End of session report: CAA advocacy reshapes rental housing legislation

This proposal, pulled from consideration after advancing briefly in the spring, sought sweeping changes to California's rent cap law known as AB 1482. It would have reduced allowable rent increases to 2% plus inflation - not to exceed 5%, removed exemptions for single-family homes and condominiums, and eliminated the law's 2030 sunset date. CAA testified against the bill and mobilized thousands of members to write letters and more than 150 to travel to Sacramento in opposition. CAA warned that the bill would have worsened California's housing shortage by discouraging investment and limiting new housing construction and cited evidence from the Legislative Analyst's Office and pro-housing groups that rent control measures restrict supply.

This bill began as a proposal to cap and restrict fees charged by rental property owners. After extensive discussions with CAA, the measure was significantly amended to instead focus on advertising and disclosure of fees, with particular attention to preserving the ability of landlords to use the Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS) for unmetered utilities such as water, sewer, gas, and electricity. Ultimately, CAA and Haney agreed to pause the proposal for the year to allow continued collaboration and refinement. Haney's office thanked CAA for its constructive engagement, and the association remains committed to ensuring any future version reflects a balanced and fair approach for all stakeholders.

SB 381 would have capped late fees at 2% of monthly rent, prohibited them unless rent was at least seven days overdue, banned processing fees such as convenience or check-cashing fees, prohibited pet rent while allowing only a capped refundable pet deposit, and eliminated charges for tenant parking. It also would have revised screening fee rules, limiting charges to the actual cost of background checks and eliminating recovery for staff time - undoing a balanced law CAA sponsored in 1996. A second bill - SB 681 - which advanced further in the process before stalling for the year, specifically would have prohibited landlords from charging processing fees when a tenant paid rent or deposits and banned fees for owning a household pet. It also would have capped allowable fees at no more than 5% of monthly rent and limited additional fees to those explicitly listed in a rental agreement. CAA issued strong objections, warning that these measures would have created financial burdens for rental housing providers, reduced transparency for tenants, restricted screening practices that help ensure safe rental communities, and removed policies that support efficient parking management. Both bills failed to move forward this year.

This bill would have extended California's notice period for nonpayment of rent from three days to 14 days, excluding weekends and judicial holidays. It also would have required landlords to include language in pay-or-quit notices informing tenants that they could stop the eviction process by paying all rent owed before a lockout occurs. CAA testified against the proposal, warning that it would have delayed rent payments and forced landlords to operate as creditors, particularly burdening small owners. Embert Madison, part of CAA's state advocacy team, told lawmakers that moving the effective due date to the middle of the month would have created serious financial challenges for housing providers who must cover mortgages, taxes, maintenance, and payroll on time. Although some problematic provisions were removed during amendments, the 14-day notice requirement remained. CAA opposed the measure throughout the legislative process, and it ultimately failed passage.

As introduced, this bill would have sharply increased penalties under the price-gouging law, extended local emergency proclamations indefinitely without local government review for 365 days (instead of every 30 days as required by existing law), applied the 10% rent cap to commercial property, and expanded the definition of housing to cover all leases, even those longer than a year. It also prohibited owners from recovering disaster repair costs through rent increases. Following CAA's advocacy, many of these provisions were removed in later amendments. The bill failed passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This bill initially would have required landlords to pay for "security accommodations" requested by tenants who are victims of domestic violence (e.g., cameras). At CAA's request, amendments clarified that tenants requesting accommodations must pay the costs. The bill failed passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This bill would have prohibited public pension funds from investing in or financing housing development projects unless they met strict labor mandates such as prevailing wage and skilled workforce requirements. The proposal risked drying up a major source of housing investment in California.

This proposal sought to restrict rental pricing algorithms. Pérez emphasized that the measure was not intended to ban algorithms altogether but rather to target those that access data unavailable to the public. In the rental market, algorithms often pull data from listing websites to help landlords understand the marketplace, but critics argue that some tools incorporate private data to coordinate rent increases. As initially introduced, the bill would have banned the sale or use of commercially available rental pricing software, even when those tools relied only on publicly available information. CAA opposed the bill and, in an Aug. 7 letter, warned that it would impose excessive liability on landlords who use common pricing tools and would create extensive penalties. The measure also would have allowed lawsuits by tenants, in addition to enforcement actions by the attorney general and local governments. CAA engaged in negotiations and proposed an alternative framework to preserve landlords' independent decision-making while addressing concerns about anti-competitive practices, but those proposals were not accepted. The association likened the liability provisions to punishing someone for driving a car simply because they "should have known" something was wrong under the hood. The bill failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

This bill would have imposed the state's just-cause eviction law on rental housing rebuilt after disasters. Under current law, new housing is exempt from just-cause for the first 15 years. SB 522 targeted units damaged or destroyed by disasters and rebuilt, requiring that the new units immediately comply with just-cause eviction rules if they applied before the disaster. As initially introduced the bill also capped rents. CAA and coalition partners warned that the bill would have undermined financing and discouraged reconstruction, explaining in a floor alert that just-cause protections complicate underwriting and can reduce appraisals, loan proceeds, and collateral. CAA emphasized that owners who suffer disaster losses deserve support, not new restrictions. The bill was placed on the Assembly's inactive file Sept. 10.

