Below are questions asked by rental property owners regarding California rent control laws, followed by answers provided by Attorney Richard Beckman.
Question One: We have a no-pet policy in our eight-unit apartment building. One tenant got a note from their doctor so he could keep their dog, as an Emotional Support Animal. In the meantime, two other people got a dog, without a letter. We know we cannot just evict tenants when they don’t abide by the rules. For example: pets not on leashes when leaving their units, pets barking, and worst of all, pets urinating inside the courtyards and on walkways. I have sent letters regarding all of these issues and it seems to do no good. Is there anything we can do about this legally?
Answer One: As you are discovering, the rules regarding Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) and service dogs versus ‘no pet’ policies are complicated, and landlords can easily run afoul of the basic rules. The basic rule is that if a lease contains a no-pet provision, the tenant must go through the process of requesting a reasonable accommodation, which generally requires documentation from a health care provider as to the tenant’s disability and need for an emotional support animal, to, in effect, ‘treat’ the disability. And then, as you note, even if a tenant is entitled to an ESA, there are still restrictions on the behavior of the animal itself, including posing a threat to others, or behaving in a way that constitutes a nuisance. In those events, informal efforts to rectify the situation are sometimes advised, but sometimes a formal ‘notice to cure or quit’ is required. However, those can often generate contentious consequences, and so, as I’m sure you are gathering, must be handled carefully and with deference to the disabled tenant’s situation. And I do understand that many tenants do not present as having a disability, but it is up to a licensed healthcare provider to make that determination.
Question 2: We have a single-family unit in Richmond, and we have reason to suspect that the tenant has built an illegal unit, and is subletting. Can I submit a 24-hour notice of inspection? They are not returning my calls. Is it legal to request an inspection? It is not considered an emergency.
Answer 2: You should be familiar with Civil Code Section 1954, which governs the rights of a landlord to compel entry into a tenant unit, but which does not allow entry for a ‘general inspection’. I suggest you review that statute (easily found on the web) and the list of permitted reasons. Where there’s suspicion that the tenant altered the premises without permission, and to use that suspicion as a basis to compel entry, is not completely clear. The statute does allow you entry to show the unit to prospective contractors. Thus, a Notice of Entry for that purpose (which seems a relatively easy end run around the lack of a right of entry for a ‘general inspection’) may be legally sufficient to compel entry over the tenant’s verbal objection.
Also, an owner or owner’s agent may enter any dwelling unit for the purpose of installing, repairing, testing, and/or maintaining smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detecting devices that are required by law, pursuant to the authority and requirements of Section 1954 of the Civil Code.
Question 3: I’ve been told by many people that we should create an LLC for our rental property and private home. Please let me know if we should do so, and if so, why we should.
Answer 3: People create LLC’s for various reasons, but primarily, in the popular understanding, to somehow shield their assets from potential liability related to lawsuits brought against a property. Properly structured, an LLC that ‘owns’ a particular property limits the ability of a plaintiff injured at the property to try to collect any judgment from the assets of the owner of the property that are not located within the LLC, which is typically the property that is at issue.
However, if the LLC property is managed by individuals, the individuals will almost certainly also be liable. If the individual happens to be the same person who owns the property, and owns other property, then the other property can also be subject to potential collection to satisfy a judgment.
The only way I’m aware of to truly insulate oneself from personal liability is to have property in an LLC, and to hire professional property management to manage the property, so that the actual owner of the LLC has no physical involvement in the property management effort. That, and appropriate amounts of insurance. Whether to do so or not is a discussion beyond the scope of this article.
Question 4: We have a duplex in San Francisco and an apartment building in Burlingame (San Mateo County). We created two separate LLCs in California for both properties. Are we required to file a Fictitious Business Name for each with the appropriate county?
Answer 4: Probably yes, if each LLC is operating under a name other than the name filed with the California Secretary of State. “Doing business as” (or “d/b/a”) and a “fictitious business name statement” are not the same, though they are legally-related concepts. The designation “doing business as” is a descriptive term used to indicate that an individual or business entity is operating under a fictitious business name rather than their own legal name. In contrast, a “fictitious business name statement” is a formal legal document that must be executed, filed, and published to comply with statutory registration requirements listed in Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17900, Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17918, and Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17910.
In California, DBA (Doing Business As) filings – officially known as Fictitious Business Names (FBN) – are handled at the county level. California requires you to file a DBA in the county where your principal place of business is located. Generally speaking, in both counties, you must file with the Office of the County Clerk. After filing with the County Clerk, you must publish a statement in an approved newspaper of general circulation within 30 days.
Question 5: We are wondering if Oakland landlords are required to notify or remind their tenants that their yearly lease will expire in 30 days or 60 days? If so, does the reminder notice mention the rent increase of 2.3% (as allowed by RAP starting in August, 2026) will take place? OR does the notice simply ask the tenants to let the landlord know of their plans?
Answer 5: Oakland landlords are not generally required to send tenants a separate 30-day or 60-day reminder that a fixed-term lease is about to expire, unless the lease itself specifically requires such notice. However, if the landlord intends to increase the rent at or after the expiration of the lease term, the landlord must serve a proper written rent increase notice. For a 2.3% rent increase, a 30-day written notice is sufficient. The notice should clearly state the current rent, the new rent amount, the percentage increase, and the effective date of the increase.
The notice should not simply ask the tenants to advise whether they intend to remain in the unit. If the landlord intends to impose the 2.3% increase, the notice should expressly state that the rent increase will take effect on the applicable date. The required Oakland RAP Notice should also be included with the rent increase notice, along with your Business Tax certificate.
Please also note that, in Oakland, the expiration of a lease term by itself does not require the tenant to vacate. If the tenant remains in possession after the lease expires and the landlord continues accepting rent, the tenancy generally continues on a month-to-month basis under the same terms, except as properly modified by a valid rent increase or change of terms notice.
For your reference, the City of Oakland’s rent increase information page is here:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/Community/Housing-Programs-Support/For-Landlords/Allowable-Rent-Increases/Learn-More-About-Allowable-Rent-Increases
The Oakland RAP forms and notices page is here:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/Community/Housing-Programs-Support/Rent-Adjustment-Program-RAP/For-Property-Owners/Rent-Adjustment-Program-Forms-Notices-for-Property-Owners
Richard Beckman, of Beckman Feller & Chang P.C., has been practicing landlord-tenant law for over 26 years, primarily in rent-controlled jurisdictions such as San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley. He represents clients in a broad range of real estate-related disputes, including partition of co-ownership interests, purchase contract disputes, insurance coverage analysis and land use. Mr. Beckman also specializes in all aspects of landlord-tenant issues, representing landlords and tenants in residential and commercial matters. He can be reached at 510-548-7474; or by email at: [email protected]; or by visiting the website at www.bfc-legal.com.