California rental property owners face a new wave of proposed legislation that could significantly alter how they manage their properties. Several bills currently under consideration in the California Legislature have been dubbed “Rental Housing Killer Bills” by the California Apartment Association, reflecting concerns about their potential impact on rental property operations and investment.
As California lawmakers continue their 2025 legislative session, these bills are actively being debated, amended, and advanced through various committees. Property managers and independent landlords need to understand what these proposed regulations could mean for their business practices, compliance requirements, and financial bottom line.
This article examines six key bills that could reshape rental property management in California:
- AB 1157: Amendments to the Tenant Protection Act that would lower rent caps and eliminate exemptions for certain property types
- AB 1248: Restrictions on rental housing fees for new tenancies starting in 2026
- SB 381: Additional limits on standard fees, including parking and pet rent
- AB 863: New requirements for multilingual rental notices
- SB 522: Just-cause provisions for disaster-rebuilt housing
- SB 610: Enhanced tenant protections during disasters
Let’s examine each of these bills and their potential implications for California’s rental housing providers.
*This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Educating yourself is very important and will streamline and reduce your legal risk. However, seeking professional legal counsel consolidates your efforts and pre-emptively ensures compliance whenever issues inevitably arise.
The Most Impactful Proposed Legislation
AB 1157: Amendments to the Tenant Protection Act
Among the most concerning bills for rental property owners is AB 1157, introduced by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). This legislation proposes significant changes to California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482), which currently establishes statewide rent control and just cause eviction requirements.
Under existing law, AB 1482 established a rent cap formula that allows for annual increases of 5% plus the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a yearly maximum cap of 10%. The law also established “just cause” eviction protections for tenants who have occupied a unit for at least 12 months. Importantly, AB 1482 included exemptions for newer housing (built within the last 15 years), single-family homes, condominiums, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and individually owned townhomes—provided they are not owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts.
AB 1157 would dramatically alter these provisions by:
- Permanently reducing the statewide rent cap from 5% plus inflation (maximum 10%) to just 2% plus inflation, with a maximum annual increase of only 5%
- Eliminating the key exemptions that currently protect single-family homes, condominiums, ADUs, and individually owned townhomes from rent control provisions
This change would significantly expand the scope of rent control in California, affecting approximately 40% of the state’s rental housing stock, which consists of single-family homes and condominiums. Many small rental property owners who invested in these property types specifically because they were exempt from strict rent control could find themselves subject to much tighter restrictions on rent increases.
AB 1157 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 24, 2025, where it will face its first major legislative hurdle.
AB 1248: Restrictions on Rental Housing Fees
AB 1248, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), proposes sweeping restrictions on the types of fees rental housing providers can charge tenants. This bill would significantly alter current fee structures that are presently permissible under California law.
Currently, California landlords can charge a variety of fees, including application fees, late fees, bounced check fees, utility cost-sharing arrangements, pet fees, parking fees, and charges for other amenities or services. These fees help offset operational costs, enabling property owners to tailor services to meet the needs of their tenants.
Under AB 1248, starting January 1, 2026, landlords would be prohibited from charging most common fees for new tenancies. The only permitted charges would be:
- Monthly rent
- Security deposits
- Rent stabilization fees authorized by local ordinances
- Charges for submetered water service
The bill creates significant ambiguity around late fees. While it references late fees “to the extent otherwise permitted by law,” California law does not explicitly authorize such fees, creating uncertainty about whether they would be allowed under the new rules.
AB 1248 prohibits explicitly:
- Ratio Utility Billing Systems (RUBS) that allocate water, gas, and trash costs among tenants
- Fees for tenant-initiated optional services like parking, laundry facilities, gym access, or pet accommodations
- Any increases in fees during existing tenancies, even if costs rise or tenants request additional services
Violations could expose landlords to substantial penalties, including actual damages of at least $1,000, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and triple damages for willful violations. The bill would apply different rules to tenancies beginning before and after January 1, 2026, creating a complex compliance framework for property managers.
SB 381: Additional Fee Restrictions
SB 381, introduced by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Fremont), represents another attempt to restrict rental housing fees, with provisions that overlap with and complement AB 1248.
Where AB 1248 broadly prohibits most fees for new tenancies, SB 381 targets explicitly standard fees, including charges for parking, pet rent, and administrative processing fees. The bill would prohibit landlords from charging these fees regardless of when the tenancy began.
SB 381 also proposes strict limitations on late fees. Under the bill, landlords could only charge late fees after rent is seven days past due, and the fee amount would be capped at just 2% of the monthly rent. This is a significant reduction from current practices, where late fees are often set at 5-10% of the rent amount and may be applied sooner after the due date.
AB 863: Foreign Language Translation Requirements
AB 863, also introduced by Assemblyman Kalra, would impose new requirements for multilingual rental notices. The bill would require landlords to provide rental documents in languages other than English under specific conditions.
