Navigating New California Eviction Laws and Tenant Protections in 2025

Summary: California has recently implemented significant changes to its landlord-tenant laws, especially in 2024 and 2025. This article provides an updated overview of new eviction procedures and enhanced tenant protections that landlords and legal professionals need to know. Key updates include longer timeframes for eviction responses, stricter requirements for “no-fault” evictions, new limits on security deposits, additional safeguards for domestic violence survivors, adjustments to rent control rules, and notable failed proposals that, while widely discussed, did not become law.

Key Updates at a Glance:

• Extended Eviction Response Time: Tenants now have 10 business days (up from 5) to file an answer in an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit. This change, effective January 1, 2025, gives renters more time to seek legal help and respond, though it may lengthen the eviction process for landlords.

• Stricter “No-Fault” Eviction Rules: Changes to the Tenant Protection Act (effective April 1, 2024) impose new requirements on two no-fault eviction grounds – owner move-ins and substantial remodels. Landlords must provide detailed notices and meet specific conditions (such as move-in deadlines and permit documentation), or face penalties and potential tenant reoccupation rights.

• Security Deposit Limit: A new law (AB 12) caps residential security deposits at no more than one month’s rent for nearly all rentals, whether furnished or unfurnished. This took effect July 1, 2024, dramatically lowering the previous state maximum (which was 2 months for unfurnished units and 3 months for furnished). Small landlords with minimal holdings have a limited exception allowing up to two months’ deposit, but only if they own no more than two properties (with 1–4 units each) and not when the tenant is an active-duty service member.

• Security Deposit Documentation: Beginning 2025, landlords must photograph the rental unit’s condition at move-in and move-out, especially if intending to withhold any deposit funds for repairs or cleaning. Photos from before move-in and after move-out (both before and after any repairs) must be provided to the tenant, enhancing transparency in deposit deductions. These requirements phase in on April 1, 2025 (for move-out photos) and July 1, 2025 (for move-in photos).

• Domestic Violence Safeguards: Effective January 1, 2025, landlords must change the locks within 24 hours at their own expense if a tenant or a household member provides documentation of being a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder abuse. If the landlord doesn’t act in time, the tenant may change the locks and the landlord must reimburse the cost within 21 days. Acceptable proof now extends beyond police reports and restraining orders – for instance, a written statement from a qualified third-party counselor or health practitioner is enough to require a lock change. Landlords who fail to comply face financial penalties.

• No More Junk Fees for Notices/Payments: A 2025 law (SB 611) prohibits landlords from charging tenants added fees for paying rent by check or for the service of notices. These common “convenience” or notice delivery fees are now illegal. Moreover, if a landlord lawfully charged an active-duty military tenant more than the standard deposit (under an exemption), the lease must clearly explain the excess charge and the excess must be refunded after 6 months of timely rent payments.

• Rent Control Status Quo (AB 1482): The statewide rent cap (established by AB 1482) remains in effect. Annual rent increases are generally limited to 5% plus inflation, capped at 10% in a 12-month period for most rental units. No new state law has lowered this cap. Also, the just-cause eviction requirement (no eviction without “at-fault” cause or specified “no-fault” grounds after 12 months of tenancy) continues to protect most California renters. However, SB 567 (2023) amended the Tenant Protection Act to close loopholes – notably tightening owner move-in and remodel evictions as described above – but it did not change the rent cap or expand coverage of rent control.

• Local and Emergency Rules: Nearly all COVID-19 emergency tenant protections and local eviction moratoria have expired as of 2023-2024. For example, Los Angeles County’s temporary eviction moratorium ended in 2023 and the City of L.A.’s freeze on rent increases for rent-controlled units ended in early 2024. Landlords in various jurisdictions should ensure they are up to date, as some local governments enacted permanent tenant protection ordinances (such as just-cause eviction rules in areas previously exempt). Always check local laws in addition to state law.

• Failed or Pending Proposals: A number of high-profile tenant protection measures were considered but not enacted. For instance, SB 436 (2024), which sought to extend the mandatory “pay or quit” notice for rent nonpayment from 3 days to 14 days, did not pass out of committee. Likewise, an attempt to expand local rent control (SB 466, 2023) by weakening the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act failed in the legislature. California voters also rejected a rent control ballot initiative (Prop 33) in November 2024 that would have allowed cities/counties to impose broader rent caps by repealing Costa-Hawkins. These failed measures, while not law, are important for context – landlords may have heard of them and should know they are not in effect (though similar ideas could resurface in future legislation).

Below is a detailed breakdown of these changes, with references to the relevant statutes and authoritative guidance. Each section provides insight into how the law now stands in 2025 and what landlords and legal practitioners should do to comply.

