Trends in property management and tenant regulations in California often begin in larger urban areas, where changes have the potential to influence statewide practices. In the first section, we’ll take a look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, as recent developments there may indicate shifts that could spread to impact property managers and landlords across California.
In the second section, we’ll provide a post-election update and respond to a couple of recent questions circulating in the landlord community. We hope this update will give you insights to stay ahead of potential changes and better plan for policies that impact your properties.
Developments in L.A.
A Potential Bellwether for Statewide Policy Trends?
Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance
Overview
The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to strengthen its Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO), initially passed in 2021. The new amendments redefine “harassment” (in response to thousands of tenant complaints) to include any “bad faith” actions by landlords that cause harm or intimidate tenants.
The ordinance now enforces a minimum penalty of $2,000 per violation, making it easier for tenants to seek legal recourse and incentivizing attorneys to take on these cases by awarding attorney fees for successful claims.
Impact on Property Managers and Landlords
These changes mean closer scrutiny of tenant interactions and a heightened need to document all communications and actions to avoid potential allegations.
Key provisions clarify that actions like withholding essential services, entering units without notice, or applying undue pressure to vacate could be deemed harassment.
With this broadened definition, even small landlords are advised to be proactive about compliance and documentation, as these provisions may inspire similar legislative measures statewide.
Keeping a detailed record of all interactions with tenants can help protect against misinterpretations under this updated ordinance.
First Right of Purchase Proposal for Tenants and Nonprofits
Overview
The Los Angeles City Council is currently reviewing a policy proposal that would grant tenants and qualified nonprofits a “first right of purchase” for multifamily properties put up for sale.
Similar to policies adopted in cities like Washington, D.C., this proposal is part of a growing trend. The goal is to empower tenants to remain in their homes and allow nonprofit organizations to secure affordable housing options.
If enacted, this law would mean that when a landlord decides to sell a multifamily property, tenants or designated nonprofits would have the first chance to match any market-rate offers before the property is publicly listed. The proposed law is still in the discussion stages. However, the idea is to curb displacement and offer tenants more control over their housing situations.
Impact on Property Sales and Evictions
This proposal could introduce new considerations and potential delays in the sale process. With the requirement to first offer properties to tenants or nonprofits, there may be an extended period during which landlords need to await bids, adding layers of complexity for those aiming for quick transactions.
Additionally, landlords may need to disclose more detailed information about the property sale and give time for tenants or nonprofits to organize financially. These are the kinds of factors that could shift eviction and vacancy timelines.
If this policy is more braodly pursued, landlords should prepare for structured communication with tenants and possibly adjust their sales timelines.
Changes to “Substantial Remodel” Provisions in Just-Cause Evictions
Overview
The Los Angeles City Council is considering a proposal to eliminate “substantial remodel” as a valid reason for no-fault evictions under the California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482).
Currently, landlords can evict tenants to undertake significant renovations that cannot be completed with tenants in place. The proposed change would require landlords to use the city’s Primary Renovation Program (PRP) instead.
Impact on Property Upgrade Procedures
If this proposal passes, landlords would need to navigate the PRP to perform major renovations. The PRP involves a two-step process:
- Tenant Habitability Plan (THP): Before starting work, landlords must submit a THP to the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) detailing the scope of work and measures to minimize tenant disruption.
- Cost Recovery Application: After completing renovations, landlords can apply to recover costs through rent increases, subject to LAHD approval.
This process is more complex and time-consuming than the current “substantial remodel” eviction option. Landlords may face delays and increased administrative burdens, potentially affecting the feasibility of necessary property upgrades.
Impact on Evictions
Note: the information below is procedural and process observations and should not be taken as “pros” or “cons” or any position of support or opposition.
The proposed removal of “substantial remodel” as a no-fault eviction reason under the California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) would notably impact evictions for property upgrades.
Here’s a breakdown:
- Restriction on Evictions for Renovations: As outlined above, landlords needing to conduct significant work would have to use the city’s Primary Renovation Program (PRP), which focuses on temporary relocation rather than eviction.
- Longer, More Complicated Processes: Under the PRP, landlords would need to temporarily relocate tenants and follow strict guidelines to minimize disruption. This process will generally take longer than a straightforward eviction, requiring landlords to submit a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP) for approval before work begins and apply for cost recovery through rent adjustments afterward. These requirements will extend the timeline for completing necessary renovations, as landlords can’t simply remove tenants to complete work.
- Reduced Flexibility for Upgrades: For landlords, this proposed change removes the flexibility to vacate a unit entirely to carry out major repairs or upgrades. Instead, they must keep tenants informed and ensure they are temporarily relocated or have limited impact during the renovation. The PRP will create logistical and financial challenges, especially for extensive projects where keeping tenants on the property isn’t feasible.
- Possible Reduction in Upgrade Projects: Some landlords might delay or avoid certain renovation projects that would improve housing quality, especially if the cost and complexity of compliance are high. There may also be a reduction in property sales and upgrades aimed at marketing to clientele in higher income brackets.
