as the Acts). Under the Acts, the maximum tax rate on the long-term capital gains of non-corporate taxpayers was reduced to 15% (applicable to sales occurring from May 7, 2003 through December 31, 2012). The Acts also reduced the tax rate on “qualified dividend income” to the maximum capital gains rate and reduced the maximum tax rate on ordinary income to 35%. Because, as a REIT, we are not generally subject to tax on the portion of our REIT taxable income or capital gains distributed to our stockholders, our distributions have generally not been eligible for the lower tax rate on dividends. As a result, our ordinary REIT dividends have generally been taxed at the higher tax rates applicable to ordinary income. The lower rates scheduled to expire in 2012 under the Acts were permanently extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (which we refer to as the 2012 Relief Act). The 2012 Relief Act, however, does not extend all of the reduced rates for high-income taxpayers. Beginning January 1, 2013, in the case of married couples filing joint returns with taxable income in excess of $450,000, heads of households with taxable income in excess of $425,000, and other individuals with taxable income in excess of $400,000, the maximum rates on ordinary income are 39.6% (as compared to 35% prior to 2013) and the maximum rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income are 20% (as compared to 15% prior to 2013). Estates and trusts have more compressed rate schedules. The changes enacted by the Acts (as modified by the 2012 Relief Act), or future legislation, could cause shares in non-REIT corporations to be a more attractive investment to individual investors than shares in REITs, and could have an adverse effect on the value of the Company’s common stock.

We cannot assure you we will continue to pay dividends at historical rates.

Our ability to continue to pay dividends on our common stock at historical rates or to increase our common stock dividend rate will depend on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

If we do not maintain or increase the dividend rate on our common stock, it could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock and other securities. Payment of dividends on our common stock may be subject to payment in full of the dividends on any preferred stock or depositary shares and payment of interest on any debt securities we may offer.

Certain tax and anti-takeover provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws may inhibit a change of our control.

Certain provisions contained in our articles of incorporation and bylaws and the Maryland General Corporation Law may discourage a third party from making a tender offer or acquisition proposal to us. If this were to happen, it could delay, deter or prevent a change in control or the removal of existing management. These provisions also may delay or prevent the stockholders from receiving a premium for their stock over then-prevailing market prices. These provisions include:

24

Table of Contents

We may amend or revise our business policies without your approval.

Our Board of Directors may amend or revise our operating policies without stockholder approval. Our investment, financing and borrowing policies and policies with respect to all other activities, such as growth, debt, capitalization and operations, are determined by the Board of Directors or those committees or officers to whom the Board of Directors has delegated that authority. The Board of Directors may amend or revise these policies at any time and from time to time at its discretion. A change in these policies could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, and the market price of our securities.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

We have received no written comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission staff regarding our periodic or current reports in the 180 days preceding December 31, 2012 that remain unresolved.

Overview

As of December 31, 2012, the Company is the owner, developer and operator of a real estate portfolio composed of 58 operating properties, totaling approximately 9.5 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”), and two development parcels. The properties are located primarily in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland metropolitan area. The portfolio is composed of 50 neighborhood and community Shopping Centers, and seven predominantly Mixed-Use Properties totaling approximately 7.9 million and 1.6 million square feet of GLA, respectively. No single property accounted for more than 6.5% of the total gross leasable area. A majority of the Shopping Centers are anchored by several major tenants. Thirty-three of the Shopping Centers were anchored by a grocery store and offer primarily day-to-day necessities and services. Two retail tenants, Giant Food (5.0%), a tenant at ten Shopping Centers and Safeway (2.7%), a tenant at eight Shopping Centers, individually accounted for more than 2.5% of the Company’s total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012. The average rent, calculated using annualized base rent for leased space as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, excluding residential, was $17.96 per square foot and $17.31 per square foot, respectively, for the Company’s Current Portfolio Properties.

The Company expects to hold its properties as long-term investments, and it has no maximum period for retention of any investment. It plans to selectively acquire additional income-producing properties and to expand, renovate, and improve its properties when circumstances warrant. See “Item 1. Business—Operating Strategies” and “Business—Capital Policies.”

The Shopping Centers

Community and neighborhood shopping centers typically are anchored by one or more grocery stores, discount department stores or drug stores. These anchors offer day-to-day necessities rather than apparel and luxury goods and, therefore, generate consistent local traffic. By contrast, regional malls generally are larger and typically are anchored by one or more full-service department stores.

25

Table of Contents

In general, the Shopping Centers are seasoned community and neighborhood shopping centers located in well established, highly developed, densely populated, middle and upper income areas. The 2012 average estimated population within a one- and three-mile radius of the Shopping Centers is approximately 15,300 and 93,600, respectively. The 2012 average household income within the one- and three-mile radius of the Shopping Centers is approximately $112,400 and $114,000, respectively, compared to a national average of $68,200. Because the Shopping Centers generally are located in highly developed areas, management believes that there is little likelihood that significant numbers of competing centers will be developed in the future.

