Existing law defines a nuisance as anything injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, as specified. Under existing law, a nuisance includes the exhibition of a motion picture in which an intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal is shown if that action actually occurred in the production of the motion picture. Existing law authorizes the district attorney or the Attorney General to commence an action in equity to abate and prevent this nuisance and to perpetually enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it, as provided.

This bill would specify that this authorization also applies to the county counsel.

Date of Hearing: January 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1157

Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2025

SUBJECT: Tenancy: just cause termination: rent increases

KEY ISSUE: should the tenant protection act of 2019 be amended to lower the allowable rental increase to no more than 5% per year, eliminate the exemption for single-family housing, and remove the sunset date?

SYNOPSIS

Six years ago, to address the state’s “housing affordability crisis,” the Legislature enacted the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019. The TPA became effective January 1, 2020, and included a sunset date of January 1, 2030. The TPA had two key provisions: (1) a cap on the rate of annual rent increases and (2) a prohibition on evictions without “just cause.” Under the first provision, rent cannot be increased by an annual rate of more than 5% plus the annual increase in the consumer price index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. Under the second provision, if a tenant has continuously occupied the rental unit for 12 months, the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy without just cause. Under prior law, a landlord could terminate a month-to-month tenancy for any reason so long as proper notice was provided. Under TPA, the landlord can only terminate the tenancy if the tenant violates the lease (an “at fault” just cause) or to allow the landlord to have a family member to move in, to make substantial repairs, or to take the property off the market (“no fault” just cause). The rent cap and just-cause provisions were closely related, because without the just cause provision, a landlord could evict a tenant and raise the rent on the new tenancy. The TPA exempted properties built in the last 15 years, single-family homes owned by natural persons, and owner-occupied homes, among others.

This bill proposes three substantial amendments to the TPA. First, it would lower the rent cap from 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%, to 2% plus CPI, not to exceed 5%. In short, it cuts the maximum cap in half. Second, the bill would remove the exemption for single-family homes, thus making them subject to the rent cap and the just cause provision. Third, the bill would eliminate the January 1, 2030, sunset date, thereby making the TPA permanent.

The bill passed out of the Assembly Housing Committee last year on a 7-5 vote. The bill is supported by dozens of tenant rights, affordable housing, labor, and legal aid groups, among others. The bill is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, the California Apartment Association, and about twenty other associations representing rental property owners.

SUMMARY: Amends the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) to lower the allowable annual increase to 5%, as specified, eliminates the exemption for single-family housing, and removes the sunset date. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than two percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or five percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase.
2. Eliminates the existing exemption in the TPA for real property that is alienable separate from the title of any other dwelling owned by a natural person.
3. Deletes the January 1, 2030, sunset date, thereby extending the provisions of the TPA indefinitely.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, notwithstanding any other law, that if a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. (Civil Code Section 1946.2. All further references are to this code unless otherwise noted.)
2. Prohibits a landlord, over the course of any 12-month period, from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than five percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. (Section 1947.12.)
3. Exempts from the above provisions a residential property, including a mobilehome that is alienable separate from the title of any other dwelling unit, unless the owner is a real estate investment trust, a corporation, a limited liability company, or the manager of a mobilehome park. (Section 1946.2 (e)(8) and Section 1947.12 (d)(5).)
4. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2030. (Section 1946.2 (n) and Section 1947.12 (o).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The author explains the need for this bill as follows:

California is in a housing affordability crisis, resulting from decades of neglect in our housing supply. Tenants make up about 44% of the state’s population, making California the second largest state for renters in the country. People across the state are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of rent and are being forced to choose between paying their rent and other basic needs. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was signed into law before the pandemic occurred, and even before the global crisis, tenants were rent-burdened, where households were paying anywhere from 30-50% of their hard-earned income towards rent. The cost of rent keeps going up, and wages are not able to keep up, making it harder for families to stay in their homes. The reality of these conditions that renters are dealing with is saddening, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the struggles these families are facing. Housing impacts everyone, and California must take immediate action to help keep people in their homes while we continue to build housing.

While the state marked a historic first step with the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, the annual rent increase cap is still too high, and a portion of tenants are excluded from tenant protections. AB 1157 will stabilize rent by lowering the annual rent increase cap to help bring relief for California renters and prevent them from being pushed into homelessness. In addition, families renting single-family homes will be afforded the same protections as other renters. These changes could mean the difference between stability and homelessness for many families. AB 1157 will bring immediate action while the state continues to build affordable housing and protect the housing stock. Housing is a human right, and every Californian should be afforded safe, stable, and affordable housing.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Six years ago, to address the state’s housing affordability crisis, the Legislature enacted the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019. The TPA had two key provisions: (1) a cap on the rate of annual rent increases and (2) a prohibition on evictions without “just cause.” Under the first provision, rent cannot be increased each year by more than 5% plus the annual increase in the consumer price index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. Under the second provision, if a tenant has continuously occupied the rental unit for 12 months, the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy without just cause. Pursuant to the prior law, a landlord could terminate a month-to-month tenancy for any reason so long as proper notice was provided. Under TPA, the landlord may only terminate the tenancy if the tenant violated the lease (an “at fault” just cause eviction) or to allow a family member to move into the property, to make substantial repairs, or to take the property off the market (a “no fault” just cause eviction). The rent cap and just-cause provisions are integrally related. Because the rent cap only applies to the existing tenancy, a landlord could raise the rent by evicting a tenant and then raising the rent on the new tenancy.

The TPA exempted properties built in the last 15 years, single-family homes owned by natural persons, and owner-occupied homes, among others.

This bill proposes three substantial amendments to the TPA. First, it will lower the rent cap from the existing 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%, to 2% plus CPI, not to exceed 5%. In short, it cuts the maximum cap in half. Second, the bill would take away the exemption for single-family homes, thus making them subject to the rent cap and the just cause provision. Third, the bill would eliminate the January 1, 2030, sunset date, thereby making the TPA permanent.

California’s affordable rental housing problem. Although the proponents and opponents of this bill disagree mightily as to what causes California’s high rents, as well as what should be done to lower them, both sides agree that rents are far too high. Not only is the median rent in California more than 30% higher than the national average, more than half of the renters in the state qualify as “rent burdened,” meaning more than 30% of their income goes to rent. Over a quarter of the tenants in California qualify as “severely rent-burdened,” meaning that they spend over 50% of their income on rent. Unfortunately, the state does not collect or analyze data on trends in the price of rent, so it is difficult to say with certainty whether this problem is getting better or getting worse. Rents did indeed skyrocket during and after the COVID pandemic, though recent estimates by private entities like Zillow suggest that the rate of rental increase has started to level off in the last few years. However, aggregate statistics are not very useful given the wide variation in rental rates across the state. Moreover, even if rates are leveling off, they are leveling off from historic highs during the pandemic. Moreover, a lower rate of increase still means an increase in the amount of the rent.

Existing TPA as an anti-gouging measure rather than meaningful rent control. As noted, TPA permits annual rental increases of 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%. Although CPI varies by region within the state, in most places it has been below 5% in recent years; this means that in most places in the state permissible rent increases have been less than 10%. According to a report by Cal Matters, the TPA formula for 2024-2025 would allow projected increases of 8.8% in the San Francisco Bay Area counties, 8.9% in Los Angeles County, and 9.3% in San Bernardino County. (Rent Drives up California’s Cost of Living, Cal Matters, August 2, 2024.)