Just Cause Evictions and Notice Requirements (Tenant Protection Act Updates)

Background: California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) established “just cause” eviction rules and rent increase limits statewide. In covered properties, a landlord cannot evict a tenant who has lived in the unit for 12 months or more without a valid cause. Acceptable causes are categorized as either “at-fault” (tenant misconduct such as nonpayment of rent, lease violations, nuisance, illegal activity, etc.) or “no-fault” (owner’s business or personal decisions like taking the unit off the market, moving in, or performing substantial renovations). The law enumerates specific reasons in each category, and no-fault evictions generally require the landlord to pay relocation assistance equal to one month’s rent to the displaced tenant (or credit it against rent due) per Civil Code §1946.2.

2024 Updates (SB 567 – “Homelessness Prevention Act”): In 2023, California passed SB 567 which tightened certain aspects of no-fault evictions under AB 1482, effective April 1, 2024. Landlords planning an Owner Move-In (OMI) or a Substantial Remodel eviction must now navigate additional procedural hurdles:

• Owner Move-In Requirements: The owner (or their eligible family member) must move into the unit within 90 days of tenant vacancy and use it as a primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months. The notice of termination for an OMI eviction must include the name and relationship of the person moving in, and landlords must act in good faith. If the landlord or relative fails to timely occupy the unit or does not stay the full 12 months, the law obligates the landlord to offer the unit back to the evicted tenant at the prior rent and terms, and reimburse the tenant for moving expenses. Additionally, an OMI eviction cannot be used if there is a comparable vacant unit available on the property – the landlord cannot choose to evict one tenant for owner use if another similar unit is already empty. These changes aim to prevent abuse of the owner move-in excuse for eviction.

• Substantial Remodel Requirements: Landlords invoking the “substantial remodel” ground must now provide specific details and proof. The termination notice must describe the scope of work, include copies of any building permits, and inform the tenant of their right to return to the unit if the work is not begun within the allotted time or not completed. By definition, a “substantial remodel” still means work that requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 days and involves significant structural, plumbing, electrical, or other systems upgrades or hazard abatement that cannot be done safely with the tenant in place. Cosmetic improvements or minor repairs do not qualify. Under the new law, if the remodel doesn’t commence or finish, the displaced tenant can return to the unit at the previous rent. Landlords who evict for remodel in bad faith or without meeting these requirements could face legal penalties (including tenant claims for wrongful eviction).

These SB 567 provisions tighten the just cause standards by ensuring landlords follow through on stated reasons. Non-compliance is risky: a landlord who evicts under false pretenses (for example, claiming an owner move-in or remodel without actually doing so) can face tenant lawsuits, hefty penalties for wrongful eviction, and even local enforcement actions. Landlords should carefully document their compliance – e.g., proof of move-in, work contracts, permits – to defend against any claims of bad faith.

Continued Just Cause Coverage: Remember that AB 1482’s just-cause and rent-cap rules apply to most multi-unit residential properties statewide, but there are exemptions. Single-family homes and condos not owned by a corporation or REIT, owner-occupied duplexes, and new constructions less than 15 years old are exempt, among others. If an exemption applies, landlords must have given the required exemption notice in the lease or addendum for it to be effective (for example, the AB 1482 exemption disclosure for single-family homes). Otherwise, tenants might still be protected by just cause rules. And regardless of exemption, local ordinances (in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, etc.) may impose their own just-cause eviction rules that could be even more stringent. Always verify both state and local requirements before terminating a tenancy.

Extended Time for Tenants to Respond to Eviction Lawsuits (AB 2347)

One of the most significant procedural changes taking effect in 2025 is Assembly Bill 2347, which gives tenants more time to respond once an eviction case is filed in court. Starting January 1, 2025, tenants have 10 court days to file an answer (or other responsive pleading) to an unlawful detainer complaint, instead of the previous 5 court days. This effectively doubles the window for tenants to obtain legal advice or assistance and prepare their response.

• Rationale: Tenant advocates argued that the 5-day answer period (which includes weekends if not judicial days) was too short, especially in rural areas or for unrepresented tenants who need to find help. Many tenants were losing eviction cases by default due to missing the deadline. With 10 business days, tenants stand a better chance of responding and asserting defenses. (For context, most civil lawsuits give defendants 30 days to respond, so this change, while lengthening evictions modestly, still keeps them faster than a typical civil case.)

• Impact on Landlords: Landlords will need to adjust expectations on the timeline for eviction cases. The extended answer period means that obtaining a default judgment will take longer in cases where tenants initially don’t respond. It may also increase the likelihood of tenants contesting evictions, since they have more time to seek legal aid. However, California’s eviction process remains relatively expedited compared to normal civil litigation – the law balances giving tenants a fair opportunity to respond with landlords’ interest in moving cases along. Notably, the main landlord trade group (CAA) did not formally oppose AB 2347, suggesting recognition that a modest extension was a reasonable compromise.

