Renting to illegal immigrants , rent control
Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes
Renting to illegal immigrants , rent control
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes
1yI think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag.
57 Replies
- Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes1y
I think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Mike D.:
I think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag
I think 5 working adults living in 1 bedroom and paying $1000 a month to live in Los Angeles is robbery. Not to mention 5 daily showers running up the water bill, the 5 cars they drive and make parking impossible for neighbors. I can keep going - Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Mike D.:
I think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag
I think 5 working adults living in 1 bedroom and paying $1000 a month to live in Los Angeles is robbery. Not to mention 5 daily showers running up the water bill, the 5 cars they drive and make parking impossible for neighbors. I can keep goingThen why did you buy the place knowing it was under RSO, and why did you fail to steadily increase the rent over the years as you were allowed to do? You created this and you kept it going.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Mike D.:
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Mike D.:
I think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag
I think 5 working adults living in 1 bedroom and paying $1000 a month to live in Los Angeles is robbery. Not to mention 5 daily showers running up the water bill, the 5 cars they drive and make parking impossible for neighbors. I can keep goingThen why did you buy the place knowing it was under RSO, and why did you fail to steadily increase the rent over the years as you were allowed to do? You created this and you kept it going.
It was a good investment. I did increase the rent the last 2 years, they initially paid only $910 a month. 2 years later it’s only $1000
- Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Mike D.:
I think it's pretty simple. You have to obey the rent control laws. If you threaten to report them if they don't sign a higher lease, you are being a scumbag
I think 5 working adults living in 1 bedroom and paying $1000 a month to live in Los Angeles is robbery. Not to mention 5 daily showers running up the water bill, the 5 cars they drive and make parking impossible for neighbors. I can keep goingI would talk to the tenants and explain that you're way under market and they've been getting a great deal and increase rent to maximum allowable by local law. If the kids are now working adults they can afford to pay more.
Would talk to an attorney and ask what you can and can't do. Having that many people in a 1 bedroom is a safety issue. If it were me, I wouldn't have the stomach to call ICE. Good luck with your decision.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Agree with Mike - you collect money from them for a decade and they have been paying and now you want to pull out the (no pun intended) Trump card if you don't get your way and threaten them....
7e investments53 Reviews- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Agree with Mike - you collect money from them for a decade and they have been paying and now you want to pull out the (no pun intended) Trump card if you don't get your way and threaten them....
I bought the property less than 2 years ago and I inherited these tenants from the previous owner - Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yJust curious, you bought while they had been living there, so you knew they were there, what made it a deal then, that has changed?
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Agree with Mike - you collect money from them for a decade and they have been paying and now you want to pull out the (no pun intended) Trump card if you don't get your way and threaten them....
I bought the property less than 2 years ago and I inherited these tenants from the previous owner - Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Ken M.:
Just curious, you bought while they had been living there, so you knew they were there, what made it a deal then, that has changed?Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Agree with Mike - you collect money from them for a decade and they have been paying and now you want to pull out the (no pun intended) Trump card if you don't get your way and threaten them....
I bought the property less than 2 years ago and I inherited these tenants from the previous ownerI didn’t know there was 5 adults living in the unit. The lease said 2 adults and 3 minor children
- Investor · Get yourself trained before doing something inadvisable. · Member since 2024 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yGot it. Our leases require the names and ages of everyone that will be living there, even if taking over a previous lease. You might try adding that to yours as well.
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Just curious, you bought while they had been living there, so you knew they were there, what made it a deal then, that has changed?Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
Agree with Mike - you collect money from them for a decade and they have been paying and now you want to pull out the (no pun intended) Trump card if you don't get your way and threaten them....
I bought the property less than 2 years ago and I inherited these tenants from the previous ownerI didn’t know there was 5 adults living in the unit. The lease said 2 adults and 3 minor children
- Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes1y
Another solid argument for max rent cap increases every year. Somebody was a “good guy” for too many years and now it’s coming back to bite them. Why would they ever move out, heck their kids will pry be there in 20 years if you’re 33% under market and increasing every year.
