AB 1482 and SB 567: California Tenant Protections

The landscape of tenant protections in California has seen significant changes in recent years, with two key pieces of legislation shaping the landscape: Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, and its successor, Senate Bill 567 (SB 567). This article explores the provisions of both AB 1482, which was in effect until April 1, 2024, and SB 567, the current legislation governing tenant-landlord relationships.

Expansion of Just Cause Eviction Protections

• AB 1482 and SB 567:

  Both limit a landlord's ability to evict tenants without a valid reason ("just cause"). AB 1482 established stricter requirements for specific reasons landlords could previously use to evict without justification, such as owner occupancy or major renovations. These reasons now require following specific procedures and providing detailed notices.

• SB 567:

  Strengthens AB 1482's "just cause" protections further by extending them to tenants from day one of their tenancy. Previously, protections began after 12 months.

Consolidation and Enhancements

AB 1482 established a framework for tenant protections throughout most rentals in California. AB 567 doesn’t consolidate protections into one single code, but rather strengthens existing protections for some renters, and adds protections to previously exempt categories. 

Expansion of Just Cause Termination Requirements

AB1482 placed limitations on landlords' ability to terminate tenancies without proper justification These limitations were strengthened by AB 567, specifically in relation to just cause protections. AB567 introduced stricter requirements for two specific no-fault termination reasons: owner occupancy and substantial remodel. Landlords had to provide detailed notices and follow specific timelines when invoking these reasons. SB567 upholds these enhanced protections.

• ​​Owner Occupancy:

  • Under AB1482, landlords with the intent of personally occupying the unit had the ability to conduct no-fault evictions. This extended to their immediate family as well. However, SB567 now requires landlords or their families to reside in the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 continuous months after an eviction occurs. Additionally, the property owner/landlord is required to move into the vacated unit within 90 days of the tenant’s departure. Additionally, there are restrictions regarding the ability to re-rent the unit within a specific timeframe if the owner is not compliant with all requirements.

• Substantial Remodel:

  • Both AB1482 and SB567 allow landlords to evict tenants with a no-fault eviction for substantial renovations which would require the unit to be vacant. However, SB567 now requires a high degree of transparency from landlords when providing notice to the tenant. Landlords are now required to provide thorough information outlining the remodel within the eviction notice. If the remodel does not take place for any reason, the landlord must inform the previous tenant(s) with the intent of giving them the opportunity to reoccupy the rental home. 
  • Intent to demolish the property would also fall under this category. Landlords are now required to not only provide written notice to the tenant with specified information, but to include a description of the intended substantial remodel along with the estimated length of time the repairs will require. Additionally, landlords must provide tenants with a copy of the permits required to undertake the substantial remodel or demolition.. 

• Withdrawal of the unit from the rental market:

• • Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market can entitle a landlord to providing a tenant with a no-fault eviction. A situation that could fall under this category is if a landlord receives an order from a government agency regarding the habitability of the rental home that requires the tenant to vacate the property.

Establishment of Tenant Private Right of Action

AB1482 and the updates within its successor, SB567, introduced a provision with fairly significant implications for landlords/rental property owners: tenants have the right to take legal action for any alleged violations of the legislation. Ultimately, this means that tenants can sue their landlord in court if they believe that any rules have been broken. It is essential to ensure you are compliant with all laws and regulations, as landlords are responsible for even unintentional violations. Landlords should be aware of the potential actions that could be taken against them or risks introduced with SB567:

• Increased Legal Costs: 

  Even if you have the upper hand in court, being in a lawsuit can be extremely costly. Even if you do not receive any fines, the legal fees can quickly add up.

• Frivolous Lawsuits: 

  The potential for lawsuits, even ones that may seem baseless, can be very stressful and concerning to landlords. A previously happy tenant that receives a rent increase they disagree with, for example, have the opportunity to turn to legal avenues in retaliation. This means that even if you are certain you are adhering to all regulations and guidelines, you are not necessarily exempt from legal action. 

While these bills aim to protect tenants, the right to sue provision introduces a huge risk to landlords. It's crucial to stay up-to-date on the latest regulations and maintain detailed records to minimize the chance of facing legal action.

Continuation of Existing Exemptions and Disclosures

Both AB 1482 and SB 567 maintained exemptions and disclosure requirements established under previous legislation. Landlords must adhere to these provisions, such as the prohibition of waiving tenants' rights and ensuring transparency in rental agreements.