This bill addressed rental housing during declared emergencies. It would have extended declarations of emergency and enforcement to all counties bordering the county in which the disaster occurred. CAA objected to the provisions, arguing they were overly broad and could have created compliance burdens without improving consumer protections. After advocacy from CAA, the bill was amended to remove the adjacent-counties language. With these changes, the measure advanced to the governor's desk without the provisions that had triggered CAA's opposition. The primary language in the bill remains, which requires a housing listing platform to remove an advertisement if notified by local, regional, or state law enforcement agencies that the price for the listing violates the provisions of the Penal Code that regulates declarations of emergency and rent caps.

As introduced, this bill would have tied a city's Housing Element compliance (which is a mandatory component of local plans that outlines how a local government will address its housing needs). The bill went to the governor with language that awards points to local governments that promote housing construction.

This bill originally would have forced landlords to translate eviction notices and complaints into multiple languages. Following sustained advocacy from CAA, the bill was amended to shift responsibility to the Judicial Council of California, which must produce a standardized summons form in six languages by Jan. 1, 2027. With these improvements, CAA and its partners lifted their opposition, and the bill is now on the governor's desk.

As amended, this bill clarifies that if an owner elects to continue renting to existing tenants after a disaster, the owner must repair and remediate health risks, and the tenant may return at the same rental rate; importantly, it also clarifies the owner is not required to rebuild or make substantial repairs, addressing CAA's core concerns. The bill is on the governor's desk with CAA neutral.

This bill provides options for the way in which landlords can return security deposits. Earlier versions would have required certified mail for all returns and created ambiguity when multiple tenants vacated a unit. CAA raised concerns that these requirements would increase costs and cause confusion. After negotiations, the bill was amended to allow deposits to be returned by personal delivery, by check through first-class mail, or electronically if rent was originally paid that way (unless both parties agree otherwise in writing). For units with multiple tenants, the default is a check payable to all adults, but written agreements can designate how the refund is split and how the itemized statement is delivered. These changes resolved CAA's concerns, and the association supported the final version.

This bill allows landlords to continue to offer bulk internet billing arrangements while preserving tenants' ability to opt out if they do not want the service. Bulk internet agreements provide tenants with reliable, high-speed internet at significantly lower cost than individual plans, helping close the digital divide across income levels. Under AB 1414, tenants who do not need or want the service remain free to opt out. CAA supported the bill, calling it a fair and balanced approach that maintains owner flexibility while ensuring tenant choice.

This bill would prohibit evictions for nonpayment of rent during a "declared interruption" of Social Security benefits, defined as a delay of three or more days. During such periods, tenants could avoid eviction by signing a hardship declaration, which landlords would be required to provide upon request. These protections would apply to both rental housing and mobile homes and remain in effect through Jan. 20, 2029. Earlier versions of the bill proposed to freeze rents in Los Angeles which were removed after CAA's opposition. After the social security language was introduced, CAA testified that while it shares concern for vulnerable renters, the bill fails to provide corresponding support for housing providers, particularly small landlords who may rely on Social Security themselves. The association urged lawmakers to include broader financial assistance for both tenants and owners. Despite these concerns, the bill advanced and is now on the governor's desk, with CAA opposed.

This bill adds new requirements on rental property owners to include in their units a refrigerator and a stove. The bill originally required that those appliances be less than 10 years old. That language was later removed when CAA objected. Last-minute amendments added language requiring landlords to include specific contract terms for situations where tenants want to bring their own refrigerators. The amendments also give tenants the right to change their mind later and request a refrigerator from the landlord. CAA opposed the final version, warning that these provisions create compliance traps, particularly for small owners who fail to include the specific language.

As introduced, AB 747 provided extensive new requirements on process servers when serving complaints and notices, effectively making it harder to serve documents. This measure was amended late in the session to allow tenants to challenge service at the end of eviction proceedings and have cases dismissed altogether if service was found improper. CAA described the language as a significant departure from existing California law, under which the proper remedy for improper service is to set aside the default judgment and allow the tenant to answer the complaint-not dismissal of the action. Adding dismissal as an available remedy introduces an avenue for delay and cost escalation for the courts as well as the plaintiffs. CAA described the change as creating a new tool to disrupt evictions. CAA opposed the bill. The bill moved to the governor's desk, and CAA has requested a veto.