Below are questions asked by rental property owners regarding California rent control laws, followed by answers provided by eviction attorney Dennis Block.
Question One: We’ve heard that Los Angeles County now requires a tenant to owe more than twice the fair market rent before a landlord can serve a notice for nonpayment of rent. Is this correct, and how does it affect our ability to enforce lease terms? My property is located in Hawthorne, California.
Answer One: Your understanding of the “threshold” requirement for nonpayment of rent is correct as it pertains to specific jurisdictions. Under current County regulations, a landlord is prohibited from serving a “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” unless the total amount of rent owed by the tenant exceeds two months of the Fair Market Rent (FMR) as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
However, it is critical to note the jurisdictional limitations of this ordinance. This specific threshold requirement applies exclusively to residential rental units located within the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Because your properties are located within the incorporated City of Hawthorne, they fall under the municipal jurisdiction of that city rather than the County’s unincorporated protections in this specific regard. Consequently, this “two times FMR” threshold does not apply to your units in Hawthorne. You may continue to serve notices based on standard California state law.
Q2: I heard that the Court of Appeal struck down the Los Angeles ordinance requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance when tenants move out after a lawful rent increase that exceeds 8%. Does this mean I no longer have to pay relocation fees if a tenant chooses to leave because of a lawful rent increase?
A2: Yes, based on the recent California Court of Appeal ruling, the City of Los Angeles cannot enforce that ordinance. The court determined that requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance under those circumstances was unlawful. As a result, if a tenant voluntarily vacates in response to a lawful rent increase, you are no longer obligated under that ordinance to provide relocation payments. However, you should still ensure your rent increases comply with all applicable state laws and any other valid local regulations that remain in effect.
Q3: I intend to implement a rent increase for my tenant. What are the statutory notice period requirements, and what are the legally acceptable methods for serving this notice under California law?
A3: Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827, the required notice period depends on the magnitude of the increase. For a cumulative increase of 10% or less within any 12-month period, you must provide a minimum of 30 days’ written notice. If the increase exceeds 10%, a 90-day written notice is required.
Regarding service of process, the notice may be served via personal delivery to the tenant or through first-class mail. Please be advised that if you elect to serve the notice by mail, you must add an additional five calendar days to the notice period to account for postal transit, effectively requiring 35 or 95 days’ notice, respectively. We recommend obtaining a Certificate of Mailing or other proof to maintain a clear evidentiary record of compliance.
Q4: I recently lost an eviction action that I pursued based on a violation of the rental agreement. My tenant brought in a homeless person to live with him without any notice. When the case came to trial, it was established that I had taken rent from my tenant during this eviction process. I am confused as to why this would cancel my case. I was not seeking rent, so I was entitled to the rent.
A4: Under California law, accepting rent from a tenant after you have knowledge of a lease violation can undermine or “waive” your right to proceed with an eviction based on that violation. The rationale is that by accepting rent, you are effectively affirming the continuation of the tenancy despite the alleged breach, which is inconsistent with pursuing possession based on that same breach.
In your situation, once you became aware that the tenant had an unauthorized occupant in violation of the rental agreement, you were required to elect a course of action: either enforce the lease by serving the appropriate notice and proceeding with eviction, or continue the tenancy. By accepting rent during the pendency of the eviction action – particularly if the rent covered a period after you knew of the violation – the court likely found that you waived the breach or reinstated the tenancy.
Q5: My property is subject to Statewide Rent Control. I keep seeing the terminology of “Fault” vs “No Fault” regarding termination of a tenancy. Can you explain the difference?
A5: Under the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482), which established statewide rent control and “just cause” eviction protections, the distinction between “At-Fault” and “No-Fault” terminations is critical. This framework determines whether you are required to provide the tenant with an opportunity to cure a violation and whether you owe them relocation assistance.
“At-Fault” Just Cause refers to a termination based on the tenant’s own actions or lease violations. In these scenarios, the landlord generally does not owe the tenant any relocation assistance. Common examples include:
- Non-payment of rent: Failure to pay the agreed-upon rent.
- Breach of a material lease term: Violating specific terms of the rental agreement (e.g., unauthorized occupants or illegal subletting) after being given a written notice to “cure” the violation.
- Nuisance or Waste: Causing significant damage to the property or disturbing the peace and quiet of other neighbors.
- Criminal Activity: Using the premises for illegal purposes.
“No-Fault” Just Cause refers to a termination based on the landlord’s needs or legal requirements, through no fault of the tenant. Because the tenant has done nothing wrong, California law requires the landlord to provide relocation assistance (equal to one month’s rent) or a rent waiver for the final month of the tenancy. Common examples include:
- Owner Move-In: The landlord or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents intend to occupy the unit.
- Withdrawal from the Rental Market: Often referred to as “Ellis Act” removals, where the landlord intends to stop renting the unit entirely.
- Substantial Remodel/Demolition: The landlord intends to perform major structural work that requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 days and cannot be done safely with the tenant in place.
- Compliance with a Government Order: Vacating the unit due to an order issued by a government agency or court (e.g., to abate a “habitability” issue).
Distinguishing between these two is vital because misclassifying a termination can lead to a wrongful eviction lawsuit, and failing to pay relocation assistance in a “No-Fault” situation can render your termination notice legally void.
Q6: My former tenant is objecting to a deduction that I made from her security deposit for cleaning. I always use the same cleaning service company and their fee is $475 for a two- bedroom unit. I sent my tenant a copy of the invoice. She claims that when she left the apartment it was already clean. How should I handle this?
A6: In California, security deposit deductions for cleaning are governed by Civil Code Section 1950.5, which permits a landlord to deduct those amounts reasonably necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancy. Importantly, you may not charge for ordinary wear and tear, and a standard or automatic cleaning fee – regardless of condition – is not enforceable.
The fact that you consistently use a cleaning service that charges $475 does not, by itself, justify the deduction. The key issue is whether the unit actually required cleaning beyond the condition it was in when the tenant returned possession. If the tenant left the unit in substantially the same level of cleanliness, the deduction may be challenged as improper.
Q7: I have a duplex in the City of Glendale. The front and back yards are shared by both tenants. Last week, I was doing some maintenance in the backyard, and my tenant approached me demanding that I leave, as I had not served a proper notice that I would be accessing the premises. I just ignored him and he started to yell at me. Am I required to give notice in this situation?
A7: Under California law, the notice requirement for entry – set forth in Civil Code Section 1954 – generally applies to entry into a tenant’s dwelling unit, not to common areas of the property. Areas such as shared front and back yards in a duplex are typically considered common areas when they are not under the exclusive control of any one tenant.
If the backyard is in fact a shared space accessible to both tenants, you are generally permitted to enter and perform maintenance in that area without providing advance written notice, as you are not entering the interior of a tenant’s unit or an area leased exclusively to one tenant.
Q8: My tenant says the unit is “uninhabitable” because the Wi-Fi is slow and Netflix buffers during peak hours. Am I now legally required to provide high-speed internet, or just emotional support during loading screens?
Answer Eight: While buffering can test anyone’s patience, California’s habitability laws require essentials like heat, water, and electricity – not lightning-fast internet. Unless your lease specifically promises Wi-Fi service, you are not obligated to upgrade their streaming experience. The courts have not yet recognized “the spinning wheel of doom” as a breach of habitability.
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.