Currently, landlords typically provide leases and notices in English, with translation requirements limited to specific situations or jurisdictions. Under AB 863, rental notices would need to be translated into multiple languages based on tenant demographics and language preferences.
This requirement would create significant compliance challenges, particularly for smaller landlords who may lack the resources to provide professionally translated documents in multiple languages.
Other Notable Bills
SB 522: Just-Cause Requirements After Disasters
SB 522, authored by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Fremont), focuses on housing that is rebuilt following disasters. The bill would impose just-cause eviction provisions on rebuilt housing if it was previously covered by the state’s Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) and had been issued a certificate of occupancy before being substantially damaged or destroyed.
This legislation would create a unique category for rebuilt properties, treating them differently than other newly constructed housing, which typically receives a 15-year exemption from rent control and just-cause requirements. Property owners who rebuild after disasters would face more regulatory restrictions than developers of entirely new housing, despite facing similar financing and construction costs.
The bill remains under consideration in the Senate.
SB 610: Tenant Protections During Disasters
SB 610, introduced by Senator Sasha Perez (D-Los Angeles) and co-authored by Senators Wahab and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would establish extensive new tenant protections following disasters. The bill focuses on limiting a landlord’s ability to terminate leases when properties sustain significant damage.
Under current law, landlords can terminate tenancies when rental units become uninhabitable due to damage caused by a disaster. SB 610 would place new restrictions on this process, requiring landlords to meet complex conditions before they can reclaim and repair their damaged properties.
The bill would impose detailed requirements that must be satisfied before a landlord could terminate a lease, even in cases of severe property damage that renders units uninhabitable. These include:
- Documentation requirements for the extent of damage
- Proof that repairs cannot be completed with tenants in residence
- Extended timelines for tenant notification and relocation
- Right of first refusal for tenants to return to repaired units
AB 246: Amended Bill
AB 246, introduced by Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), has undergone significant changes during the legislative process. The bill initially proposed a complete rent freeze for Los Angeles County following recent wildfires, which would have prohibited any rent increases for a full year.
Later amendments modified this approach to a temporary 3% rent cap that would have remained in effect through early 2026. However, after considerable debate, these controversial rent control provisions have been removed from the current version of the bill.
The amended version no longer contains the rent freeze or rent cap provisions that would have impacted Los Angeles County rental properties.
Practical Implications for California Landlords
If these bills pass, California rental property owners would face significant operational challenges and management adjustments. Property managers would need to:
- Revise rent increase policies to comply with the more restrictive caps proposed in AB 1157, particularly for previously exempt properties like single-family homes.
- Restructure fee schedules and billing systems to incorporate costs currently covered by separate fees into base rent, as both AB 1248 and SB 381 would severely limit additional charges.
- Update lease agreements and notice templates to comply with the new multilingual requirements under AB 863, which may require professional translation services..
- Develop new disaster response protocols that account for the more complex tenant protection requirements in SB 610 and the post-disaster rebuilding considerations in SB 522.
Implementation timelines vary across bills, with the most immediate impact coming from AB 1157’s rent cap changes if passed. The fee restrictions in AB 1248 would take effect for new tenancies starting January 1, 2026, establishing a two-tier system with different rules applying to existing versus new tenants.
Status and Next Steps
AB 1157 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 24, 2025. AB 863 was last amended on March 25 and is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. SB 381 and AB 1248 remain under consideration in their respective committees. SB 522 was amended on March 28 and remains active in the Senate, while SB 610 was most recently amended on April 8.
Key Takeaways
These proposed bills could fundamentally alter rental property management in California by:
- Expanding rent control to previously exempt properties and lowering allowable increase percentages, affecting investment returns and property values
- Eliminating most ancillary fees that many property owners rely on to cover specific costs, potentially forcing increases in base rents for all tenants
- Adding compliance burdens through new translation requirements and disaster-related restrictions
- Creating different rules for properties based on factors like construction date, disaster recovery status, and tenancy start date
The impact would vary by property type, with single-family rental homes facing the most dramatic regulatory changes, having long been exempt from many restrictive policies. Large multifamily properties with professional management may more readily adapt to new requirements, while small, independent landlords are likely to face proportionally higher compliance costs.
Mehigan Law – Professional Eviction Legal Services
Mehigan Law has served California’s property management and independent landlord communities for over 45 years. We take pride in our ability to give your business and each case the personal attention it deserves.
We understand that every business and property environment is different. Each requires a thorough understanding of the unique challenges and needs to successfully manage eviction compliance. We consider all overlapping layers of legal jurisdiction and help you efficiently navigate disruptions to normal business operations.
Contact us today to set up a consultation or ask questions about a specific eviction challenge you’re facing. We handle notices, Unlawful Detainer filings, litigation, and court processes. We’re ready to assist, whether it’s laws, policy, procedure, or the eviction process.