Notably, while within the legal limits, rent increases of nine or ten percent per year are still quite significant. As noted in the committee analysis of AB 1482, which created TPA, a rent cap of 5% plus CPI is, on average, “100% higher than the actual median annual rent increase in our state’s largest regions.” What TPA did as initially enacted, therefore, prevented rent gouging, or sudden rent spikes. TPA did not, however, prevent substantial rent increases that still go far beyond inflation and reasonable returns on investment. For example, considering compounded increases, a rent of $2,000 per month could increase to $3,221 in just five years under the existing TPA.

When looking at rental markets across the state, the existing TPA is also more generous to landlords than most local rent control laws, which typically limit increases to the CPI or an amount very close to it. For example, the City of Los Angeles recently amended its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) to reduce the maximum allowable annual rent increase to 4% for regulated units, lower than the new maximum rate proposed by this bill. The Los Angeles RSO does not apply to single-family homes or most multiunit properties constructed after 1978. Despite these limitations, according to the Los Angeles Housing Department, the RSO will cover about 650,000 units in 118,000 properties. (https://housing.lacity.gov/residents/what-is-covered-under-the-rso.)

Thus, while the TPA has prevented rent spikes, it does not – according to the proponents of the present bill – constitute a strict rent control. This bill, however, would cut the maximum permissible annual rent increase in half, from 10% to 5%, and bring the rent cap closer to (though still 2% higher than) the rate of inflation. This proposed rate is also much closer to aligning with most of local rent control laws, despite being slightly higher than the RSO in the state’s largest city. This bill would not displace more protective local ordinances, but it would provide comparable relief to tenants in those parts of the state that have no, or less protective, rent control laws.

Removing the single-family home exemption. The TPA of 2019 exempted certain types of rental housing from the Act’s provisions. For example, TPA’s rent cap does not apply to any residential real property “that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit,” provided that the residential property is not owned by a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company. That is an awkward way of saying that TPA does not apply to a single-family home that is owned by a natural person. The apparent rationale for this exemption was to protect the so-called “mom and pop” landlords who own a rental property as an investment or for supplemental form of income but who are not otherwise engaged in the business of renting property. This bill would delete the single-family housing exemption from TPA, both from the just cause eviction requirements as well as the rent cap provisions.

If the proponents and opponents of this measure agree on nothing else, they agree that the single-family home exemption affects a substantial part of the rental housing market. The co-sponsors, for example, contend that this “arbitrary loophole [leaves] nearly two million renter households unprotected.” The opponents of the bill, on the other hand, point out that nearly “40 percent of rental housing stock in California consists of single-family rental homes, individually owned rented condominiums, and duplexes. Imposing rent control on these properties will push many owners to exit the market, converting rentals into owner-occupied homes and displacing tenants.”

Due to the lack of meaningful statewide rental market data, no one can know for sure what effect the removal of the single-family home exemption will have the rental market, but presumably it will be significant given that such units constitute a large part of the rental market. Contrary to the claims of the opponents, it is not at all clear that small landlords will take property off the market if this bill becomes law. After all, an annual increase of 5% would still provide for a meaningful return on investment. Even if the small landlord decides to get out of the rental property business because of this bill, it is not as though the house will go empty. Presumably the landlord discouraged by this bill would sell the home. If a buyer purchases the home as an investment property, it will stay on the rental market. If the buyer purchases the home as a primary residence, that may mean one less tenant competing with other tenants in the rental market. Nonetheless, one cannot know if this bill will cause small landlords to take property off the market, or if they will simply take the opportunity to raise the rent by the maximum amount every year. If they did, this could drive-up rents over the long run. In any event, because the state does not collect data on rental pricing trends, honesty requires acknowledging that we do not know what the actual impact of this bill will be.

Removing the sunset. Another point of contention between proponents and opponents of this bill concerns the need for removing the sunset. The co-sponsors claim that removing the 2030 sunset is necessary because TPA’s protections will be “no less necessary in 2031 and beyond.” The co-sponsors also contend that the “uncertainty created by the looming expiration date undermines long-term housing stability . . . Making the law permanent now only affirms California’s commitment to tenant protection and housing stability.”

Not surprisingly, the opposition has a different take on removing the sunset. They argue that not only did AB 1482 strike a “careful balance” between the interest of tenants and landlords, but that it was also “intended as a temporary, 10-year measure, allowing time for the Legislature to focus on enacting long-term, pro-housing policies.” Opponents ask why, “just five years later,” would the Legislature remove the sunset, rather than allowing the ten-year period to run its course and providing more time to assess TPA’s effect.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is co-sponsored by Housing Now, ACCE Action, Pico California, Public Advocates, and Unite Here! Local 11. These co-sponsors write in support:

When the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 passed, the proponents heralded it as real progress, but vowed to keep working to improve it, as the negotiated bill was insufficiently protective to prevent rising displacement and homelessness. In the midst of an ongoing housing affordability and homelessness crisis, AB 1157 is a critical and timely step toward ensuring housing stability for millions of renters across the state— particularly lower income households and communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by rising housing costs.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was an important step, but its rent cap formula—allowing annual increases of CPI plus 5% (up to a maximum of 10%)—has proven inadequate. Consecutive rent hikes at this level are unsustainable for working families and serve only to deepen the housing insecurity already felt by so many. In practice, the law has permitted compounded rent increases that will total nearly 100% after ten years.

The bill also removes the exemption for single-family rental homes—an arbitrary loophole that currently leaves nearly two million renter households unprotected. Renters should not lose basic consumer protections simply because they live in a single-family rental unit. With this change, AB 1157 ensures that more Californians are covered under the law, regardless of the type of housing they rent.

AB 1157 makes the Tenant Protection Act permanent by removing the 2030 sunset. These protections are no less necessary in 2031 and beyond. The uncertainty created by a looming expiration date undermines long-term housing stability for nearly half of California’s households who are renters. Making the law permanent now only affirms California’s commitment to tenant protections and housing stability.

Critically, AB 1157 does all of this without requiring a single public dollar. We support efforts to both expand market supply of housing and continue the state’s commitment to public investment in creating affordable, deed-restricted housing. Unfortunately, these solutions take time and may never provide relief to some households who are currently struggling to make the rent. The state must act now to stop the pipeline into homelessness by stabilizing rents today.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Apartment Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and many other associations representing rental property oppose this bill for the following reasons:

First, opponents claim AB 1157 undermines the compromise that was reached in AB 1482, and as such represents both “bad policy and bad faith.”

Second, opponents argue the bill “defies the will of the voters,” who have repeatedly rejected rent control in state-wide ballot measures.

Third, opponents contend that removing the exemption for single-family homes “targets small rental housing providers and will reduce housing supply . . . Imposing rent control on [single-family homes] will push many owners to exit the market, converting rentals into owner-occupied homes and displacing tenants.”

Fourth, opponents argue that the bill “misses the root of the housing crisis,” which is in fact a product of the state’s “severe housing shortage.”

Fifth, opponents believe that this bill “will make financing rental housing more difficult,” because rent caps will deter private and institutional investment.

Sixth, opponents argue that this bill ignores studies that show that “rent control hurts the housing market.” They claim that “hundreds of studies have shown that rent control reduces housing availability, discourages new construction, and ultimately harms renters.”