• Faster Hearing on Pre-Trial Motions: In exchange for the longer answer time, AB 2347 also targets delay tactics by requiring quicker court hearings for certain motions that tenants sometimes use to stall evictions. Under prior law, if a tenant filed a motion to quash service or a demurrer (challenging the complaint), the hearing on that motion could be set many weeks out, effectively pausing the eviction. AB 2347 mandates that courts schedule hearings on a motion to quash, demurrer, or motion to strike within 5 to 7 court days, absent good cause for delay. This means such preliminary motions will be heard and decided faster, potentially preventing an extra month’s delay that used to occur in some cases. Landlords benefit from this by getting to the merits of the eviction case sooner if the tenant files a motion solely to buy time.

• No Change to Notice Periods (Yet): Importantly, AB 2347 does not change the notice periods for termination notices before a lawsuit is filed. For instance, a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit is still 3 calendar days (excluding weekends/holidays per existing law) and a standard 3-Day Notice to Cure or Quit for breach or 30/60-Day Notice to terminate (for no-fault or end of lease) remain the same. There was a separate proposal in 2025 (SB 436) to extend the pay-or-quit notice from 3 days to 14 days, but that bill failed to pass as discussed later. Thus, landlords must continue to use the current legally required notice periods and forms, but once an unlawful detainer is filed, be aware that tenants get 10 court days to respond.

Practice Tip: Landlords and attorneys should update their court forms and timelines to reflect the new 10-day answer rule. Court-issued summons forms are being revised to notify tenants of the 10-day deadline. Until new forms are in circulation, be cautious to ensure any summons served on the tenant correctly states the new deadline (courts have issued local directives on this). Also, be prepared for the possibility that more tenants will file answers – meaning more hearings or trials – now that they have additional time to respond. This makes having complete documentation and evidence for your eviction (and consulting an attorney if you’re a landlord navigating a contested eviction) even more important.

Security Deposit Reforms in 2024–2025 (AB 12 and AB 2801)

California landlords face new restrictions and obligations regarding security deposits as of 2024. These changes aim to reduce the upfront cost burden on tenants and increase fairness in how deposits are handled at move-out.

Maximum Deposit Amount – One Month’s Rent: The most impactful change is Assembly Bill 12 (2023), which took effect July 1, 2024, amending Civil Code §§1950.5 and 1940.45. Under AB 12, a landlord may not demand or receive a security deposit exceeding the equivalent of one month’s rent for residential rental agreements. This cap applies to both unfurnished and furnished units statewide. It marks a major reduction from prior law, which allowed up to two months’ rent for unfurnished and three months for furnished units (plus an extra month in each case if the tenant had a waterbed). Now, one month’s rent is the universal limit in most cases.

• Small Landlord Exception: There is a narrow exception in AB 12 for mom-and-pop housing providers. An owner with no more than two residential properties (and no more than four rental units total) can charge up to two months’ rent for a deposit. However, this exception only applies if the properties are owned in the landlord’s individual name (or via an LLC with all individual members, or a family trust) – not big corporate landlords. Even this exception is nullified if the tenant is an active-duty military member. Under existing Military and Veterans Code § 400, service members already had a lower deposit cap. AB 12 reinforces that small landlords cannot use their exemption to collect more than one month’s rent from military tenants. For any landlord who isn’t sure if they qualify for the exception, the safe approach is to adhere to the one-month limit.

• Practical Effects: Landlords in California can no longer routinely ask for two months’ rent as a deposit (which was common). For example, if monthly rent is $2,000, the maximum total deposit (including any pet deposit, keys, etc.) cannot exceed $2,000. Landlords who previously relied on larger deposits to mitigate risk will need to adjust. This may mean stricter tenant screening, requiring guarantors for marginal applicants, or accepting the higher risk of potential damage or default. Landlords are not allowed to label fees as something else to circumvent the cap – any fee or charge that functions as security (to be returned at end of lease if obligations are met) counts toward the cap. Non-refundable fees (like application fees) are separate, but California already strictly limits those by other laws. Violation of the deposit cap could result in tenants recovering twice the excess amount, plus attorneys’ fees, under Civil Code 1950.5.

Mandatory Photo Documentation (AB 2801): Another new law, AB 2801 (2024), adds documentation requirements to the move-in/move-out process to improve transparency in security deposit deductions. Starting in 2025, landlords must take time-stamped photographs of the rental unit’s condition at specific points and share them with the tenant:

• Before or at Move-In: Photographs taken at move-in (or immediately before) documenting the unit’s condition when the tenancy began.

• After Tenant Move-Out (Pre-Repair): Photographs taken soon after the tenant has vacated and turned in keys, before any repair or cleaning is done (for areas where deductions might be claimed). This provides evidence of any damage or mess the tenant left.

• After Repairs/Cleaning (Post-Repair): Follow-up photographs after the landlord has completed repairs or cleaning, if those costs are to be deducted from the deposit. This shows the completed work or the difference in condition.