Next time just charge market rent and gift them $6,000 at the end of the year, every year, like Santa. That way you can keep up with market rent increases. (Plus it becomes more obvious what the gift costs.). Good luck.
- Houston, TX · Member since 2015 · 261 posts · 170 votes1y
I would have a talk with the tenants and let them know that they are under market rent and your cost are not. A 50% rent increase may be a bit much to handle but there are 5 adults living in a one bedroom unit. Do the kids work? can they help with the added expense? Their status should be irrelevant in my opinion
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Gustavo Delgado:
I would have a talk with the tenants and let them know that they are under market rent and your cost are not. A 50% rent increase may be a bit much to handle but there are 5 adults living in a one bedroom unit. Do the kids work? can they help with the added expense? Their status should be irrelevant in my opinion
they are all working adults. I know 2 of the kids work security
- Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes1y
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
does the 2+1 include minors or children only? - 1yDan H.Pro MemberInvestor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
- Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
- 1yDan H.Pro MemberInvestor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
I think Most LL agree with your sentiment and as a LL I definitely agree but I will attempt to answer you question.
There are many more tenants than LL. In addition many cities have severe housing shortages. San Diego has had property appreciation of near 6% annually since the year 2000. Remember this period includes the GFC. If you eliminated the GFC, the appreciation would be much greater. Wages have not increased anywhere near that rate. If rents increased at similar rate the already large homeless problem would be larger. So politicians 1) pander to the masses 2) can state that rent control reduces homeless.
As a LL here are some of my issues: 1) rent control only works if tenants have lifetime rights to the unit. That is crazy. 2) when rent control first goes into effect, it is applied to existing leases. This is in effect having government universally changing contracts between 2 parties that was entered prior to any rent control with a lease end date? What if I planned to have a friend move in at the end of the lease 3) mostly it hurt “soft” LL that had let their rents get far below market rent. These generous LL must continue to accept reduced rent, but in addition when they go to sell they will not get market offers due to the lower income/rent that is enforced by the rent control.
Note, I think it is rare for market rent to increase more than STR state wide maximum rent increase. However, if your rent is below market rent, this max increase may not catch up at all with market rent. In addition, there are jurisdictions with far stricter rent control regulations than the state wide regulations.
Rent control benefits only a few good tenants. It greatly benefits poor tenants as it is difficult to get rid of poor tenants. Rent control can lead to blight. Our policy is we only do upgrades with tenant in place necessary to not cause excess damage. I have a tile floor in a unit that the tiles are popping up through no fault of the tenant. I would replace the floor if I could increase the rent to recoup the expense. This unit has been getting max allowed rent increase yearly. Our policy is no new floors, interior painting, vanity replacement, etc if the rents cannot be raised to recoup the expense.
The tenant tolerates the flooring issue because they recognize their rent is below market rent.
I personally believe rent control is mostly passed by politicians to appease their tenant constituents and not because it is good or fair.
Good luck
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
I think Most LL agree with your sentiment and as a LL I definitely agree but I will attempt to answer you question.
There are many more tenants than LL. In addition many cities have severe housing shortages. San Diego has had property appreciation of near 6% annually since the year 2000. Remember this period includes the GFC. If you eliminated the GFC, the appreciation would be much greater. Wages have not increased anywhere near that rate. If rents increased at similar rate the already large homeless problem would be larger. So politicians 1) pander to the masses 2) can state that rent control reduces homeless.
As a LL here are some of my issues: 1) rent control only works if tenants have lifetime rights to the unit. That is crazy. 2) when rent control first goes into effect, it is applied to existing leases. This is in effect having government universally changing contracts between 2 parties that was entered prior to any rent control with a lease end date? What if I planned to have a friend move in at the end of the lease 3) mostly it hurt “soft” LL that had let their rents get far below market rent. These generous LL must continue to accept reduced rent, but in addition when they go to sell they will not get market offers due to the lower income/rent that is enforced by the rent control.