The Shopping Center properties range in size from approximately 20,000 to 575,000 square feet of GLA, with six in excess of 300,000 square feet, and average approximately 154,000 square feet. A majority of the Shopping Centers are anchored by several major tenants and other tenants offering primarily day-to-day necessities and services. Thirty-three of the Shopping Centers are anchored by a grocery store.

Lease Expirations of Shopping Center Properties

The following table sets forth, by year of expiration, the aggregate amount of base rent and leasable area for leases in place at the Shopping Centers that the Company owned as of December 31, 2012, for each of the next ten years beginning with 2013, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options and excluding an aggregate of 522,500 square feet of unleased space, which represented 6.6% of the GLA of the Shopping Centers as of December 31, 2012.

Lease Expirations of Shopping Center Properties

26

Table of Contents

The Mixed-Use Properties

Six of the seven Mixed-Use Properties are located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and contain an aggregate GLA of approximately 1.2 million square feet, comprised of 1.1 million and 131,000 square feet of office and retail space, respectively, and 244 apartments. The seventh Mixed-Use Property is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and contains GLA of 197,000 square feet. The Mixed-Use Properties represent three distinct styles of facilities, are located in differing commercial environments with distinctive demographic characteristics, and are geographically removed from one another. Accordingly, management believes that the Washington, D.C. area mixed-use properties compete for tenants in different commercial and geographic sub-markets of the metropolitan Washington, D.C. market and do not compete with one another.

601 Pennsylvania Avenue is a nine-story, 227,000 square foot Class A office building (with a small amount of street level retail space) built in 1986 and located in a prime location in downtown Washington, D.C. Washington Square at Old Town is a 235,000 square foot Class A mixed-use office/retail complex completed in 2000 and located on a two-acre site along Alexandria’s main street, North Washington Street, in historic Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Avenel Business Park is a 391,000 square foot research park located in the suburban Maryland, I-270 biotech corridor. The business park consists of twelve one-story buildings built in six phases, completed between 1981 and 2000. Clarendon Center is a recently constructed mixed-use Class A commercial and residential project located at the Clarendon Metro station in Arlington County, Virginia. This development contains 171,500 square feet of office, 42,000 square feet of retail and 244 apartment units.

Crosstown Business Center is a 197,000 square foot flex office/warehouse property located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The property is located in close proximity to Tulsa’s international airport and major roadways and has attracted tenants requiring light industrial and distribution facilities.

The economic downturn of the last five years has negatively affected retail and office property operating performance. While the impact in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, where the majority of the Company’s properties are located, has generally been less severe, issues facing the Federal government relating to spending cuts and budget policies cloud our current economic recovery with uncertainty. Overall operating trends have been encouraging, but both retail and office real estate fundamentals continue to be vulnerable to adverse developments in the housing and public and private sector job markets.

The Company recently completed negotiation of lease termination agreements with the tenants of Van Ness Square and expects the building will be vacant on or about April 30, 2013. Costs incurred related to those termination arrangements are being amortized to expense using the straight-line method over the remaining terms of the leases, are included in “Predevelopment Expenses” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, totaled $2.7 million in 2012 and are expected to total approximately $3.3 million over the first two quarters of 2013. The Company intends to develop a primarily residential project with street-level retail and will recognize additional predevelopment expenses in future periods when the existing improvements of Van Ness Square and the adjacent 4469 Connecticut Avenue are demolished, the timing of which is uncertain and dependent on the issuance of various governmental approvals and permits.

Lease Expirations of Mixed-Use Properties

The following table sets forth, by year of expiration, the aggregate amount of base rent and leasable area for commercial leases in place at the Mixed-Use Properties that the Company owned as of December 31, 2012, for each of the next ten years beginning with 2013, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options and excluding an aggregate of 245,100 square feet of unleased office and retail space, which represented 17.2% of the GLA of the commercial space within the Mixed-Use Properties as of December 31, 2012.

27

Table of Contents

Commercial Lease Expirations of Mixed-Use Properties

As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 244 apartment leases, 233 of which will expire in 2013, nine of which will expire in 2014, and two of which will expire in 2015. Annual base rent due under these leases is $7.1 million, $241,000, and $72,000 for the years ending December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

28

Table of Contents

Current Portfolio Properties

The following table sets forth, at the dates indicated, certain information regarding the Current Portfolio Properties:

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012

29

Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012

30

Table of Contents

Saul Centers, Inc.

Schedule of Current Portfolio Properties

December 31, 2012