Landlords must provide copies of these photos to the departing tenant. The law staggers implementation: for tenancies beginning on or after July 1, 2025, the move-in photos are required; for any tenancy that ends on or after April 1, 2025, the move-out photos (before and after repairs) are required. In practice, it’s wise for landlords to start doing this for all current tenancies as of 2025. Digital photos with dates (and ideally some identifier of the unit) are recommended.

• Why this matters: Security deposit disputes are one of the most common conflicts between landlords and tenants. Tenants often claim deductions are unfair, while landlords claim the tenant left damage. Photos taken at move-in and move-out provide objective evidence to support a landlord’s itemized deduction list. This law essentially forces best practices that many professional property managers already follow. If a landlord fails to take/provide the photos as required, it could undermine their ability to justify deductions and could even be seen as a violation that might affect a court’s view in a deposit dispute. Landlords should also continue to do the initial move-in inspection (California law already allows tenants to request a walk-through two weeks before move-out to identify deductions) and provide the required itemized statement within 21 days of move-out with receipts. The new photo rule is an added layer of proof.

No Deposit “Top-Off” for Damages During Tenancy: It’s worth noting a related provision of AB 12 – landlords are now explicitly prohibited from requiring extra security deposit mid-lease to cover damages. Some landlords would conduct periodic inspections and then demand the tenant pay an additional deposit to “replenish” or increase coverage for new damage. This practice is now illegal in California (with very limited exceptions for government-subsidized tenancies). Landlords can only collect security deposit once, at the start, up to the legal limit. If a tenant causes damage during the tenancy, the landlord’s remedy is to require the tenant to repair it (if it violates a lease term) or serve a notice to cure, and ultimately charge it against the deposit or sue after move-out. They cannot continually add to the deposit.

Takeaway: All landlords should review and update their lease agreements and procedures regarding security deposits. Any lease clauses inconsistent with the one-month limit (for instance, clauses requiring two months’ deposit) are now unlawful and should be removed in new leases or amended for existing periodic tenancies. Additionally, set up a system to photograph the unit at turnover and to securely send those photos to outgoing tenants (email is fine, or a shared download link, as long as you can show it was delivered). These steps will help ensure compliance and provide evidence in case of deposit disputes.

Protecting Survivors of Domestic Violence: New Lock Change Law (SB 1051)

California has strengthened protections for tenants who are survivors of domestic violence and other abuses. Senate Bill 1051 (Eggman), effective January 1, 2025, expands the obligations of landlords to assist and protect victims residing in their properties.

Lock Changes at Landlord’s Expense: Under prior Civil Code §1941.5, if a tenant provided a landlord with a police report or court order (such as a restraining order) showing they or a household member were a victim of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or elder abuse, the landlord was required to change the locks upon request within 24 hours. However, enforcement was weak (no penalties), and only certain documents triggered the duty. SB 1051 broadens this protection in key ways:

• Broader Definition of Eligible “Victim”: The law now covers not just the named tenant who is abused, but any member of the tenant’s household who is a victim of domestic abuse or violence. For example, if a tenant’s child or roommate is suffering abuse from an outside party, the household can invoke this protection. Landlords cannot ignore situations just because the person experiencing violence isn’t the lease signatory.

• Expanded Proof Options: A tenant’s written request for a lock change can now be supported by a statement from a qualified third-party professional, not only police or court documents. Accepted third-party documentation includes a report or letter signed by a domestic violence counselor, sexual assault counselor, human trafficking caseworker, or a licensed medical or mental health professional who has treated or counseled the victim. This is significant because many survivors do not involve the police or courts, but they might confide in a counselor or doctor. A simple third-party statement (in a form specified by law) is sufficient to compel a landlord to act. Landlords should not insist on a restraining order or police involvement if one of these alternative verifications is provided.

• 24-Hour Deadline and Tenant Self-Help: Upon receiving a qualifying request, the landlord must change the locks within 24 hours. If the landlord fails to do so, the tenant has the right to change the locks themselves (using a professional locksmith or in a workmanlike manner) and deduct the cost from the rent, or demand reimbursement from the landlord within 21 days. The tenant must give the landlord a key to the new locks within 24 hours of the change, ensuring the landlord still has access for legitimate purposes.

• Landlord Pays for Locks: The cost of the lock change is the landlord’s responsibility in all cases under this law. Unlike before, the burden is not on the tenant to pay for it (though the tenant may initially pay a locksmith if the landlord fails to act, that cost is shifted to the landlord). Landlords cannot charge the victim for this service.

• Penalties for Non-Compliance: To give the law teeth, a landlord who willfully violates the lock-change requirement may face civil penalties ranging from $100 up to $5,000 per violation. These fines underscore that this is a serious legal obligation. Additionally, a landlord’s failure to comply could be used as evidence of negligence or wrongful eviction if harm comes to the tenant as a result.