Note, I think it is rare for market rent to increase more than STR state wide maximum rent increase. However, if your rent is below market rent, this max increase may not catch up at all with market rent. In addition, there are jurisdictions with far stricter rent control regulations than the state wide regulations.
Rent control benefits only a few good tenants. It greatly benefits poor tenants as it is difficult to get rid of poor tenants. Rent control can lead to blight. Our policy is we only do upgrades with tenant in place necessary to not cause excess damage. I have a tile floor in a unit that the tiles are popping up through no fault of the tenant. I would replace the floor if I could increase the rent to recoup the expense. This unit has been getting max allowed rent increase yearly. Our policy is no new floors, interior painting, vanity replacement, etc if the rents cannot be raised to recoup the expense.
The tenant tolerates the flooring issue because they recognize their rent is below market rent.
I personally believe rent control is mostly passed by politicians to appease their tenant constituents and not because it is good or fair.
Good luck
I come at this not from a LL point of view but from the "Nerdy Nerderson of Finance-Econ with minor in Sociology".
The first lie, that rent control is a NEED item.
Stop and think it through, how is it a need? This ties right in with explaining the desire for allow illegal immigrants, because they both come from the exact same motive.
Rent control is a mechanism of POVERTY. To continue, encourage and entrench poverty.
A certain political club telegraphs there desire in this, it just seems nobody listens.
They say these impoverished and dependant persons are NEEDED, so that then "they" have dishwashers, janitors, the lowest crappiest rung of labor employment filled at the absolute lowest prices imaginable.
Notice they never explain why a person would choose to be a dishwasher for life, or stay impoverished forever, nor speak about those peoples quality of living at the lowest rung of life possible.
The entire system is literally designed, by intent, as a conveyor belt of modern age indentured servitude.
To keep a person impoverished where they can't afford to exist in the prevailing market system, so they get via other peoples money (tax payors) off-set's. Supplements.
Notice how all of every program never has any design to elevate and improve a person, to grow one self beyond the need for such. No, it is constructed to keep ones existence at that lowest tier of the pyramid.
And it's done via middle Americas money.
It is a modern slavery system, it is.
And the moment anyone threatens this system they cry out "but who will wash our clothes, mow our lawns, cook our food...." sound familiar.
They never speak 1 word about what about the people, there kids, there family, the community living in persistent poverty. No, because they LIKE poverty, poverty is great for them, it keeps a healthy pipeline of cheap labor.
Cheap via taxing middle America to pay the difference to keep them close by and in geographic region for those seeking to use, extort, and profit off them.
It's not like climate change where there was some debate to be had between the sides, there is 100% consensus of the economic and sociological FACTS of what these actions do, as well as countless years, decades and generations of case studies to look to. These systems are factually known to create generational poverty, dependency and with that crime, disparity and so on.
Am I surprised that the ones at the forefront arguing for such poverty-mechanisms are the same ones who fought to retain a Monarchy in America in league with plutocrats..... Lol, that's like saying am I surprised when a cat try's to eat a mouse.
There weapon is GUILT.
Because this entire system requires Other Peoples Money, it requires middle America to flip the bill for it all and to keep deaf, dumb and blind to it's reality.
They achieve this via GUILT. Selling a false narrative of GUILT.
Every school of economics on earth shines a spotlight on how every law and principle of economics is clear that these actions do NOT produce anything good and they are interrupters to the very working of free market economics.
The very design of this economic machine is one in which government is to get involved ONLY and if there is an event that occurs that breaks how free market economics works. All of these instances are finite in there duration.
For example the CA wild fires.
This would be an instance for stepping in a creating a short-term "bridge", not to replace but to BRIDGE the gaps that were created from the sudden loss of parts and pieces from the economic engine.
Special financial assistance and loans to rebuild, survive rebuilding phase, short-term housing supplements and units, things like this.
Instead what we have is the BS lies that eternal supplements to KEEP people impoverished is somehow "good" for anyone except the highest tier exploiting such persons and situations for their gain at expense of literally everyone else at every other level of the pyramid......