Moving from eviction-based remodels to PRP-managed processes will prioritize tenant stability. However, landlords need to plan carefully and may see limitations in their ability to make timely upgrades, potentially impacting the quality and safety of older rental units.
Good to Know
Updates & FAQs
Statewide Rejection of Prop 33: No New Extreme Rent Control Measures
Overview
California voters recently defeated Proposition 33, a ballot measure that aimed to introduce stricter statewide rent controls, including vacancy control provisions. The proposition’s defeat marks the third time voters have chosen not to expand rent control laws statewide in recent years.
What This Means for Landlords
With Prop 33 voted down, existing rent control laws, such as those under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, remain in effect. Property owners will continue to have flexibility over rent adjustments during tenant turnover, avoiding vacancy control restrictions that could have limited rent increases between tenants.
The outcome means fewer immediate regulatory changes related to rent control. However, property owners need to stay informed, as rent control measures will inevitably be a continued point of debate and will likely reappear on future ballots.
Abandoned Personal Property
When a tenant moves out, it’s not uncommon for them to leave behind personal items—furniture, bikes, or other belongings. Property managers and landlords are right to consider the consequences, as mishandling abandoned property can lead to legal complications.
Q: “Am I allowed to remove items left by a tenant after they vacate the property?”
Answer: California landlords must follow a specific process when dealing with abandoned personal property to comply with California Civil Code sections 1980-1991, which govern the disposition of a tenant’s abandoned property.
- Inventory and Assess: Start by documenting all items left behind and assessing their value. If the total estimated value of the belongings is less than $700, you may follow a simpler disposal process. If the items are valued at over $700, stricter requirements apply.
- Notify the Tenant: Provide written notice to the tenant (either directly or, if unavailable, through certified mail to their last known address). This notice should detail the items left behind, give a clear deadline for retrieval, and outline any associated costs for storing the property. In California, tenants generally have 15 days from receipt of the notice to claim their belongings.
- Storage Requirements: While waiting for the retrieval period to pass, landlords must store the items safely. In many cases, keeping them on-site in a secure area is sufficient, but landlords can also opt for off-site storage if space is a concern.
- Disposal or Sale: If the tenant fails to retrieve their property within the given timeframe, landlords may dispose of items valued at less than $700. For items over $700, landlords are required to sell them at a public auction and may use the proceeds to cover storage and sale costs. Any remaining balance must be returned to the tenant if they come forward to claim it.
Micromobility Device Storage and Fire Risks
With the increasing popularity of e-bikes and e-scooters, landlords are discovering new challenges around safe device storage.
A significant concern is the fire risk associated with lithium-ion batteries, which power most micromobility devices. Improper charging or storage can lead to battery malfunctions, known for potentially causing fires.
Q&A: “Can I specify storage and charging guidelines for e-bikes and scooters in the lease to minimize fire risks?”
Answer: Yes, landlords can incorporate specific terms into lease agreements addressing the storage and charging of e-bikes and e-scooters to mitigate fire risks.
Implementing a Micromobility Device Storage Addendum allows property owners to set clear guidelines on where and how these devices can be stored and charged within the property. An addendum can specify designated storage areas, outline prohibited locations (such as inside units or common hallways), and establish safety protocols for charging.
When drafting addendums, it’s crucial to ensure they comply with local and state laws. For instance, California has enacted legislation (SB 712) that sets standards for storing e-bikes and e-scooters in rental properties. The law prohibits landlords from banning tenants from owning personal micromobility devices or storing and recharging up to one device per occupant in their dwelling unit, provided certain safety conditions are met.
Outright prohibitions may not be enforceable under current California law. Therefore, It’s advisable to consult legal counsel to ensure any lease modifications establishing safety guidelines align with existing regulations.
Connection to Evictions
Non-compliance with lease terms related to the safe storage and charging of micromobility devices could lead to lease violations. However, landlords must exercise caution given the protections afforded to tenants under laws like SB 712. Evicting a tenant solely for possessing or charging an e-bike or e-scooter, especially if they adhere to safety guidelines, may not be legally justified. Instead, landlords should educate tenants about safety protocols and provide designated areas for storage and charging to mitigate risks without eviction.
What does SB 712 say?
California Senate Bill 712 (SB 712), enacted in 2023, addresses tenants’ rights regarding personal micromobility devices, such as e-bikes and e-scooters. The bill prohibits landlords from restricting tenants from owning these devices or from storing and recharging up to one personal micromobility device per occupant within their dwelling unit, provided certain safety conditions are met. Specifically, the device must either not be powered by an electric motor, comply with recognized safety standards (such as UL 2849 for e-bikes or UL 2272 for e-scooters), or be insured by the tenant under a policy covering storage within the unit. Landlords may prohibit charging devices that do not meet these safety standards. Additionally, if a landlord provides secure, long-term storage that meets specified criteria, they may require tenants to use this facility instead of storing devices within the unit.