Landlord Considerations: Landlords should update their emergency maintenance protocols to treat lock change requests from abuse survivors with top priority. When such a request comes in, verify that it’s accompanied by one of the required forms of documentation (police report, court order, or qualified third-party statement). Do not probe into details of the abuse or demand extra proof beyond what the statute requires – maintain confidentiality. Change the locks (usually just rekeying is needed) within 24 hours. It’s advisable to provide the new key directly to the tenant and document the change in writing.

Landlords should also exercise caution in communicating with the tenant after such a request – the tenant’s abuser might be a fellow household member (e.g., a co-tenant or occupant who is now restrained from the property). In such cases, landlords should not give keys to the barred individual and may want to seek legal counsel about bifurcating the lease or evicting the abuser if they are a tenant. California law (Code of Civil Procedure §1161.3) already allows a tenant who is a domestic violence victim to terminate a lease early without penalty in certain situations, and allows landlords to legally evict an abuser while retaining the victim as a tenant. SB 1051 complements these laws by adding the lock change remedy for immediate safety.

For property managers, it’s prudent to inform owners about this requirement and possibly include a lease clause or addendum acknowledging the tenant’s rights under Civil Code 1941.5 and 1941.6 (the domestic violence lock law provisions) – though the law applies regardless of lease language. Always handle these matters with sensitivity and in compliance with fair housing laws (domestic violence survivors are protected from housing discrimination under both federal and California law).

Ban on Certain Fees and New Disclosures (SB 611)

Landlords in California often charge various fees – some are legitimate (screening fees, late fees if allowed by lease), but SB 611 (2023) zeroes in on two types of charges deemed unfair to tenants and bans them starting January 1, 2025:

• No Fees for Rent Payment Methods: It is now illegal to charge a tenant a fee for paying rent by cash or check. Some landlords had instituted “online payment only” policies with service fees, or would charge processing fees for handling checks/money orders. Under the new Civil Code changes, if a tenant pays by a method that is otherwise acceptable (e.g., mailing a check or bringing cash to a manager), the landlord cannot add a surcharge. Landlords must offer a rent payment option that does not trigger a fee (besides the rent itself). (Note: A landlord can still offer credit card or online payments that have third-party transaction fees, but the tenant must also have a fee-free option like check or ACH transfer.)

• No Fees for Serving Notices: Landlords or their agents may not charge a “service fee” for delivering any notice to a tenant. For instance, if a landlord posts a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, they cannot bill the tenant $50 for the service of that notice (a practice that occasionally occurred). Serving required legal notices is part of the landlord’s management duties, not a billable tenant expense. Any provision in a lease trying to make the tenant pay for notices or eviction-related costs is unenforceable and now explicitly prohibited.

• Disclosure for Military Deposits: As mentioned earlier, AB 12 already forbids charging active-duty military members more than one month’s rent for security deposit in all cases. SB 611 adds that if, under any circumstance, a service member tenant does pay a higher deposit (perhaps because they were not initially known to be military or due to a small landlord exemption misunderstanding), the rental agreement must include a written statement specifying the amount by which the deposit exceeds the standard limit and why the higher amount is being charged. Furthermore, any such excess portion of the deposit must be refunded after 6 months of the tenant paying rent on time. In practice, landlords should simply avoid this situation by complying with the one-month cap for military tenants from the outset. This disclosure is a failsafe to ensure transparency and eventual return of the extra deposit if it ever occurs.

Implications: The fee prohibitions mean landlords should review their lease clauses and fee practices. If your lease or house rules currently say, for example, “Tenant shall pay $XX if rent is paid by check” or “Tenant will reimburse Landlord $XX for posting any legal notice,” those provisions must be removed to comply with the law. Violating these rules could not only invalidate the fee but also expose the landlord to tenant legal claims or regulatory penalties under consumer protection laws. It’s best to charge rent only as rent, and only enforce fees that are clearly legal (late fees with proper lease authorization, NSF bank fees if a check bounces, etc.).

For the military deposit disclosure, landlords should include a question about active-duty status on the rental application or lease. Remember that under federal law (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) and state law, military members have various protections, and now California’s deposit cap is universally one month for them. Providing the disclosure and timely refund as required will avoid disputes and ensure compliance if a higher deposit was collected.

Rent Control Updates and Failed Expansion Attempts

Statewide Rent Cap Continues: As noted, AB 1482’s rent increase cap is still in effect through at least 2030 (its current sunset). Landlords cannot raise rent more than 5% + CPI (inflation) in a 12-month period, not to exceed 10% total. Given high inflation in recent years, the 10% ceiling has often been the limiting factor. In practical terms, for many areas in 2024–2025, landlords are allowed up to a 10% increase (because inflation + 5% has exceeded 10%). In lower-inflation scenarios, the limit might be, say, 8% if CPI was 3%. Landlords must check the exact allowable percentage (the law uses regional CPI metrics) each year; the California Department of Real Estate and Apartment Association publications usually announce the maximum for a given 12-month period.