In conclusion, the opponents write that “California faces a housing supply crisis—not a pricing crisis caused by rental housing providers. Policies like AB 1157 that penalize property owners while ignoring the core issue of housing scarcity will only worsen our problems. This fact has been demonstrated by decades of research and supported by the voters over and over again.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AAPI Force

ACCE Action

ACLU California Action

ACT LA

Aids Healthcare Foundation

Alameda Labor Council

All Home

All of US or None (HQ)

Alliance San Diego

Amelia Ann Adams Whole Life Center

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board

Bet Tzedek Legal Services

Black Humboldt

Black Organizing Project

Black Women for Wellness Action Project

Black Women Organized for Political Action

California Black Power Network

California Center for Movement Legal Services

California Coalition for Rural Housing

California Democratic Renters Council

California Environmental Justice Alliance Action

California Faculty Association

California Federation of Labor Unions

California Federation of Teachers

California Green New Deal Coalition

California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative

California Latinas for Reproductive Justice

California League of United Latin American Citizens

California LGBT Arts Alliance

California Native Vote Project

California School Employees Association

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

California Working Families Party

Californians for Disability Rights

CD11 Coalition for Human Rights

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center on Policy Initiatives

Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy

Child Care Law Center

CHISPA

City of Oakland

Clue (clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice)

Coalition for Economic Survival

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

Communities for a Better Environment

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Health for Asian Americans

Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto

Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement

Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

Council of Community Housing Organizations

Courage California

Creating Justice LA

Debt Collective

Democrats of Pasadena Foothills

Dsa LA

East Bay for Everyone

East Bay Housing Organizations

El Concilio of San Mateo County

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities

End Poverty in California

Equal Rights Advocates

Esperanza Unión De Inquilinos Santa Ana California

Evolve California

Faith in Action Bay Area

Faith in the Valley

FIAEB

Filipino Advocates for Justice

Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Glendale Tenants Union

Ground Works Consulting

Hmong Innovating Politics

Homes for All - California

Housing California

Housing Justice As Health Equity Collaborative

Housing Now!

Housing Rights Initiative

Human Impact Partners

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire Black Worker Center

Inland Equity Community Land Trusts

Inland Southern California United Way

Inner City Law Center

International Institute of Los Angeles

Kennedy Commission

LA Forward Institute

LA Voice

Latino Health Access

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Legal Aid of Sonoma County

Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County

Legal Services for Prisoners With Children

Liberty Hill Foundation

Long Beach Forward

Long Beach Residents Empowered

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)

Los Angeles Black Worker Center

Mar Vista Voice

Million Voters Project

Monterey County Renters United

National Alliance to End Homelessness

National Housing Law Project

New Life Christian Church

New Life Community Connection Development Corp.

Noho Home Alliance

Northern Santa Barbara County United Way

Oakland Tenants Union

Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development

Orange County Congregation Community Organization

Orange County Equality Coalition

Our Future Los Angeles

Pacifica Progressive Alliance and Alliance Members

Parable of the Sower Healing Center

Pasadena Tenant Union

Peninsula Solidarity Cohort

Pico California

Policy Link

Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

Power CA Action

Prevention Institute

Promotores De Salud De OC

Public Advocates

Public Counsel

Puente De LA Costa Sur

Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF)

Resilience OC

Rise Economy

Rising Juntos

Rubicon Programs

Ruchell Cique Magee Community Land Trust Riverside

RYSE

Sacramento Area Congregations Together

Sacred Heart Community Service

San Diego Organizing Project

San Francisco Anti-displacement Coalition

San Francisco Tenants Union

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights

Scope

SDBWC

Silicon Valley De-bug

Social Justice Learning Institute

Soma Pilipinas

Sonoma County Tenants Union

Soul Force Project

South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN)

Starting Over Strong

Starting Over, INC.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

Tech Equity Action

Tenants Together

Tenants United Anaheim

Thai Community Development Center

The Big Tent San Leandro

The Community Action League

The Launchpad Collective

The Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition, San Francisco (REP-SF)

The Row LA - the Church Without Walls - Skid Row

Time for Change Foundation

Trust South LA

UAW Region 6

UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

Unite Here, Local 11

United Way Bay Area

United Way of Greater Los Angeles

United Ways of California

Urban Habitat

Urban Peace Movement

Victor Valley Family Resource Center

West Valley Community Services

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Working Partnerships

Youth Leadership Institute

Youth United for Community Action

Opposition

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

Apartment Association of Orange County

Berkeley Property Owner's Association

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

Business and Housing Network

California Apartment Association

California Association of Mortgage Professionals

California Association of Relators

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Mortgage Bankers Association

California Rental Housing Association

Commercial Real Estate Development Association, NAIOP of California

East Bay Leadership Council

East Bay Rental Housing Association

Institute of Real Estate Management

Marina Del Rey Lessees Association

National Rental Home Council

Nor Cal Rental Property Association

North Bay Leadership Council

North Valley Property Owners Association

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

South Bay Leadership Council

Southern California Rental Property Association

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1157

Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2025

SUBJECT: Tenancy: just cause termination: rent increases

KEY ISSUE: should the tenant protection act of 2019 be amended to lower the allowable rental increase to no more than 5% per year, eliminate the exemption for single-family housing, and remove the sunset date?

SYNOPSIS

Almost six years ago, in an attempt to address the state’s “housing affordability crisis,” the Legislature enacted the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019. The TPA became effective January 1, 2020, and included a sunset date of January 1, 2030. The TPA had two key provisions: (1) a cap on the rate of annual rent increases and (2) a prohibition on evictions without “just cause.” Under the first provision, rent cannot be increased in a given year by more than 5% plus the annual increase in the consumer price index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. Under the second provision, if a tenant has continuously occupied the rental unit for 12 months, the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy without just cause. Under prior law, a landlord could terminate a month-to-month tenancy for any reason so long as proper notice was provided. Under TPA, the landlord can only terminate the tenancy if the tenant violates the lease (an “at fault” just cause) or so the landlord can allow a family member to move, make substantial repairs, or take the property off the market (“no fault” just cause). The rent cap and just-cause provisions were closely related, because without the just cause provision, a landlord could evict a tenant and raise the rent on the new tenancy. The TPA exempted properties built in the last 15 years, single-family homes owned by natural persons, and owner-occupied homes, among others.

This bill proposes three substantial amendments to the TPA. First, it will lower the rent cap from 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%, to 2% plus CPI, not to exceed 5%. In short, it cuts the maximum cap in half. Second, the bill would take away the exemption for single-family homes, thus making them subject to the rent cap and the just cause provision. Third, the bill would eliminate the January 1, 2030 sunset date, thereby making the TPA permanent.

The bill recently passed out of the Assembly Housing Committee on a 7-5 vote. The bill is supported by dozens of tenant rights, affordable housing, labor, and legal aid groups, among others. The bill is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Mortgage Bankers Association, the California Apartment Association, and about twenty other associations representing rental property owners.

SUMMARY: Amends the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) to lower the allowable annual increase to 5%, as specified, eliminates the exemption for single-family housing, and removes the sunset date. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than two percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or five percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase.
2. Eliminates the existing exemption in the TPA for real property that is alienable separate from the title of any other dwelling owned by a natural person.
3. Deletes the January 1, 2030, sunset date, thereby extending the provisions of the TPA indefinitely.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, notwithstanding any other law, that if a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. (Civil Code Section 1946.2. All further references are to this code unless otherwise noted.)
2. Prohibits a landlord, over the course of any 12-month period, from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than five percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. (Section 1947.12.)
3. Exempts from the above provisions a residential property, including a mobilehome that is alienable separate from the title of any other dwelling unit, unless the owner is a real estate investment trust, a corporation, a limited liability company, or the manager of a mobilehome park. (Section 1946.2 (e)(8) and Section 1947.12 (d)(5).)
4. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2030. (Section 1946.2 (n) and Section 1947.12 (o).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The author explains the need for this bill as follows:

California is in a housing affordability crisis, resulting from decades of neglect in our housing supply. Tenants make up about 44% of the state’s population, making California the second largest state for renters in the country. People across the state are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of rent and are being forced to choose between paying their rent and other basic needs. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was signed into law before the pandemic occurred, and even before the global crisis, tenants were rent-burdened, where households were paying anywhere from 30-50% of their hard-earned income towards rent. The cost of rent keeps going up, and wages are not able to keep up, making it harder for families to stay in their homes. The reality of these conditions that renters are dealing with is saddening, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the struggles these families are facing. Housing impacts everyone, and California must take immediate action to help keep people in their homes while we continue to build housing.

While the state marked a historic first step with the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, the annual rent increase cap is still too high, and a portion of tenants are excluded from tenant protections. AB 1157 will stabilize rent by lowering the annual rent increase cap to help bring relief for California renters and prevent them from being pushed into homelessness. In addition, families renting single-family homes will be afforded the same protections as other renters. These changes could mean the difference between stability and homelessness for many families. AB 1157 will bring immediate action while the state continues to build affordable housing and protect the housing stock. Housing is a human right, and every Californian should be afforded safe, stable, and affordable housing.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Almost six years ago, in an attempt to address the state’s housing affordability crisis, the Legislature enacted the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019. The TPA had two key provisions: (1) a cap on the rate of annual rent increases and (2) a prohibition on evictions without “just cause.” Under the first provision, rent cannot be increased in a given year by more than 5% plus the annual increase in the consumer price index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. Under the second provision, if a tenant has continuously occupied the rental unit for 12 months, the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy without just cause. Pursuant to the prior law, a landlord could terminate a month-to-month tenancy for any reason so long as proper notice was provided. Under TPA, the landlord could only terminate the tenancy if the tenant violated the lease (an “at fault” just cause) or to allow a family member to move in to the property, to make substantial repairs, or to take the property off the market (“no fault” just cause). The rent cap and just-cause provisions were closely related. Because the rent cap only applied to the existing tenancy, a landlord could raise the rent by evicting a tenant and then raising the rent on the new tenancy. The TPA exempted properties built in the last 15 years, single-family homes owned by natural persons, owner-occupied homes, among others.

This bill proposes three substantial amendments to the TPA. First, it will lower the rent cap from 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%, to 2% plus CPI, not to exceed 5%. In short, it cuts the maximum cap in half. Second, the bill would take away the exemption for single-family homes, thus making them subject to the rent cap and the just cause provision. Third, the bill would eliminate the January 1, 2030 sunset date, thereby making the TPA permanent.

California’s affordable rental housing problem. Although the proponents and opponents of this bill disagree mightily as to what causes California’s high rents, as well as what should be done about it, everyone seems to agree that rents are far too high. Not only is the median rent in California more than 30% higher than the national average, more than half of the renters in the state qualify as “rent burdened,” meaning more than 30% of their income goes to rent. Over a quarter of the tenants in California qualify as “severely rent-burdened,” meaning that they spend over 50% of their income on rent. Unfortunately, the state does not collect or analyze data on trends in the price of rent, so it is difficult to say with certainty whether this problem is getting better or getting worse. Rents did indeed skyrocket during and after the COVID pandemic, though recent estimates by private entities like Zillow suggest that the rate of rental increase has started to level off in the last few years. The most recent posting by Zillow suggests that, for California as a whole, rents in California in April of 2025 are slightly lower than they were in April of 2024. (https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/ca/.) However, aggregate statistics are not very useful given the wide variation in rental rates across the state. Moreover, even if rates are leveling off, they are leveling off from historic highs during the pandemic.

Existing TPA as an anti-gouging measure rather than meaningful rent control. As noted, TPA permits annual rental increases of 5% plus CPI, not to exceed 10%. Although CPI varies by region within the state, in most places it has been below 5% in recent years; this means that in most places in the state permissible rent increases have been less than 10%. According to a report by Cal Matters, the TPA formula for 2024-2025 would allow projected increases of 8.8% in the San Francisco Bay Area counties, 8.9% in Los Angeles County, and 9.3% in San Bernardino County. (Rent Drives up California’s Cost of Living, Cal Matters, August 2, 2024.)

Notably, while within the legal limits, rent increases of nine- or ten-percent per year are still quite significant. As the proponents of AB 1482 (which created the TPA) noted in 2019, the TPA cap was much higher than the caps imposed by local rent control ordinances in the state, which typically limit increases to the CPI or an amount very close to it. Indeed, as a committee analysis of AB 1482 noted, citing a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a rent cap of 5% plus CPI is, on average, “100% higher than the actual median annual rent increase in our state’s largest regions.” What TPA did as initially enacted, therefore, prevented rent gouging, or sudden rent spikes. TPA did not, however, prevent substantial rent increases over time that went far beyond inflation and reasonable returns on investment. For example, considering compounded increases, a rent of $2,000 per month could increase to $3,221 in just five years under the existing TPA.

Thus, while the TPA has prevented rent spikes, it did not – according to the proponents of the present bill – provide meaningful rent control. This bill, however, would cut the maximum permissible annual rent increase in half, from 10% to 5%, and bring the rent cap closer to (though still 2% higher than) the rate of inflation.

Removing the single-family home exemption. The TPA of 2019 exempted certain types of rental housing from the Act’s provisions. For example, TPA’s rent cap does not apply to any residential real property “that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit,” provided that the residential property was not owned by a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company. That is an awkward way of saying that TPA does not apply to a single-family home that is rented out by a natural person. The apparent rationale for this exemption was to protect the so-called “mom and pop” landlords who own a rental property as an investment or for supplemental form of income, but were not otherwise engaged in the business of renting property.

This bill will delete the single-family housing exemption from TPA, both from the just cause eviction requirements as well as the rent cap provisions. (Although this bill is primarily concerned with the rent cap, without also removing the just cause exemption, a landlord renting out a single-family home could evict a tenant in order to evade TPA by raising the rent on what would be a new tenancy.)

If the proponents and opponents of this measure agree on nothing else, they agree that the single-family home exemption affects a substantial part of the rental housing market. The co-sponsors, for example, contend that this “arbitrary loophole [leaves] nearly two million renter households unprotected.” The opponents of the bill, on the other hand, point out that nearly “40 percent of rental housing stock in California consists of single-family rental homes, individually-owned rented condominiums, and duplexes. Imposing rent control on these properties will push many owners to exit the market, converting rentals into owner-occupied homes and displacing tenants.”

Due to the lack of meaningful statewide rental market data, no one can know for sure what effect the removal of the single-family home exemption will have the rental market, but presumably it will be significant given that such units constitute a large part of the rental market. Contrary to the claims of the opponents, it is not at all clear that small landlords will take property off the market if this bill becomes law. After all, an annual increase of 5% would still provide for a good return on investment. Even if the small landlord decides to get out of the rental property business as a result of this bill, it is not as though the house will go empty. Presumably the landlord discouraged by this bill would sell the home. If a buyer purchases the home as an investment property, it will stay on the rental market. If the buyer purchases the home as a primary residence, that may mean one less tenant competing with other tenants in the rental market. To be fair, the proponents of this bill cannot know if this bill will cause small landlords to take property off the market, or if that they will decide, in light of the new limitation, to take the opportunity to raise the rent by the maximum amount every year. If they did, this could actually drive up rents over the long run. Because the state does not collect data on rental pricing trends – much less does it analyze data to assess the impact of rent caps – honesty requires acknowledging that we do not know what the actual impact of this bill will be.

Removing the sunset. Another point of contention between proponents and opponents of this bill concerns the need for removing the sunset. The co-sponsors claim that removing the 2030 sunset is necessary because TPA’s protections will be “no less necessary in 2031 and beyond.” The co-sponsors also contend that the “uncertainty created by the looming expiration date undermines long-term housing stability . . . Making the law permanent now only affirms California’s commitment to tenant protection and housing stability.”

Not surprisingly, the opposition has a different take on removing the sunset. They argue that not only did AB 1482 strike a “careful balance” between the interest of tenants and landlords, but that it was also “intended as a temporary, 10-year measure, allowing time for the Legislature to focus on enacting long-term, pro-housing policies.” Opponents ask why, “just five years later,” would the Legislature remove the sunset, rather than allowing the ten-year period to run its course and providing more time to assess TPA’s effect.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is co-sponsored by Housing Now, ACCE Action, Pico California, Public Advocates, and Unite Here! Local 11. These co-sponsors write in support:

When the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 passed, the proponents heralded it as real progress, but vowed to keep working to improve it, as the negotiated bill was insufficiently protective to prevent rising displacement and homelessness. In the midst of an ongoing housing affordability and homelessness crisis, AB 1157 is a critical and timely step toward ensuring housing stability for millions of renters across the state— particularly lower income households and communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by rising housing costs.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was an important step, but its rent cap formula—allowing annual increases of CPI plus 5% (up to a maximum of 10%)—has proven inadequate. Consecutive rent hikes at this level are unsustainable for working families and serve only to deepen the housing insecurity already felt by so many. In practice, the law has permitted compounded rent increases that will total nearly 100% after ten years.

The bill also removes the exemption for single-family rental homes—an arbitrary loophole that currently leaves nearly two million renter households unprotected. Renters should not lose basic consumer protections simply because they live in a single-family rental unit. With this change, AB 1157 ensures that more Californians are covered under the law, regardless of the type of housing they rent.

AB 1157 makes the Tenant Protection Act permanent by removing the 2030 sunset. These protections are no less necessary in 2031 and beyond. The uncertainty created by a looming expiration date undermines long-term housing stability for nearly half of California’s households who are renters. Making the law permanent now only affirms California’s commitment to tenant protections and housing stability.

Critically, AB 1157 does all of this without requiring a single public dollar. We support efforts to both expand market supply of housing and continue the state’s commitment to public investment in creating affordable, deed-restricted housing. Unfortunately, these solutions take time and may never provide relief to some households who are currently struggling to make the rent. The state must act now to stop the pipeline into homelessness by stabilizing rents today.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Apartment Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and many other associations representing rental property oppose this bill for the following reasons:

First, opponents claim AB 1157 undermines the compromise that was reached in AB 1482, and as such represents both “bad policy and bad faith.”

Second, opponents argue the bill “defies the will of the voters,” who have repeatedly rejected rent control in state-wide ballot measures.

Third, opponents contend that removing the exemption for single-family homes “targets small rental housing providers and will reduce housing supply . . . Imposing rent control on [single-family homes] will push many owners to exit the market, converting rentals into owner-occupied homes and displacing tenants.”

Fourth, opponents argue that the bill “misses the root of the housing crisis,” which is in fact a product of the state’s “severe housing shortage.”

Fifth, opponents believe that this bill “will make financing rental housing more difficult,” because rent caps will deter private and institutional investment.

Sixth, opponents argue that this bill ignores studies that show that “rent control hurts the housing market.” They claim that “hundreds of studies have shown that rent control reduces housing availability, discourages new construction, and ultimately harms renters.”

In conclusion, the opponents write that “California faces a housing supply crisis—not a pricing crisis caused by rental housing providers. Policies like AB 1157 that penalize property owners while ignoring the core issue of housing scarcity will only worsen our problems. This fact has been demonstrated by decades of research and supported by the voters over and over again.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AAPI Force

ACCE Action

ACLU California Action

Aids Healthcare Foundation

Alameda Labor Council

All Home

All of US or None

Alliance San Diego

Amelia Ann Adams Whole Life Center

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Bet Tzedek Legal Services

Black Humboldt

Black Organizing Project

Black Women for Wellness Action Project

Black Women Organized for Political Action

California Black Power Network

California Coalition for Rural Housing

California Democratic Renters Council

California Environmental Justice Alliance Action

California Green New Deal Coalition

California Healthy Nail Salons Collaborative

California Federation of Labor Unions

California Native Vote Project

California State Council of Service Employees International Union

California Teachers Association

California Working Families Party

Californians for Disability Rights

Cd11 Coalition for Human Rights

Center on Policy Initiatives

Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy

Child Care Law Center

CHISPA

Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice

Coalition for Economic Survival

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

Communities for a Better Environment

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto

Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement

Courage California

Creating Justice LA

Debt Collective

DSA

East Bay for Everyone

East Bay Housing Organizations

El Concilio of San Mateo County

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities

End Child Poverty California Powered by Grace

End Poverty in California

Equal Rights Advocates

Evolve California

Faith in Action Bay Area

Faith in the Valley

FIAEB

Filipino Advocates for Justice

Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Glendale Tenants Union

Ground Works Consulting

Hmong Innovating Politics

Homes for All - California

Housing California

Housing Justice as Health Equity Collaborative

Housing Now!

Housing Rights Initiative

Human Impact Partners

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire Black Worker Center

Inland Equity Community Land Trusts

Inner City Law Center

LA Forward Institute

LA Voice

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Liberty Hill Foundation

Long Beach Forward

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Los Angeles Black Worker Center

Mar Vista Voice

Million Voters Project

National Alliance to End Homelessness

National Housing Law Project

New Life Christian Church

New Life Community Connection Development Corp.

Oakland Tenants Union

Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development

Orange County Congregation Community Organization

Orange County Equality Coalition

Pacifica Progressive Alliance and Alliance Members

Pasadena Tenant Union

Peninsula Solidarity Cohort

Pico California

Policylink

Power CA Action

Prevention Institute

Public Advocates

Public Counsel

Puente De LA Costa Sur

Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition

Resilience OC

Rise Economy

Rising Juntos

Rubicon Programs

RYSE

Sacramento Area Congregations Together

San Diego Organizing Project

San Francisco Anti-displacement Coalition

San Francisco Tenants Union

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights

Scope

SDBWC

Silicon Valley De-bug

Social Justice Learning Institute

Soul Force Project

Starting Over, Inc.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

Tech-Equity Action

Tenants Together

Tenants United Anaheim

The Big Tent San Leandro

The Community Action League

The Row LA - the Church without Walls - Skid Row

Trust South LA

Unite Here, Local 11

United Way Bay Area

Urban Habitat

Urban Peace Movement

Victor Valley Family Resource Center

West Valley Community Services

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Working Partnerships USA

Youth Leadership Institute

Youth United for Community Action

Opposition

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

Apartment Association of Orange County

Apartment Owners Association

Berkeley Property Owner's Association

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Mortgage Bankers Association

California Rental Housing Association

Commercial Real Estate Development Association, NAIOP of California

East Bay Rental Housing Association

Institute of Real Estate Management

Marina Del Rey Lessees Association

NAIOP of California, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association

National Rental Home Council

Nor Cal Rental Property Association

North Bay Leadership Council

North Valley Property Owners Association

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

South Bay Leadership Council

Southern California Rental Property Association

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1157 (

Author:Kalra) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2025

SUBJECT: Tenancy: just cause termination: rent increases

SUMMARY: Lowers the allowable rent increase cap in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA), expands the TPA to cover single-family residences, and deletes the January 1, 2030 sunset in the TPA. Specifically, this bill:

1. Deletes the exemption in the eviction provisions and allowable rent increase cap in the TPA for residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, thereby applying the eviction provisions and rent increase cap in the TPA to single-family residences without regard to their ownership structure or whether the owner has provided written notice that the residential property is exempt from the TPA.
2. Reduces the maximum allowable annual rent increase under the TPA from 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living (CPI) with a maximum cap of 10%, whichever is lower, to two percent plus the percentage change in the CPI with a maximum cap of 5%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase.
3. Deletes the January 1, 2030 sunset date in the TPA, thereby permanently extending the law’s provisions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Enacts the TPA with a sunset date of January 1, 2030. (Civil Code (CIV) Section 1946.2, 1947.12, and 1947.13)
2. Prohibits, until January 1, 2030, a property owner from terminating a residential tenancy without giving written notice of a just cause for the termination starting after all tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 12 months, or at least one adult occupant has done so for at least 24 months. (CIV 1946.2(a))
3. Defines “just cause” to include either at-fault just cause or no-fault just cause. (CIV 1946.2(b))
4. Establishes at-fault just causes for terminating a tenancy, which include the following:
   1. Default in the payment of rent;
   2. A breach of a material term of the lease, as provided;
   3. Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance, as provided;
   4. Committing waste, as provided;
   5. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after specified dates and after written request or demand from the owner, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions;
   6. Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat on or off the residential real property that is directed at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential real property;
   7. Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant’s lease, as provided;
   8. The tenant’s refusal to allow the owner to enter the property as otherwise authorized;
   9. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose, as provided;
   10. The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee, as provided; or
   11. When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the property after providing the owner written notice, as specified, of the tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the owner, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in the written notice. (CIV 1946.2(b)(1))
5. Provides that the following are no-fault just causes for terminating a tenancy:
   1. Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents for a minimum of 12 continuous months as that person’s primary residence;
   2. Withdrawal of the residential property from the rental market;
   3. The landlord’s compliance with a government or court order or local ordinance that requires vacating the residence; or
   4. Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the property, as defined. (CIV 1946.2(b)(2))
6. Exempts the following types of properties from the eviction provisions of the TPA:
   1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancies, as defined;
   2. Housing in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or an adult residential facility;
   3. Dormitories owned and operated by a K-12 or higher education institution;
   4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the property;
   5. Single-family owner-occupied residences, as defined;
   6. A duplex in which the owner occupies one of the units;
   7. Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years;
   8. Deed-restricted affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined; and
   9. Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit (primarily single-family residences and condominiums), provided that specified notice of the exemption is given to the tenants and the owner is not a:
      1. Real estate investment trust (REIT);
      2. Corporation;
      3. Limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation; or
      4. Management of a mobilehome park. (CIV 1946.2(e))
7. Prohibits, until January 1, 2030, an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than five percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months before the effective date of the increase, subject to specified conditions. (CIV 1947.12(a))
8. Allows a landlord to establish the initial rental rate for a new tenancy in which no tenant from the prior tenancy remains in lawful possession of the residential real property, and specifies that 7) above only applies to subsequent increases after the initial rental rate has been established. (CIV 1947.12(b))
9. Exempts the following types of properties from the rent cap provisions of the TPA:
   1. Deed-restricted affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined;
   2. Dormitories owned and operated by a K-12 or higher education institution;
   3. Housing subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than that provided in 7), above;
   4. Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome;
   5. A duplex in which the owner occupies one of the units; and
   6. Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit (primarily single-family residences and condominiums), provided that specified notice of the exemption is given to the tenants and the owner is not a:
      1. REIT;
      2. Corporation;
      3. Limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation; or
      4. Management of a mobilehome park. (CIV 1947.12(d))
10. Requires landlords to notify tenants of the TPA’s limitations on rent increases and its requirement of just cause for eviction, as specified. (CIV 1946.2(f) and 1947.12(e))
11. Does not preempt any local laws limiting rent increases or the grounds on which a landlord may terminate a tenancy, except that any local just cause for eviction ordinance enacted after September 1, 2019 must be at least as protective, as defined, as the TPA. (CIV 1946.2(g))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California is in a housing affordability crisis, which is the result of decades of neglect in our housing supply. Tenants make up about 44% of the state’s population, making California the second largest state for renters in the country. People across the state are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of rent and are being forced to choose between paying their rent and other basic needs. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was signed into law before the pandemic occurred, and even before the global crisis, tenants were rent-burdened, where households were paying anywhere from 30-50% of their hard-earned income towards rent. The cost of rent keeps going up, and wages are not able to keep up, making it harder for families to stay in their homes. The reality of these conditions that renters are dealing with is saddening, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the struggles these families are facing. Housing impacts everyone, and California must take immediate action to help keep people in their homes while we continue to build housing.

While the state marked a historic first step with the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, the annual rent increase cap is still too high, and a portion of tenants are excluded from tenant protections. AB 1157 will stabilize rent by lowering the annual rent increase cap to help bring relief for California renters and prevent them from being pushed into homelessness. In addition, families renting single-family homes will be afforded the same protections as other renters. These changes could mean the difference between stability and homelessness for many families. AB 1157 will bring immediate action while the state continues to build affordable housing and protect the housing stock. Housing is a human right, and every Californian should be afforded safe, stable, and affordable housing.”

Struggling Tenants and the Housing Crisis: California is home to approximately 18 million renters – which represents 44% of the state’s population. The state’s housing crisis has been particularly impactful to this population, as the multi-million unit shortfall of housing has driven up rents considerably.

According to the 2022 Statewide Housing Plan, California needs an additional 2.5 million housing units, including 1.2 million for lower-income households, to meet the state’s housing shortage. Decades of underbuilding have led to a lack of housing overall, particularly housing that is affordable to lower-income households. The state needs an additional 180,000 new units of housing a year to keep up with demand, including about 80,000 units of housing affordable to lower-income households. By contrast, production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year, including fewer than 20,000 units of affordable housing per year.

Furthermore, the state’s homelessness crisis is driven by the lack of affordable rental housing for lower income people. According to the California Housing Partnership’s Housing Need Dashboard, in the current market, over 2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households are competing for roughly 750,000 available and affordable rental units in the state. Over three-quarters of the state’s extremely low-income households and over half of the state’s very low-income households are severely rent burdened, paying more than 50% of their income toward rent each month. In addition, median rent in California has increased by 40% since 2000, while median renter household incomes have only increased 9% over the same time period (after inflation).^[1] The burden of high rents and housing instability falls heaviest on residents of the state who are Black, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Natives, as these individuals are more likely to be renters and more likely to be cost-burdened due to a history of systemic racism, segregation, and housing discrimination that has exacerbated the racial wealth gap and kept homeownership out of reach.

Evictions and large rent increases are a major cause of homelessness. A 2020 U.S. Government Accountability Office study found a $100 median rent increase in a community correlated with a 9% rise in homelessness in the same area.^[2] Research by Zillow from 2018 found that some areas with a high percentage of rent-burdened households experienced a rapid increase in homelessness, and areas where high rents are combined with high poverty experienced triple the homelessness rate of the average community.^[3] In addition, a 2017 survey in Santa Cruz County found that 14% of individuals experiencing homelessness cited eviction as a primary cause of their homelessness.

Tenant Protection Act of 2019: For decades, several local jurisdictions have imposed limits on how much residential landlords can raise the rent on their tenants each year, usually in combination with laws preventing landlords from terminating residential tenancies unless the landlord has a specific and legitimate reason for doing so. However, throughout the rest of the state and for individuals living in the many units exempt from local rent control, landlords could raise rents by as much as they pleased and could force a tenant to move out for any legal reason or for no reason at all, subject only to requirements for one or sometimes two months’ advance notice. This changed in 2019 with the passage of AB 1482 (Chiu), Chapter 597, which provided approximately eight million California renters in certain types of housing units with two critical tenant protections: a prohibition on exorbitant rent increases and protections against unjustified evictions.

AB 1482 protected against rent gouging by placing an annual cap on rent increases at 5% plus the change in the CPI, not to exceed 10%. The bill protected against unjustified evictions by requiring a justifiable cause for the termination of a tenancy after 12 months of tenancy. This included specifying a list of “at-fault” causes, where the termination is justified by the action of the tenant, such as failure to pay rent or criminal activity on the premises. Where the reason was not the tenant’s fault – such as situations where the owner decides to occupy the unit, where the landlord undertakes demolition or a substantial remodel, or where the landlord elects to withdraw the property from the rental market – AB 1482 made sure tenants received at least some financial assistance for being made to relocate.

Further refinements to the TPA were made in 2023 with SB 567 (Durazo), Chapter 290, to close perceived loopholes that were being exploited to evade the law’s protections and to provide additional enforcement tools. Some property owners had effectively achieved rent increases that were not permissible under the law by claiming illegitimate owner move-in or substantial remodel causes to remove existing tenants and replace them with tenants paying substantially higher rents. SB 567 closed these loopholes beginning April 1, 2024.

SB 567 also provided additional enforcement tools to local governments and to harmed tenants by allowing additional public and private rights of action against landlords who violate the provisions of the TPA beginning April 1, 2024. The bill provided explicit authorization for the Attorney General and a city attorney or a county counsel to bring actions to enforce the law and to seek injunctive relief on behalf of harmed tenants, and required landlords to strictly comply with the TPA when providing certain notices to give certainty to all actors regarding what is legal and not legal.

Exclusion of Single-Family Homes: Single-family rentals are an important part of the rental market and offer renters the ability to find more spacious housing options than they otherwise might find in multifamily housing, as large multi-bedroom apartments are not as commonly available. Single-family rentals are often in more affluent or desirable neighborhoods compared to traditional apartments, which for decades have been limited to more segregated and lower opportunity areas of communities. Having the opportunity to rent a single-family home might yield better equity and educational outcomes for families with children and other renters who wish to exercise housing choice and access otherwise inaccessible higher-opportunity neighborhoods. According to data from the US Census, there are approximately 2 million single-family rentals in the state out of a total of roughly 6 million renter-occupied housing units – meaning one in three rental units in the state is a single-family residence or condominium.^[4]

Neither the rent cap nor the eviction provisions of the TPA currently apply to single-family and condominium rental homes unless the property is owned by a corporation or REIT (or certain mobilehome park-owned rentals), or the property owner has provided written notice to their tenants that the home is exempt from the TPA using the following statement:

“This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.”

Various studies have found that despite an uptick in large investors and corporations purchasing single-family units during the mortgage crisis and pandemic, the vast majority of single-family rentals in California and nationally are owned and operated by traditional small and medium-sized landlords. Analysis performed by the California Research Bureau identified approximately 106,000 single-family rentals statewide owned by landlords who owned between 10-100 other properties, and 27,700 homes owned by investors with very large portfolios over 100 properties. For condos, approximately 35,000 appear to be owned by 10-100 owners and another 29,000 by the largest owners.^[5] Altogether, this suggests perhaps no more than approximately 200,000 of the 2 million single-family rentals in the state are owned by individuals or corporations who own 10 or more properties. Some portion of that 200,000 – specifically the portion owned by corporations and REITs – are currently covered by the requirements of the TPA, leaving the remaining 1.8+ million unprotected unless their owners neglected to provide the written notice of exemption from the TPA.

From a policy standpoint, it is not clear why an individual landlord who owns one or four or any arbitrary amount of single-family rentals should be treated differently under the law and have their tenants treated differently from a landlord who owns, for example, a single four-unit apartment building. In this scenario, both landlords are individuals offering the same number of units for rent, but by virtue of the physical type of the structures being offered for rent, the TPA’s rent cap and just cause eviction rules apply to the apartment building and do not apply to the single-family homes.

This bill would remove the TPA’s exemptions for residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit (as mentioned before, primarily single-family residences and condominiums), thereby applying the law’s protections to tenants who rent one of the millions of these types of units in the state.

Rent Cap and Sunset Clause: The TPA’s maximum allowable rent cap is 5% plus CPI, up to a maximum cap of 10% (whichever is lower) in a 12-month period. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic shocks, there was a surge in the inflation rate nationwide that meant the allowable rent increases quickly reached the maximum 10% cap in many regions. Inflation rates decreased and have fluctuated since then, with current allowable increases for most regions between 8.6% and 9.3%.^[6] The allowable increases under the TPA also compound year-over-year and have allowed landlords to still raise rents quite dramatically over time. For example, an apartment renting at $2,000 initially, could, under the allowable increases in the TPA rent cap, cost the same tenant $3,221 within just five years. In essence, the TPA does not prevent large rent increases over time. What it prevents is sudden rent spikes while still giving landlords quite broad authority to raise rents regularly over the longer term.

Data from Zillow’s Observed Rent Index for Multifamily Residences is instructive. From Q1 of 2019 to Q1 of 2025, the index indicates rents have increased rapidly in most metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the state, with the largest percentage increases occurring in areas that previously had been more affordable (and smaller increases in areas that have a larger amount of housing stock subject to local rent restrictions). Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding, Riverside, Santa Maria, and Modesto MSAs all saw average multifamily asking rents increase over 50% from 2020 to 2025, and many MSAs saw single-family asking rents increase at similar rates.

Source: Zillow, Observed Rent Index for Multifamily Residences, accessed 4/19/2025

The author and sponsors point to this and other data to argue that the current rent caps in the TPA still allow for significant increases over time that put renters, whose incomes are largely not increasing at these same rates, at risk of serious housing instability, eviction, and homelessness. To that end, this bill proposes to lower the maximum allowable rent cap to two percent plus CPI, up to a maximum cap of 5%, whichever is lower, in a 12-month period. It is important to note that this bill preserves the 15-year rolling exemption for new construction from the rent cap and just cause eviction provisions of the TPA, which is designed to ensure that statutory limitations on rent increases do not dissuade developers from investing in building new housing, thus helping to ensure that the supply of rental housing continues to expand. This bill also preserves the TPA’s allowance for landlords to reset the rent on a TPA-covered unit to whatever they wish, with no limitation or cap, upon the departure of a tenant (commonly referred to as “vacancy decontrol”). For these reasons, while the bill’s opponents argue that it would decrease new housing supply, the author and sponsors believe the bill adequately addresses those concerns. Using the same example above of a unit renting at $2,000, the proposed cap in this bill would allow a landlord to raise rent up to five percent each year, yielding a potential rental rate of $2,552 within five years with the same tenant.

The TPA is currently scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2030. This bill would also delete the sunset clause in the TPA, thereby permanently extending its provisions.

Arguments in Support: According to the bill’s cosponsors, including Housing Now, ACCE, PICO California, Public Advocates, and Unite Here Local 11, “AB 1157 responds to urgent realities that our organizations are seeing every day in our work on the ground by limiting excessive rent increases and extending basic protections to more renters. California’s housing crisis is deepening: between 2000 and today, median rents have increased by 37%, while renter incomes have increased just 7%, adjusted for inflation. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 was an important step, but its rent cap formula—allowing annual increases of CPI plus 5% (up to a maximum of 10%)—has proven inadequate. Consecutive rent hikes at this level are unsustainable for working families and serve only to deepen the housing insecurity already felt by so many. In practice, the law has permitted compounded rent increases that will total nearly 100% after ten years. … Nearly all of the 35 cities and counties that have rent stabilization laws have set the allowable annual rent increases lower than the CPI+2% proposed in AB 1157. In other words, the proposed rent increase formula in AB 1157 is more generous to landlords than where most local jurisdictions have landed on this issue.”

Arguments in Opposition: A coalition of opponents, including the California Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association, and California Chamber of Commerce, write in opposition to this bill. They express concerns that imposing the TPA’s provisions on single-family rentals will push owners to exit the rental market, that the bill places blame on rental housing providers rather than the severe housing shortage at the root of the housing crisis, that the rent cap provisions of the bill do not include a means-testing provision and may benefit wealthy renters, and that the bill will deter private and institutional investment in financing rental housing construction in California.

Another coalition of rental housing providers write in opposition: “Rental housing providers across California have endured years of moratoriums on evictions and rent increases under COVID-era regulations, many have lost property due to the wildfires, inflationary pressures have increased costs of labor and supplies, new regulations have increased risk and legal exposure, and today we find ourselves in a terrible insurance crisis with rapidly rising insurance premiums (2x to 3x) and far lower coverage. Now is not the time to further burden the state’s rental housing providers with lower rent caps. We need more rental housing, but AB 1157 will cause more of us housing providers to exit the rental market for good.”

Related Legislation:

SB 567 (Durazo), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2023: Revised the no-fault just cause eviction provisions of the TPA and provided additional enforcement mechanisms for violations of restrictions on residential rent increases and no-fault just cause evictions.

AB 1482 (Chiu), Chapter 597, Statutes of 2019: Enacted the TPA.

Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

ACCE Action (Sponsor)

Housing Now! (Sponsor)

PICO California (Sponsor)

Public Advocates (Sponsor)

UNITE HERE, Local 11 (Sponsor)

AAPI FORCE

ACLU California Action

Alameda Labor Council

All Home

All of US or None

Alliance San Diego

Amelia Ann Adams Whole Life Center

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Bet Tzedek Legal Services

Black Humboldt

Black Organizing Project

Black Women for Wellness Action Project

Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA)

California Black Power Network

California Coalition for Rural Housing

California Democratic Renters Council

California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) Action

California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO

California Green New Deal Coalition

California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative

California Native Vote Project

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)

California Teachers Association

California Working Families Party

Californians for Disability Rights

CD11 Coalition for Human Rights

Center on Policy Initiatives

Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy

Child Care Law Center

CHISPA

CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice)

Coalition for Economic Survival (CES)

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)

Communities for a Better Environment

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto

Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement

Courage California

Creating Justice LA

Debt Collective

East Bay for Everyone

East Bay Housing Organizations

El Concilio of San Mateo County

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC)

End Child Poverty in California Powered by GRACE

End Poverty in California (EPIC)

Equal Rights Advocates

Evolve California

Faith in Action Bay Area

Faith in the Valley

FIAEB

Filipino Advocates for Justice

Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Glendale Tenants Union

Ground Works Consulting

Hmong Innovating Politics

Homes for All - California

Housing California

Housing Justice as Health Equity Collaborative

Housing Rights Initiative

Human Impact Partners

Inland Congregations United for Change

Inland Empire Black Worker Center

Inland Equity Community Land Trusts

Inner City Law Center

LA Forward Institute

LA Voice

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Liberty Hill Foundation

Long Beach Forward

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE)

Los Angeles Black Worker Center

Mar Vista Voice

Million Voters Project

National Alliance to End Homelessness

National Housing Law Project

New Life Christian Church

New Life Community Connection Development Corp.

Oakland Tenants Union

Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development

Orange County Congregation Community Organization

Orange County Equality Coalition

Pacifica Progressive Alliance and Alliance Members

Pasadena Tenant Union

Peninsula Solidarity Cohort

PolicyLink

Power CA Action

Prevention Institute

Public Counsel

PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR

Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF)

Resilience OC

Rise Economy

Rising Juntos

Rubicon Programs

RYSE

Sacramento Area Congregations Together

San Diego Organizing Project

San Francisco Anti-displacement Coalition

San Francisco Tenants Union

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights

SCOPE

SDBWC

Silicon Valley De-Bug

Social Justice Learning Institute

Soul Force Project

Starting Over, INC.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

TechEquity Action

Tenants Together

Tenants United Anaheim

The Big Tent San Leandro

The Community Action League

The Row LA - the Church Without Walls - Skid Row

TRUST South LA

Unite Here Local 11

United Way Bay Area

Urban Habitat

Urban Peace Movement

Victor Valley Family Resource Center

We Are Not Invisible

West Valley Community Services

Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.

Working Partnerships USA

Youth Leadership Institute

Youth United for Community Action

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Individuals -14

Opposition

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

Apartment Association of Orange County

Berkeley Property Owners Association

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Mortgage Bankers Association

California Rental Housing Association

Commercial Real Estate Development Association, NAIOP of California

East Bay Rental Housing Association

Institute of Real Estate Management

National Rental Home Council

Nor Cal Rental Property Association

North Valley Property Owners Association

Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute

Southern California Rental Housing Association

Individuals - 3

Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. California Affordable Housing Needs Report 2025, California Housing Partnership, https://chpc.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CHP_State-Housing-Needs-Report-2025.pdf (March 2025) ↑

2. Homelessness: Better HUD Oversight of Data Collection Could Improve Estimates of Homeless Population, U.S. Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-433.pdf (July 2020) at p. 30. ↑

3. Homelessness Rises Faster Where Rent Exceeds a Third of Income, Zillow Research, https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ (December 2018) ↑

4. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2022.B25032?t=Units%20and%20Stories%20in%20Structure&g=040XX00US06 ↑

5. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/california.research.bureau/viz/CRB-SingleFamilyHousingRentals/MainView ↑

6. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2024/supplemental/2024/rent_increase.pdf ↑