California housing providers are accustomed to bad news coming out of Sacramento. Every legislative session seems to bring a fresh wave of proposals aimed at expanding tenant protections, restricting property rights, or imposing new obligations on landlords. 2026 will be no exception. While some measures continue to advance through the legislative process, lawmakers also rejected a number of proposals that would have expanded rent control, complicated tenant screening, capped pet-related charges, and created new barriers to eviction.
Those defeats deserve attention. Not only because of what they would have changed, but because they provide a glimpse into where housing policy debates are likely headed next. A bill that dies in committee this year often returns in a revised form a year or two later.
For housing providers, understanding what was defeated can be just as important as understanding what ultimately becomes law.
AB 1157: Expanded Statewide Rent Control
Introduced by Assembly Member Kalra (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Bryan, Elhawary, Garcia, Jackson, Lee, McKinnor, Ortega, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas)
The Proposal: Among other changes, the bill sought to eliminate key exemptions that currently apply to many single-family homes and newer residential properties. It also would have removed the sunset date contained in existing statewide rent control laws.
Why Landlords Pushed Back: Opponents argued that California already maintains one of the nation’s most heavily regulated rental housing markets and that further restrictions on rent increases would discourage investment in housing and reduce incentives to maintain existing properties. Critics also warned that expanding rent control would do little to address the state’s housing shortage while placing additional pressure on housing providers facing rising insurance costs, property taxes, maintenance expenses, and regulatory burdens.
Where It Died: The bill failed to advance out of committee, effectively ending its path forward during the legislative session.
Why the Defeat Matters: Of all the measures that stalled this year, AB 1157 may have represented the most significant threat to housing providers. Its defeat preserved many of the exemptions and rent adjustment mechanisms that landlords currently rely upon to operate rental housing.
However, landlords should view this outcome as a reprieve rather than a victory lap. While statewide efforts to expand rent control continue to face resistance, the battle has increasingly shifted to the local level, where cities are adopting their own restrictions on rent increases, eviction rights, and rental housing operations. Jurisdictions such as San Leandro demonstrate that even when sweeping statewide proposals fail, housing providers may still find themselves navigating an increasingly complex patchwork of local regulations.
AB 2064: Criminal History as a Protected Class
Introduced by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins
A Major Expansion of Fair Housing Liability: AB 2064 would have added criminal history as a protected characteristic under both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Importantly, the bill extended beyond formal criminal background checks. Housing providers could have faced legal claims if otherwise neutral screening criteria disproportionately impacted applicants with criminal histories. Examples included minimum credit score requirements, identification requirements, or limitations on the use of guarantors and co-signers.
The Concern Over Unintended Consequences: Housing providers routinely rely on objective screening criteria to evaluate applicants and manage risk. Opponents argued that AB 2064 could have exposed landlords to legal challenges even when criminal history was never directly considered during the application process. For example, an applicant could have claimed that a minimum credit score requirement, identification policy, or co-signer restriction disproportionately excluded individuals with criminal records, potentially triggering discrimination claims, costly litigation, and increased uncertainty in the tenant screening process.
The concern was not merely about background checks. Critics feared the proposal would encourage litigation targeting otherwise neutral screening practices, creating uncertainty around standards many housing providers have relied upon for years.
The Bill Runs Out of Road: The measure passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee but ultimately stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
What Housing Providers Avoided: The bill’s defeat preserved housing providers’ ability to continue using objective screening criteria without creating a new protected class that could expose landlords to additional discrimination claims.
SB 1243: Eviction Moratorium Tied to Immigration Enforcement
Introduced by Senator Durazo
What the Bill Would Have Done: SB 1243 would have created a new defense to nonpayment of rent for tenants whose income was affected by immigration enforcement activity.
A tenant could have submitted a sworn declaration stating that detention, arrest, removal, or other immigration enforcement actions affected the household’s ability to pay rent. Once submitted, housing providers would have been prohibited from initiating or continuing an unlawful detainer action based on that nonpayment. The protections would have remained in effect until 180 days after the enforcement activity ended.