Local Rent Control: AB 1482 does not override more stringent local rent control laws. Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Monica, and many others have long-standing rent stabilization ordinances that often limit increases to a few percent annually and cover some units that AB 1482 exempts. Additionally, since AB 1482 passed, several cities (especially in Southern California) adopted new rent control measures. For example, in 2023–2024, cities such as Bell Gardens, Pomona, Oxnard, and Pasadena enacted local rent caps and just-cause requirements. Landlords must stay informed about each city or county where they own property, as the rules can vary widely. Some locales require registration of rents, specific notices to tenants about their rights, and other compliance steps that go beyond state law.

No Statewide Expansion to Newer Units: An important attempted change was SB 466 (Wahab, 2023), which sought to partially repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Costa-Hawkins is the 1995 state law that places key limits on local rent control: cities cannot impose rent caps on (1) units built after February 1995 (or a later cutoff if the city already had rent control), (2) single-family homes and condos, or (3) vacated units (i.e., it guaranteed vacancy decontrol allowing rent to reset between tenants). SB 466 proposed a complex system to let cities apply rent control to units on a rolling 15-year or 28-year basis, which over time would have brought many post-1995 buildings under rent regulation. It also at one point considered allowing cities to include single-family homes.

However, SB 466 failed to pass in May 2023 after strong opposition; it died on the Senate floor without enough votes. As a result, Costa-Hawkins remains fully intact – newer properties and single-family homes are still broadly exempt from local rent control. Landlords who own post-1995 construction can continue to set rents without local caps (except in some cities that had a slightly different cutoff; for example, San Francisco’s rent control covers units built up to 1979 only, and SB 466’s defeat means it still can’t extend to newer buildings). It’s worth noting that tenant advocates have now tried and failed multiple times (legislatively and via ballot initiatives) to undo Costa-Hawkins. This status quo is preserved as of 2025, but landlords should stay alert: further attempts are likely in future years.

2024 Rent Control Ballot Initiative – Prop 33: Beyond the legislature, rent control was also fought at the ballot box. In the November 2024 general election, Proposition 33 asked voters whether to allow broader local rent control by repealing Costa-Hawkins outright. Voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 33 (approximately 62% “No”), the third such defeat in recent years (similar initiatives in 2018 and 2020 were also voted down). The defeat of Prop 33 means landlords won’t see any new rent control from that effort – Costa-Hawkins remains law. The large margin suggests a continued reluctance of the electorate to endorse strict rent control expansion as a solution to the housing crisis.

Nevertheless, landlords should be mindful that rent control debates are ongoing. For instance, economic conditions (like post-pandemic rent spikes) have led the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to impose temporary county-wide caps (e.g., a 2023–2024 4% cap in unincorporated areas during a local emergency). And in the state legislature’s 2025 session, there may be renewed pushes for tenant protections (e.g., discussion of an “anti-rent gouging” cap even on units exempt from AB 1482 during declared emergencies). While those are not law now, the trend indicates California’s policy is moving toward more protection, not less.

Failed 14-Day Pay or Quit Notice (SB 436): Another noteworthy proposal was SB 436 in 2024, dubbed the “Keeping Californians Housed Act,” which would have extended the notice period for nonpayment of rent from the current 3 days to 14 days. The idea was to give tenants more time to come up with back rent or obtain rental assistance before an eviction could be filed. Despite support from tenant advocates, this bill was defeated in the Assembly Judiciary Committee after a dramatic hearing where some moderate Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it. It fell one vote short of advancing. As a result, the longstanding 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit remains the law in California (3 court days, meaning if a weekend or holiday intervenes, those days don’t count – effectively it can be a bit longer than 72 hours in practice due to existing Civil Code 3275 and CCP 1161(2) rules from prior legislation). Landlords should continue to use 3-day notices for rent defaults. However, the near-passage of SB 436 signals that this issue might return. Indeed, talk of reconsideration or similar bills in 2025 persists. Landlords may want to plan for a future where more advance notice for nonpayment could be required (as is already the case in some other states).

Other Failed or Pending Bills: A few other bills that landlords might have heard about in 2024 did not become law:

• “Just Cause 2.0”: Assemblymember Ash Kalra introduced a proposal (often referenced informally as a more aggressive rent control/just cause measure) in early 2025 that would have further tightened rent increase limits and eviction rules. Notably, even though Kalra chaired the Assembly Judiciary Committee, his bill never got a hearing due to lack of sufficient support. This underscores that, for now, no new statewide tenant protection beyond those discussed has been added, aside from what did pass (like AB 2347, SB 567, etc.).

• Tenant Fee Caps (AB 1199, 2025): There was an initiative to cap or regulate the so-called “junk fees” landlords charge (application fees, late fees, pet fees, etc.). One such bill by Assemblymember Matt Haney was put on hold until at least 2026. While SB 611 (discussed above) tackled two specific fees, broader fee regulation didn’t pass this session. Landlords should still be conscientious with fees – many are already limited by existing law (application screening fees are capped by Civ. Code §1950.6 and must reflect actual costs, late fees must be reasonable and are scrutinized by courts, etc.). Future legislation could revisit these issues.

