Below are questions asked by rental property owners regarding California rent control laws followed by answers provided by Attorney Richard Beckman.
Question 1: I heard there is a new state law that will require property owners to accept tenants with pets, no matter what the owner’s pet policy is for the building or unit. Is that true?
Answer 1: Not exactly. A bill in the California Assembly – AB 2216 – that would have that effect is making its way through the legislative process. Currently, it has passed out of the committee hearing it into the next stage, which is deliberation by the entire Assembly. This bill would “prohibit a landlord, before the landlord has accepted a prospective tenant’s application for a dwelling unit, from asking the prospective tenant or otherwise inquiring into whether the prospective tenant plans to own or otherwise maintain a common household pet in the tenant’s dwelling unit.
The bill would require a prospective tenant, no later than 72 hours before entering into a rental agreement, to inform the landlord if the prospective tenant plans to own or otherwise maintain a common household pet. The bill would prohibit a landlord from preventing a tenant from owning or otherwise maintaining a common household pet without reasonable justification. The bill would provide that this provision does not limit or otherwise affect a landlord’s ability to impose reasonable conditions on household pets, and does not apply to a rental agreement that prohibits the ownership or otherwise maintenance of a common household pet that was entered into before January 1, 2025.”
It is likely that the bill as currently drafted, particularly the restriction on additional security deposit, will undergo revisions prior to passage, should it pass after full consideration by the Assembly and Senate, and approval (or at least not veto) by the Governor.
Question 2: Am I able to give “banked” rent increases to my Oakland tenants yet?
Answer 2: Not just yet, but soon. As the Oakland Rent Board website states, “Oakland’s Emergency Moratorium continues to prohibit rent increases beyond the CPI on units covered under the RAP Ordinance through June 30, 2024. Owners must wait until after this date to pass along banked or petition-based rent increases. For rental units regulated by Oakland Municipal Code 8.22.010 et seq, any notice of rent increase in excess of the CPI Rent Adjustment, as defined in Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.22.020, shall be void and unenforceable if the notice is served or has an effective date during the Local Emergency, unless required to provide a fair return. Thus, any banked rent increase notice should be served no sooner that July 1, 2024
It should also be noted that the Emergency Moratorium on Rent Increases and Evictions only applies to tenancies regulated under the Oakland Rent Adjustment Ordinance. If covered, a rent increase must also be accompanied by the RAP notice form, available through the rent board’s website.
Question 3: I haven’t raised the rent on my Rohnert Park tenant since 2018. It’s a single-family home. How do I find out the most I can raise to be at market rate? And what are the proper steps to notify the tenant?
Answer 3: If the property is not subject to local rent control (Rohnert Park does not have such an ordinance other than as to mobile home parks), single family homes can be made exempt from the state rent control law known as the Tenant Protection Act, or AB 1482. However, it requires that a particular notice to the tenant has been provided, either in the rental agreement, or as an addendum. Any rental agreement that was entered into before 2020, almost certainly does not contain that notice, so it will have to be given in a separate addendum to the tenant. If exempt from rent control, then you can raise the rent to market rate (generally speaking, absent tenant claims of retaliation, etc). Rent increases must be served according to the requirements of Civil Code Section 827, which requires either personal delivery to the tenant, or sent by first class mail. Mailing adds five days to the notice period, though. Thus, if the increase is over 10%, a 90-day notice is required. Below that, only a 30-day notice is required. But if mailed, those periods are extended by five days. [AOA members may download a copy of the rent increase form with the attached proof of service by visiting www.aoausa.com.]
Question 4: My Santa Cruz apartment tenant will not sign a new lease on the same terms as the present lease. Which forms should I use to inform tenants that they are expected to move out at the end of lease.
Answer 4: If the tenant is in the first year of a one-year lease, and no local form of eviction control (‘just cause’) applies, then the tenant would not be covered by the state version of the ‘just cause’ law, AB 1482 (the Tenant Protection Act). Meaning you would not need any ‘just cause’ to not renew the tenancy. Depending on how your lease provides for renewal of the lease after expiration, the lease terminates on its last day and the tenant will be holding over after that and subject to eviction.
However, it is always recommended that the owner communicate to the tenant, well in advance, of the expiration date that the lease will not be renewed and the tenant will be expected to vacate by the termination date. This assumes no issues with the tenant being able to claim retaliation or discrimination is the reason for the non-renewal.
There is no ‘form’ for such notice that I am aware of, and simple language communicating the above should be fine.
Question 5: The property is a duplex. Is the criteria for Section 8 now that income can replace credit score? It’s the same I apply to other applicants – I just took out the part about following the same credit requirements.
“Section 8 and rental voucher applicants must have documented monthly income of three times their share of the rent, low debt, bank statements, tax return, and meet all our written rental criteria. Rental voucher program must cover the full 12 months of rent.”
Answer 5: It is not completely clear how the new law will be applied, but your revised application standards would not seem to violate the new rules, other than, possibly, the part about the “Rental voucher program must cover full 12 months of rent.” That aspect may be questionable, as it would seem to be out of the applicant’s control. But the new law allows you to use credit score, as long as you offer the applicant the option – if his or her score does not qualify – of proving the ability to pay their share of the rent. I might add the new statutory language to the application information, such that a Section 8 applicant is advised that “If you receive housing assistance such as ‘Section 8,’ and the housing provider requires a credit history, please be advised that the applicant whose credit score is below the required minimum has the option of providing lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicant’s reasonable ability to pay the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant, including, but not limited to, government benefit payments, pay records, and bank statements, in instances in which there is a government rent subsidy. If the applicant elects to provide lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicant’s reasonable ability to pay, the housing provider must provide the applicant reasonable time to respond with that alternative evidence and reasonably consider that alternative evidence in lieu of the person’s credit history in determining whether to offer the rental accommodation to the applicant.”
In other words, if the tenant’s credit report score is below the housing provider’s standard (e.g. minimum FICO score of 650 required…), AB 267 would require the HP to provide reasonably verifiable evidence of the applicant’s ability to pay their share.
Question 6: My apartment complex is in an unincorporated area of Alameda County and a few tenants there still owe me past due rent during the years 2019 to 2023. Is there anything I can do? Can I serve them 3-day-notices then start evictions?
Answer 6: Unpaid rent in Alameda County that accrued prior to April 2023 can never be subject to a three-day to pay or quit. But it may be sought in small claims court. And, since any rent that accrued more than 12 months ago also cannot be sought by 3 Day Notice, you are pretty much unable to pursue unpaid rent from any time before May 2023, and in a few days, that will change to June 2023.
Question 7: I wanted to ask about the 3-day notices to pay or quit. Are we able to file an eviction process after the third day or do we have to wait after the 30-day lapses for section 8 tenants?
Answer 7: You are referring to the issue of Section 8 tenants and the federal “CARES Act”, which is a topic of heated discussion among the landlord-tenant law attorneys and the courts. Even the various property owner’s organizations have mixed understandings of what is required when a tenant of a ‘covered unit’ owes rent. There is even uncertainty about what tenants are covered under the Act. Some attorneys, and organizations, assert that if even one tenant in a building is subject to the CARES Act, all units in the building are similarly covered.
The Act defines “covered property” to includes any property that participates in certain federal housing programs or that has a federally backed mortgage loan, and, under a 2022 amendment to a related law, “any other Federal housing programs providing affordable housing to low- and moderate income persons by means of restricted rents or rental assistance, or more generally providing affordable housing opportunities, as identified by the appropriate agency through regulations, notices, or any other means.” This includes Public housing (42 U.S.C. § 1437d), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (42 U.S.C. § 1437f), Section 8 project-based housing (42 U.S.C. § 1437f), Section 202 housing for the elderly (12 U.S.C. § 1701q), Section 811 housing for people with disabilities (42 U.S.C. § 8013), Section 236 multifamily rental housing (12 U.S.C. § 1715z–1), Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) housing (12 U.S.C. § 17151(d)), HOME (42 U.S.C. § 12741 et seq.), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (42 U.S.C. § 12901, et seq.), McKinney-Vento Act homelessness programs (42 U.S.C. § 11360, et seq.), Section 515 Rural Rental Housing (42 U.S.C. § 1485), Sections 514 and 516 Farm Labor Housing (42 U.S.C. §§ 1484, 1486), Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants (42 U.S.C. § 1490m), Section 538 multifamily rental housing (42 U.S.C. §1490p-2), and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) (26 U.S.C. § 42). See 34 U.S.C. § 12491(a)(3).
In other words, if the property or any tenant receives federal housing assistance, it is likely subject to the CARES Act. The question of whether a three day notice to pay (but not ‘quit’) can be served with the required 30 day notice to quit is also subject to dispute. However, at least in Alameda County, that issue has been resolved in favor of the tenant’s argument that a three-day notice will not be allowed. The presiding judge of the court recently dismissed a landlord’s unlawful detainer on that basis: Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained because Plaintiff was required to give Defendants thirty days to pay the overdue rent. See 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1). Plaintiff’s obligation is based on its acceptance of certain financial benefits from the federal government. Congress made clear that the term “covered dwelling” in the CARES Act is the same as the definition in the Violence Against Women Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 9058(a)(2)(A)(i). Plaintiff’s Ten Day Notice to Pay acknowledges that the property is a “covered property” under the Violence Against Women Act. See 34 U.S.C. § 12491(a)(3)(H). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendants because the Ten Day Notice to Pay Rent is facially deficient. Although there is no direct case authority in California, Defendants have submitted persuasive case authority regarding the special notice requirements of the CARES Act in Washington, Colorado, and Ohio. Defendants’ out-of-state authorities are identified on page sixof their memorandum of points and authorities.
Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Williams and Chancellor is DISMISSED.
Thus, regardless of what a final court (appellate level) may determine, for the moment, any non-payment of rent notice in Alameda County should comport with this ruling, i.e., a 30 Day Notice to Pay or Quit.
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; email [email protected] or by visiting the website www.bfc-legal.com.