Exemptions are specific types of properties or situations that are not subject to the full range of protections outlined in the legislation. For example, this previously included single-family homes rented by a property owner who does not own more than four units under AB 1482. Under SB567, single-family homes not owned by a corporate entity or short-term rentals (30 days or less) are typically exempt. Landlords must be familiar with the specific exemptions that apply to their rental properties to ensure proper compliance.

Landlords are obligated to provide tenants with clear and accurate information about the rental property and their rights under the law.  This typically includes disclosures regarding:

• Rent: This includes the initial rent amount, any limitations on rent increases (including annual caps established by the legislation), and details on when and how rent increases can be implemented.
• Security Deposit: Landlords must disclose the amount of the security deposit, allowable deductions, and the timeframe for returning the deposit after tenant move-out.
• Lease Terms: A clear explanation of the lease agreement, including its duration, termination clauses (including just cause eviction provisions), and any renewal options.
• Landlord Contact Information: Landlords are required to provide tenants with their contact information for maintenance requests and other communication needs.

To learn more about required disclosure in California, read our full article, here. 

Understanding Rent Caps

SB567 doesn't alter the actual rent cap percentage but emphasizes stricter enforcement.  This means landlords are more accountable for adhering to the established limitations. It is essential that landlords considering a rent increase consult with legal counsel to ensure they are compliant, as the regulations can vary depending on the location of the rental property. 

Just Cause Eviction Protections

Both AB 1482 and SB 567 mandated just cause eviction protections for tenants who have occupied a property for at least 12 months. Landlords must have a valid reason for eviction, categorized as either at-fault (e.g., non-payment of rent) or no-fault (e.g., owner occupancy) according to Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.13. 

When evicting a tenant, landlords are required to provide proper notice and, in some cases, relocation assistance. If it is determined that relocation assistance is necessary, the landlord has a 15-day window within service of the notice to complete the payment. The amount can vary as it is dependent on the tenant’s monthly rental payment. However, it is required that the amount equals one month of rental payment as it states in the current lease agreement. If a tenant refuses to vacate the property after relocation assistance is provided to them, the landlord is entitled to the return of this payment.

A landlord does not have to provide relocation assistance in the event it is determined by any court or government agency that the resident is responsible for the reason behind the need to vacate. For example, if a tenant violates their lease and is subsequently evicted, they would not be entitled to relocation assistance.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Adding to the potential financial strain, strict penalties for non-compliance were introduced by both AB1482 and SB567. Landlords that are in violation, whether intentionally or unintentionally, face the possibility of being liable for actual damages, attorney's fees, and potentially treble damages for willful violations. This means a seemingly minor oversight, if deemed intentional by the court, could result in a tripled financial penalty. The window for tenants to pursue legal action for violations has been extended to up to three years, which creates a much larger period of liability for landlords.

For example, imagine a scenario where a landlord does not provide their tenant with a lease agreement that meets the requirements outlined in SB567. The tenant realizes the mistake and decides to take legal action by suing the landlord. The tenant is able to accurately claim a violation of their rights in this scenario. 

In a best-case scenario, the court may end up awarding the tenant actual damages. These damages could include compensation for any inconvenience, such as uncertainty about rent increases or maintenance responsibilities. However, in another very possible scenario, the court could determine the landlord’s violation was willful. This means that the landlord intentionally disregarded the law. This is where treble damages come into play.  In this case, the court might award the tenant three times the amount of the actual damages.

In this example, if the actual damages were found to be $500, the tenant has the ability to be awarded $1,500 by the court under the treble damage provision.  This significantly increases the financial penalty for the landlord, and highlights why maintaining compliance is so crucial. 

The changes presented in California by AB1482 and SB567 were created in an effort to stabilize the housing market for tenants. While this provides much-needed security for renters, it comes at a major cost for individual and landlords. The clear prioritization of tenants' needs within these bills, and the lack of protections for landlords, can lead to expensive legal battles. Further, stricter regulations and requirements for record-keeping place a major burden on landlords.

The limited protections offered to landlords in these bills create an unbalanced situation. This ultimately creates more risk for landlords. Landlords face financial risks from repairs, damages, or bad tenants with far fewer options for recourse. Restrictions on rent increases in addition to the rising property taxes and maintenance costs in California can reduce the number of independent landlords who are willing or able to rent out their homes.  Finding a balance between tenant protection and fair treatment for landlords is essential for a healthy rental market in California.