Who Would Have Carried the Cost? Opponents viewed the proposal as an attempt to shift the financial consequences of federal immigration enforcement onto private housing providers. While tenants would have received extended protections from eviction, property owners would still have remained responsible for mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, maintenance, and other operating expenses.
Many landlords have not forgotten the economic fallout of the COVID-era eviction moratoriums, which left some housing providers carrying months—or even years—of unpaid rent while continuing to meet their own financial obligations. Critics saw SB 1243 as a return to the same basic premise: requiring private property owners to absorb the costs of a broader public policy issue.
Stopped in Committee: The Senate Appropriations Committee held the bill, preventing it from advancing further.
Why the Defeat Matters: The proposal would have created a new category of eviction delay while preventing housing providers from collecting late fees or penalties during the protected period. Its defeat preserved existing unlawful detainer procedures and avoided introducing yet another layer of complexity into California’s already challenging eviction process.
AB 2609: Pet Rent and Pet Deposit Caps Go Down in Flames
Introduced by Assembly Member Caloza
The Push for Statewide Caps: AB 2609 sought to impose statewide limits on what housing providers could charge tenants who own pets. Under the proposal, landlords who permitted pets would have been prohibited from charging pet rent in excess of 1% of the monthly rent and would have been limited to collecting an additional pet security deposit equal to no more than 15% of one month’s rent.
Supporters argued the measure would make housing more accessible and affordable for pet owners. Opponents, however, questioned whether the proposed limits accurately reflected the financial risks associated with pet ownership.
The Reality of Pet-Related Costs: Critics argued that the proposed caps bore little relationship to the actual costs that can result from pet-related damage. While many pet owners are responsible tenants, housing providers routinely incur expenses associated with carpet replacement, odor remediation, flooring repairs, landscaping damage, and professional cleaning. Opponents contended that AB 2609 would have artificially limited a landlord’s ability to account for those risks while still leaving property owners responsible for the cost of repairs.
Some also warned that the bill could have produced the opposite of its intended effect. Faced with greater restrictions on pet-related charges, housing providers may have become less willing to accept pets altogether.
Dead Before a Vote: The bill went down in flames before lawmakers even had an opportunity to vote on it. The Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing was canceled at the request of the author, effectively ending the proposal’s prospects for the legislative session.
Why the Defeat Matters: The defeat of AB 2609 preserved housing providers’ ability to evaluate pet-related risks on a property-by-property basis rather than through a statewide one-size-fits-all formula.
The topic of pets continues to generate confusion for housing providers, particularly when tenants claim the need for a service animal or an emotional support animal. Questions involving accommodation requests, pet restrictions, and pet-related charges often implicate both state and federal fair housing laws. Because these situations are highly fact-specific, housing providers should seek qualified legal guidance before making decisions that could expose them to discrimination claims or other liability.
The Bigger Picture
The pressure on California housing providers is not going away. While the proposals discussed above failed to advance, they reflect broader policy objectives that continue to shape the debate over rental housing. Just as importantly, these bills demonstrate that a legislative defeat rarely means an idea has disappeared. Many proposals return in modified form after sponsors refine the language, narrow the scope, or build additional political support.
For landlords, these outcomes are nevertheless worth recognizing. They preserved important screening tools, operational flexibility, and property rights that many housing providers rely upon to effectively manage rental housing. They also serve as a reminder that advocacy matters. Understanding not only what became law, but also what nearly became law, often provides the clearest picture of where housing policy may be headed next.
As the founding attorney of Bornstein Law, Daniel is a well-respected authority in landlord-tenant disputes and property management issues. With over 23 years of experience in handling real estate and civil litigation throughout the Bay Area, he also manages rental properties, is instrumental in completing real estate transactions, and is renowned for his educational seminars. For more information, visit www.bornstein.law, call 415-409-7611 or email: [email protected].