• Ellis Act Restrictions: Although not a headline in 2024, in prior years there were attempts to restrict the use of the Ellis Act (the state law allowing landlords to exit the rental business and evict tenants when withdrawing units permanently from the market). For example, AB 854 in 2022 (termed by opponents as the “Stay in Business Forever Act”) aimed to prevent owners from using Ellis for a period of time after purchase, to curb perceived abuse by speculators. That bill was defeated. No new Ellis Act limitations were enacted in 2023-2024 at the state level. Landlords retain the right to withdraw properties from rental use, provided they follow the procedure (which includes a 120-day notice to tenants, or one year for seniors/disabled, and payment of relocation fees in rent-controlled jurisdictions). However, given the focus on preventing displacement, it’s possible future bills will again target Ellis Act constraints, particularly for properties in ownership less than 5 years (a common idea in past proposals).

Compliance Tips for Landlords and Professionals in 2025

Staying compliant with California’s evolving landlord-tenant laws is crucial. Here is a checklist of practical steps and best practices in light of the 2025 updates:

• Update Legal Forms: Ensure that all eviction notices and court forms you use are updated. For example, Unlawful Detainer summons forms should reflect the new 10-day answer period (check with your local court for updated form UD-105). Any templated 3-Day Notices should continue to comply with current law (no change in wording needed yet, but keep an eye out if the 14-day notice idea returns). For no-fault eviction notices (owner move-in or remodel), use updated language that includes all SB 567-required disclosures (e.g., include permit copies and reoccupancy notice for remodel; include occupant details for OMI). Consider using forms or guidance from professional associations that incorporate the new laws.

• Lease Agreement Revisions: Starting now, limit security deposits to one month’s rent in all new leases (unless clearly eligible for the small landlord exception). Remove any clauses that conflict with this limit. Add a clause about the photo documentation – for instance, inform tenants that pre- and post-tenancy photos will be taken. While not legally required to disclose, being transparent can set expectations and deter disputes. Also, include domestic violence protections in your lease addenda: reaffirm that tenants have rights under Civ. Code §§1946.7 (early termination) and 1941.5/1941.6 (lock changes) if they are victims of abuse. It signals awareness and compliance. Delete any lease provisions about notice-serving fees or extra charges that are now prohibited by SB 611.

• Inform and Train Staff/Managers: If you work with property managers or staff, brief them on these changes. Front-line managers should know, for example, not to collect more than one month deposit, even if unaware of the law change. They should also be trained that if a tenant reports domestic violence and requests a lock change, this is an emergency item to handle within 24 hours, without charging the tenant. Your legal compliance is only as good as your least-informed staff member, so conduct training or provide written guidelines.

• Plan for Longer Eviction Timelines: With tenants having 10 days to respond and potentially less ability to delay via motions (due to faster hearings), eviction case timelines may become a bit more standardized. It might shift the average uncontested eviction from roughly 4-5 weeks to maybe 6-7 weeks in some courts (timeframes vary by county). Budget for this slight delay when estimating carry costs of a non-paying tenant. If a tenant does contest, be prepared for trial; use the extra response time to attempt settlement if appropriate (stipulated agreements, cash-for-keys offers, etc., can sometimes resolve cases faster than litigation). Always follow proper procedure—improper service or mistakes on notices will still result in eviction cases being dismissed, now with the added delay of the new timelines.

• Document Everything: The theme of recent laws is transparency and documentation. Embrace this by keeping clear records: photographs for deposits, detailed records of repairs (especially habitability-related ones, since enforcing those is a tenant focus), written logs of any tenant issues (in case you need to prove just cause for an eviction), and prompt communications. This not only keeps you compliant but provides a strong defense in court if any action is challenged.

• Consult Reliable Resources: Stay updated through authoritative channels. Refer to the California Department of Real Estate’s landlord/tenant guide or the Attorney General’s tenant rights page for plain-language explanations of the law (which already incorporate the 2024 changes). The California Apartment Association (CAA) and local apartment associations publish compliance materials and host seminars on these new laws – these can be invaluable for professional education (just be mindful that associations present from a landlord perspective, whereas nonprofit housing groups offer a tenant perspective; understanding both can be beneficial). For legal professionals, reading the new statutes and legislative analyses will help ensure nuanced understanding. When in doubt, seek advice from a qualified landlord-tenant attorney to avoid missteps.

By implementing these practices, landlords can navigate the new legal landscape confidently and avoid common pitfalls. The laws may have grown more complex, but they also provide clearer guidelines for fair conduct in rental housing. Ultimately, staying informed and proactive is the best strategy to prevent legal disputes and to maintain a successful rental business under California’s 2025 rules.