All of these things are not needed, there desired by an elite class to protect and retain their elite status. It is. Because remove of such the existing middle class would get far stronger and would grow in size significantly, and thus in it's power and influence. And the #1 threat to elite is a strong middle class. Because reality is middle does not need the elite.
As they said back when the notion of "We The People" was presented and the masses voting.... They said the people are not capable of thinking for themselves and require the elite to do the thinking for all of them.
It has taken some generations but the "Loyalists" have usurped the "rebels"......
It's time for all of us to be a lot more Samuel Adams.......
- 1yDan H.Pro MemberInvestor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
I think Most LL agree with your sentiment and as a LL I definitely agree but I will attempt to answer you question.
There are many more tenants than LL. In addition many cities have severe housing shortages. San Diego has had property appreciation of near 6% annually since the year 2000. Remember this period includes the GFC. If you eliminated the GFC, the appreciation would be much greater. Wages have not increased anywhere near that rate. If rents increased at similar rate the already large homeless problem would be larger. So politicians 1) pander to the masses 2) can state that rent control reduces homeless.
As a LL here are some of my issues: 1) rent control only works if tenants have lifetime rights to the unit. That is crazy. 2) when rent control first goes into effect, it is applied to existing leases. This is in effect having government universally changing contracts between 2 parties that was entered prior to any rent control with a lease end date? What if I planned to have a friend move in at the end of the lease 3) mostly it hurt “soft” LL that had let their rents get far below market rent. These generous LL must continue to accept reduced rent, but in addition when they go to sell they will not get market offers due to the lower income/rent that is enforced by the rent control.
Note, I think it is rare for market rent to increase more than STR state wide maximum rent increase. However, if your rent is below market rent, this max increase may not catch up at all with market rent. In addition, there are jurisdictions with far stricter rent control regulations than the state wide regulations.
Rent control benefits only a few good tenants. It greatly benefits poor tenants as it is difficult to get rid of poor tenants. Rent control can lead to blight. Our policy is we only do upgrades with tenant in place necessary to not cause excess damage. I have a tile floor in a unit that the tiles are popping up through no fault of the tenant. I would replace the floor if I could increase the rent to recoup the expense. This unit has been getting max allowed rent increase yearly. Our policy is no new floors, interior painting, vanity replacement, etc if the rents cannot be raised to recoup the expense.
The tenant tolerates the flooring issue because they recognize their rent is below market rent.
I personally believe rent control is mostly passed by politicians to appease their tenant constituents and not because it is good or fair.
Good luck
I come at this not from a LL point of view but from the "Nerdy Nerderson of Finance-Econ with minor in Sociology".
The first lie, that rent control is a NEED item.
Stop and think it through, how is it a need? This ties right in with explaining the desire for allow illegal immigrants, because they both come from the exact same motive.
Rent control is a mechanism of POVERTY. To continue, encourage and entrench poverty.
A certain political club telegraphs there desire in this, it just seems nobody listens.
They say these impoverished and dependant persons are NEEDED, so that then "they" have dishwashers, janitors, the lowest crappiest rung of labor employment filled at the absolute lowest prices imaginable.
Notice they never explain why a person would choose to be a dishwasher for life, or stay impoverished forever, nor speak about those peoples quality of living at the lowest rung of life possible.
The entire system is literally designed, by intent, as a conveyor belt of modern age indentured servitude.
To keep a person impoverished where they can't afford to exist in the prevailing market system, so they get via other peoples money (tax payors) off-set's. Supplements.
Notice how all of every program never has any design to elevate and improve a person, to grow one self beyond the need for such. No, it is constructed to keep ones existence at that lowest tier of the pyramid.
And it's done via middle Americas money.
It is a modern slavery system, it is.
And the moment anyone threatens this system they cry out "but who will wash our clothes, mow our lawns, cook our food...." sound familiar.
They never speak 1 word about what about the people, there kids, there family, the community living in persistent poverty. No, because they LIKE poverty, poverty is great for them, it keeps a healthy pipeline of cheap labor.
