Below are questions asked by rental property owners regarding California rent control laws, followed by answers provided by eviction attorney Dennis Block.
Question One: My tenant demanded a jury trial in an unlawful detainer case. We served Requests for Admissions, but the tenant did not provide proper responses. Our attorney filed a motion to compel, which the court granted. The attorney then obtained a judgment on the pleadings, and the case ended without a jury trial. While I am very grateful to win the case and avoid an expensive jury trial, can you shed some light on how that happened?
Answer One: A tenant’s request for a jury trial does not guarantee that the case will actually reach a jury. A jury decides disputed facts. If the court determines there is no material factual dispute requiring a trial, the case may be resolved before trial through a motion.
In this situation, the tenant’s failure to properly respond to Requests for Admissions was significant. Requests for Admissions are written discovery requests asking a party to admit or deny specific facts, such as whether rent was unpaid, whether a notice was received, or whether a lease provision was violated.
When a party does not timely respond – or provides legally insufficient responses – the landlord may seek court intervention. Depending on the procedural posture, the landlord may file a motion to compel responses or, where no timely responses were served, seek an order deeming the matters admitted. If the court grants the request and the tenant is bound by admissions that establish the landlord’s claims, there may be no remaining facts for a jury to decide and therefore the court properly ruled in your favor based on a judgment on the pleadings.
Question 2: I have a vacant rental house. Shortly after the previous tenants moved out, new people moved in without my permission and are now claiming to be tenants. When I contacted the police, they refused to arrest them for trespassing and said it was a civil matter. What can I do in this situation?
Answer 2: This is a common and difficult problem for property owners. Once individuals take physical possession of a unit – even without permission – police departments in California generally treat the matter as a civil dispute rather than a criminal trespass. As a result, they often will not arrest the occupants or remove them from the property.
In these cases, the proper legal remedy is usually to file a forcible detainer action in court to regain possession of the property. This is a civil eviction process and can take several weeks or longer, depending on the court’s calendar.
However, California law gives property owners an important tool that can help in these situations. Under CA Penal Code section 602, a property owner may file a written authorization with the local police department that grants officers permission to arrest individuals for trespassing on the property. Many police departments have a specific form for this purpose, often referred to as a “Trespass Authorization Form,” “No Trespass Letter,” or “Private Property Trespass Authorization.”
Once this form is properly completed and filed with the police department, it typically remains valid for up to one year. With the authorization on file, officers may arrest people for trespassing without needing the owner to be present or to give additional permission at the time of the incident.
Question 3: I own a rental property in a city with local rent control. This year, I calculated the annual allowable increase based on the local CPI percentage. The math resulted in a fraction of a cent, so I rounded the new rent amount up by a half-cent to the next whole dollar. The tenant refused to pay, and now I am heading to trial for an eviction based on non-payment. My attorney says I might lose the entire case over this rounding. Is that possible for such a small amount?
Answer 3: In the world of rent control litigation, there is no such thing as a “de minimis” (insignificant) overcharge. Your attorney’s warning is accurate: rounding up – even by half a cent – can result in an “unlawful rent demand,” which is often a fatal defect in an eviction lawsuit.
Under most local rent control ordinances, as well as California’s AB 1482, a landlord is strictly prohibited from charging more than the legally-mandated maximum. Courts have consistently held that if a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit demands even one penny more than what is legally owed, the notice is defective. Because a valid notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an Unlawful Detainer (eviction) action, a defective notice means the landlord cannot prevail.
Why the “half-cent” matters: In a rent-controlled jurisdiction, the “legal” rent is a ceiling. If your calculation results in a maximum allowable rent of $2,000.49 and you round up to $2,000.50, you have effectively served a notice demanding rent that exceeds the legal limit.
At trial, the tenant’s attorney will argue that the notice is invalid because it overstates the rent due. If the judge agrees that the rent demanded was even slightly higher than the maximum permitted by the ordinance, the court will likely dismiss your Unlawful Detainer case.
The “safe” way to round: The rule of thumb for landlords in regulated areas is to always round down. If your calculation results in $1,850.505, setting the rent at $1,850.50 ensures you stay within the legal limit.
Question 4: I own a duplex that is subject to California’s Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482). I would like to sell the building vacant, so I have asked both tenants to move out and they both refused. My attorney suggested doing a major renovation. Can I require both tenants to vacate for that purpose?
Answer 4: Selling the property is not a cause to evict under AB 1482. Under AB 1482, a landlord generally needs a legally recognized “just cause” to terminate a tenancy after the tenant has continuously occupied the unit for at least 12 months.
A genuine substantial remodel may qualify as a no-fault just-cause reason, but the legal requirements are specific.
For AB 1482 purposes, a qualifying substantial remodel generally:
- Requires the tenant to vacate the unit for at least 30 consecutive days;
- Involves significant work that cannot safely or reasonably be completed with the tenant in place;
- Requires securing appropriate permits, where permits are required, prior to issuing a move out notice; and
- Involves substantial replacement or repair of major building systems or structural components – not merely cosmetic improvements, routine maintenance, or ordinary upgrades.
For example, repainting, replacing flooring, upgrading appliances, or making minor kitchen and bathroom improvements, generally would not justify an eviction based on substantial remodel. By contrast, extensive structural work or replacement of major systems may qualify if the statutory requirements are met.
The landlord’s termination notice must comply with AB 1482’s notice requirements, including a description of the work, the anticipated duration, and information about applicable permits. A no-fault termination also ordinarily triggers a relocation assistance obligation, typically equal to one month’s rent or a rent waiver for the final month, subject to applicable local rules.
Before serving any notices, the owner should work with qualified landlord-tenant counsel to confirm that the proposed work meets the statutory definition of a substantial remodel, that permits and documentation are in order, and that any city-specific tenant protections are satisfied.
Question 5: I inherited a six-unit apartment building. All six units are occupied, but I cannot locate written rental agreements for any of the tenants. One tenant has stored an inoperable vehicle on the premises. It is unsightly, appears not to run, and the tenant refuses to remove it. Can I evict the tenant even though there is no rental agreement?
Answer 5: Yes – potentially. The absence of a written rental agreement does not mean there is no tenancy or that the landlord has no remedies. A tenancy can be created orally or by conduct, such as the tenant occupying the unit and paying rent. The terms of the tenancy may be established by the parties past practices, applicable law, and reasonable property rules.
An inoperable vehicle may create a basis for action. In many jurisdictions, it is unlawful to store an inoperable, dismantled, wrecked, or unregistered vehicle on residential property, subject to limited exceptions
Before starting an eviction, the landlord should document the condition of the vehicle. Take dated photographs, note its location, record any visible missing parts, flat tires, expired registration, or other evidence showing that it is inoperable, and keep copies of any written requests to remove it. The landlord should also check the local ordinance and confirm whether the vehicle is in a location the tenant is entitled to use.
If the tenant refuses to correct the problem, the landlord may be able to serve a Three-Day Notice to Perform or Quit requiring the tenant to remove the inoperable vehicle, or make it operational. The notice should clearly identify the vehicle, describe its location and condition, explain the rule or law being violated, and state precisely what the tenant must do to cure the violation within the notice period.
If the tenant does not timely comply, the landlord may then file an unlawful detainer action seeking possession of the unit.
Question 6: One of my tenants changed the locks on the rental unit without my permission and is now refusing to give me a key. The lease does not contain a specific clause about changing locks, but it does state that the tenant may not make any alterations to the premises without the landlord’s prior written consent. Is changing the locks considered an alteration, and what can I do about it?
Answer 6: Yes. Even though the lease does not specifically mention changing locks, the general prohibition against alterations without written consent typically covers this type of change. Replacing the locks is considered an alteration to the property because it modifies the original hardware and security system installed by the landlord.
By changing the locks without obtaining written permission, the tenant has breached the lease agreement. Additionally, this action interferes with the landlord’s legal right to access the unit for repairs, inspections, and other lawful purposes.
The proper way to address this violation is to serve the tenant with a Three-Day Notice to Perform or Quit. The notice should clearly state that the tenant must either:
- Provide the landlord with a working key to the new locks, or
- Reinstall the original locks and provide a key.
The notice must give the tenant three days (excluding weekends and judicial holidays) to correct the problem. If the tenant fails to comply within the three-day period, the landlord may file an unlawful detainer action to evict the tenant for breach of the lease.
Question 7: I own a building with a strict no-smoking policy that is clearly stated in all the leases. One tenant has been smoking marijuana inside their unit, and the strong odor is bothering neighboring tenants. When I asked the tenant to stop, they claimed they have a medical marijuana recommendation and said I cannot prohibit them from using it. Can I still enforce the no-smoking rule?
Answer 7: Yes, you can generally enforce the no-smoking policy. A landlord’s right to prohibit smoking inside rental units is well established, and a tenant’s medical marijuana recommendation does not override a properly written no-smoking clause in the lease.
Under California law, a medical marijuana card or physician’s recommendation allows a patient to possess and use marijuana for medical purposes. However, it does not give the tenant the right to smoke or vape inside a rental unit when the lease prohibits smoking. Courts have consistently held that landlords may maintain smoke-free buildings and enforce those rules against all tenants, including those using marijuana for medical reasons.
The key issues in this situation are usually:
- Breach of lease: If the lease contains a clear no-smoking provision, smoking marijuana inside the unit violates that term.
- Nuisance: Strong marijuana odors that disturb other tenants can also be treated as a nuisance, even if the tenant is not technically “smoking” in the traditional sense.
- Secondhand smoke and odor complaints: Landlords have a duty to protect other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. Persistent complaints from neighbors can strengthen the landlord’s position.
Question 8: I have a tenant who has converted his one-bedroom apartment into what he calls a “private gentlemen’s lounge.” He installed red LED strip lighting, a small stage with a pole in the living room, and has been hosting “events” several nights a week. The neighbors are complaining about loud music, people coming and going at all hours, and one tenant even reported seeing a fog machine going off on the balcony. When I told him to stop, he said it’s just “harmless fun” and that I’m violating his right to use the apartment as he sees fit. Can I make him shut this down?
Answer 8: Unless your lease includes a clause allowing the tenant to operate a “gentlemen’s lounge, speakeasy, or low-budget Chippendales franchise,” this is almost certainly a lease violation. While tenants do have the right to use their rental unit, that right does not include turning it into a pop-up nightclub with a fog machine and a pole that was clearly not engineered to support the weight of a 200-pound man doing upside-down spins. This kind of activity typically violates several lease provisions. You should serve the tenant with a Three-Day Notice to Perform or Quit, requiring him to immediately remove the stage, pole, lighting, and fog machine, and to cease all “events.” If he fails to comply, you can proceed with an unlawful detainer.
Dennis Block, of Dennis P. Block & Associates, can be reached for information on landlord/tenant law or evictions by calling (800) 77-EVICT (38428), or by visiting www.evict123.com. Now, you can also read Dennis Block on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dennisblock. Landlord Tenant Radio Weekly Podcasts
can be heard at any time at www.EVICT123.com.