Conclusion and Summary of 2025 Changes

California’s recent updates to eviction laws and tenant protections reflect a continued effort to prevent unjust evictions and shield tenants from housing instability, while also clarifying procedures for landlords. Below is a summary of the most important changes effective in 2024-2025 for quick reference:

• Eviction Response Time: Tenants have 10 business days to respond to an eviction lawsuit (up from 5) under AB 2347. Landlords should expect slightly longer timelines before default judgment and be prepared for more tenants to file answers. Courts must also hear certain pre-trial motions faster (within about a week) to curb delay tactics.

• Just Cause & Notices: The Tenant Protection Act just-cause rules were tightened by SB 567. For Owner Move-In evictions, the owner/family must move in within 90 days and stay 12+ months, and notices must name the new occupant. For Substantial Remodel evictions, notices must detail the work with permit proof and give tenants a right to return if work isn’t done. Non-compliant landlords risk penalties and invalid eviction notices.

• Security Deposits: AB 12 capped residential security deposits at 1 month’s rent for nearly all leases (effective July 1, 2024). This is a major reduction from previous law. Only very small-scale landlords have a limited exception (up to 2 months) and never for active service members. Landlords should adjust their leasing practices accordingly. Additionally, AB 2801 requires photo documentation of unit condition at move-in and move-out (phased in during 2025) to justify any deposit deductions.

• Tenant Protection for Abuse Victims: SB 1051 mandates that landlords change locks within 24 hours upon request for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder abuse (including household members). Landlords must cover the cost and accept various forms of documentation (not just police reports). This law is effective Jan 1, 2025, and failing to comply can lead to fines up to $5,000 per incident.

• Prohibited Fees: Under SB 611, landlords cannot charge fees for a tenant’s method of rent payment (e.g., no surcharges for paying by check/cash) or for serving notices like eviction notices. Leases should not contain such fees going forward. If a military tenant was charged more than one month’s rent as deposit under an old lease, the excess must be disclosed and refunded after 6 months of timely rent.

• Rent Increase and Control: The statewide rent cap of AB 1482 remains ~5% + CPI (max 10%) per year – no new state law lowered this cap in 2024-2025. Landlords should continue to comply with it (and any local rent control that may be stricter). Attempts to expand rent control (e.g., SB 466 to include newer buildings) did not pass, and voters rejected the broad Prop 33 rent control initiative in 2024. Thus, Costa-Hawkins protections are unchanged: post-1995 units, single-family homes, and vacated units remain exempt from local rent caps.

• Eviction Notice Period (Status Quo): Despite discussion of giving tenants more notice to pay rent (14 days vs 3), the law is still 3 days for pay or quit. SB 436 to extend notice failed in 2025. Landlords should continue using 3-Day Notices for nonpayment and comply with existing notice formatting (including required statutory language for certain COVID rental debt through 2023, if applicable). Always exclude court holidays and weekends when calculating 3 days, per CCP 1161.

• Other Notable Points: Landlords must still maintain habitable premises and make timely repairs – enforcement of habitability (e.g., local code enforcement) saw renewed focus during pandemic recovery and will continue. Retaliation and harassment of tenants remain illegal. Also, sealing of eviction records after 60 days if the landlord doesn’t prevail (CCP 1161.2) is still in effect, protecting tenants from lasting records if an eviction is unjustified or dismissed. No major changes occurred to Ellis Act procedures in 2025, but local governments like San Francisco continue to regulate withdrawal closely; comply with all notice and filing requirements if using Ellis Act to go out of the rental business.

California landlords and property managers should adapt to these changes immediately to ensure compliance. By following the new rules and seeking legal guidance when needed, landlords can effectively manage their properties while respecting tenants’ enhanced rights. The landscape of rental law is continually evolving, so staying informed through credible sources is essential. By implementing the 2025 updates – from notice practices to lease terms and documentation – housing providers can reduce legal risk and foster more positive, lawful relationships with tenants. Always remember that this overview is informational and consulting with a knowledgeable real estate attorney for specific situations is advisable, as nothing can substitute for personalized legal advice in this complex field.

Sources:

1. CalMatters – New law gives tenants more time to respond to eviction notices

2. California Apartment Association – New 2025 Laws for the Rental Housing Industry (summarizing AB 2347, AB 2801, SB 611, SB 1051, etc.)

3. California Apartment Association – New law limiting security deposits to one month’s rent (AB 12)

4. California DOJ, Landlord/Tenant Guide – Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) Just Cause and Rent Cap Provisions

5. California DOJ, Landlord/Tenant Guide – Rent Increase Limits under AB 1482

6. CalMatters – California lawmakers side with landlords to kill 14-day eviction notice bill (SB 436)

7. CAA – Defeat of SB 466 (2023) attempt to expand rent control

8. CalMatters – Proposition 33 (2024) rent control initiative outcome