Cheap via taxing middle America to pay the difference to keep them close by and in geographic region for those seeking to use, extort, and profit off them.
It's not like climate change where there was some debate to be had between the sides, there is 100% consensus of the economic and sociological FACTS of what these actions do, as well as countless years, decades and generations of case studies to look to. These systems are factually known to create generational poverty, dependency and with that crime, disparity and so on.
Am I surprised that the ones at the forefront arguing for such poverty-mechanisms are the same ones who fought to retain a Monarchy in America in league with plutocrats..... Lol, that's like saying am I surprised when a cat try's to eat a mouse.
There weapon is GUILT.
Because this entire system requires Other Peoples Money, it requires middle America to flip the bill for it all and to keep deaf, dumb and blind to it's reality.
They achieve this via GUILT. Selling a false narrative of GUILT.
Every school of economics on earth shines a spotlight on how every law and principle of economics is clear that these actions do NOT produce anything good and they are interrupters to the very working of free market economics.
The very design of this economic machine is one in which government is to get involved ONLY and if there is an event that occurs that breaks how free market economics works. All of these instances are finite in there duration.
For example the CA wild fires.
This would be an instance for stepping in a creating a short-term "bridge", not to replace but to BRIDGE the gaps that were created from the sudden loss of parts and pieces from the economic engine.
Special financial assistance and loans to rebuild, survive rebuilding phase, short-term housing supplements and units, things like this.
Instead what we have is the BS lies that eternal supplements to KEEP people impoverished is somehow "good" for anyone except the highest tier exploiting such persons and situations for their gain at expense of literally everyone else at every other level of the pyramid......
All of these things are not needed, there desired by an elite class to protect and retain their elite status. It is. Because remove of such the existing middle class would get far stronger and would grow in size significantly, and thus in it's power and influence. And the #1 threat to elite is a strong middle class. Because reality is middle does not need the elite.
As they said back when the notion of "We The People" was presented and the masses voting.... They said the people are not capable of thinking for themselves and require the elite to do the thinking for all of them.
It has taken some generations but the "Loyalists" have usurped the "rebels"......
It's time for all of us to be a lot more Samuel Adams.......
As indicated, I am against rent control. I am especially against applying it to leases in place at the time the rent control is initiated. It is changing a contract (the lease) between two consenting contracts to the benefit of only one of the parties. In addition, the LL could have set the lease end date to a date for a reason such as to move in a friend or that is when I have time to paint the interior, etc. with rent control, the tenant gets to stay as long as they desire (there are a couple of exceptions but in the broad sense the statement is true).
However, rentCafe has the folllowing average rents for coastal Ca cities:
- San Diego: $2981/month, 878’ average size apartment. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/san-diego/. I will add that all my city of San Diego units have rents significantly higher than this average rent (my lowest city of San Diego rent is $3850)
- Los Angeles: $2779, 810’. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/lo...
- San Jose: $3074, 883’. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa...
- San Francisco: $3494, 741’. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa...
- Irvine: $3213, 927’. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/ir...
You do not need to be impoverished to be challenged to pay these rates. I do have 2 contrary comments 1) you get more unit for your money (lower rent) in the suburbs or further from the urban center 2) there is no reason you must live in there cities. There are much cheaper places to live than this cities. If you cannot afford to live in a location, you can move to cheaper areas.
I believe in free market. If rents were not capped, the lowest wages would need to increase so that lower wage workers can afford to have a home to live. Instead rent control places this responsibility on Landlords. If the government wants to subsidize rents, the government should subsidize the rents and not place this responsibility on the landlords.
I also question if rent control has played a role in these high rent points. Making it harder to get rid of poor tenants increases LL costs and risks. Both of these result in the need for higher rents. The good tenants now are charged a rent that compensates for the costs of having subpar tenants that can stay as long as they desire.
Maybe the current Supreme Court can revisit rent control. They have already demonstrated that they are willing to ignore precedent. At a very least, it should be ruled that it cannot be applied to current leases.
Best wishes - