Happy Saturday, Housing Heroes!
What a year it’s been for housing providers.
Once again, California’s housing policy landscape moved at full speed, with lawmakers introducing a wide range of housing- and tenant-focused proposals. Many of these measures directly affected landlords’ day-to-day operations, costs, and legal exposure.
If it’s felt hard to keep up, you’re not alone and that’s exactly why we’re here.
Throughout the year, industry advocates and housing groups stayed deeply engaged, pushing back on bills that would have made it harder for housing providers to operate sustainably, while working to soften or stop measures that went too far.
Below is a breakdown of some of the most significant landlord-impacting proposals that didn’t make the cut (for now) and why that still matters.
2025 Bills That Didn’t Pass
AB 1248 – Rental “Junk Fees” & Utility Billing Overhaul
Author: Rep. Haney
This bill would have dramatically reshaped how rent and fees are advertised, disclosed, and collected.
What it proposed:
- Requiring rental listings to display a single “total price,” bundling rent with required fees
- Severely restricting common utility billing practices such as RUBS
- Dictating how tenant payments must be applied
- Creating new penalties and expanded attorney-fee exposure for landlords
Why it mattered:
Had this bill passed, it would have introduced major compliance risk and operational complexity, particularly for multifamily housing providers. While the bill stalled, similar “fee transparency” proposals are likely to return.
SB 436 – Extended Cure Period for Nonpayment Evictions
Author: Sen. Wahab
This proposal sought to significantly extend the standard notice period for nonpayment of rent.
What it proposed:
- Expanding the notice to pay or quit from a short window to a much longer grace period
Why it mattered:
While framed as a tenant protection measure, the bill would have required landlords to carry unpaid balances longer, delaying enforcement and increasing financial strain especially for small and mid-size owners. The bill failed to advance.
AB 2785 (Wilson) – Security Deposit Interest & Screening Restrictions
What this bill would have done:
AB 2785 proposed sweeping new requirements related to security deposits and tenant screening, including:
- Requiring landlords to pay interest on security deposits held in interest-bearing accounts
- Mandating acceptance of reusable tenant screening reports, regardless of source
- Requiring refunds of screening fees to applicants who were not selected
- Capping screening fees at $50, regardless of actual screening costs
Why it mattered to landlords:
This bill would have significantly increased administrative burden and compliance risk, while limiting a landlord’s ability to recover real screening costs or rely on consistent screening standards. Reusable reports and mandatory refunds raised concerns about data accuracy, fraud exposure, and fairness to property owners screening responsibly.
Outcome:
The author ultimately agreed to drop the bill, and none of these provisions took effect in 2025. While that’s good news for now, proposals like this signal continued pressure on screening practices and deposit handling areas landlords should expect lawmakers to revisit.
What Did Become Law (In Brief)
While many of the most aggressive proposals stalled, several landlord-facing bills were signed into law in 2025. These measures may not have made headlines, but they materially change how landlords operate by increasing procedural requirements, documentation expectations, and compliance risk.
AB 2493 – Tenant Screening & Application Order Rules
What this law does:
AB 2493 tightens how landlords handle rental applications when charging an application screening fee. It requires housing providers to:
- Accept applications in the order they are received
- Approve the first applicant who meets the written screening criteria
- Disclose screening criteria upfront, at the time an application is requested
Why it matters to landlords:
This law reduces flexibility in screening workflows and raises the stakes for documentation errors. If screening criteria are vague, inconsistently applied, or poorly documented, landlords may face disputes over why an applicant was skipped. Clear, written criteria and consistent enforcement are now non-negotiable.
AB 2747 – Rent Payment Credit Reporting (Market-Rate Housing)
What this law does:
AB 2747 requires certain market-rate landlords to offer tenants the option to have positive rent payments reported to a consumer credit bureau.
- Participation is optional for tenants
- Landlords may charge up to $10 per month to cover actual reporting costs
- Many small landlords are exempt, depending on ownership structure
Why it matters to landlords:
While framed as a tenant benefit, this law adds another operational layer. Covered landlords must ensure accurate and timely reporting errors can trigger disputes or complaints. This is not passive compliance; it requires systems, vendor coordination, and careful tracking.
Bottom Line for Housing Providers
None of these laws make operations easier.
Instead, they:
- Reduce flexibility
- Increase procedural requirements
- Raise the stakes for documentation errors
- Shift more cost and compliance responsibility onto landlords
The takeaway is clear: strong policies, clean records, and consistent enforcement matter more than ever. In today’s regulatory environment, compliance isn’t optional — it’s a core operational strategy.
Stay informed. Stay prepared. And as always, we’ll keep tracking what’s coming next.
Have questions about managing your property?
Our team proudly serves San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Schedule a call with us today, and let’s chat about how we can guide you through every step of your property management journey.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Welty
CEO @ Good Life Property Management
DRE #01744610
|
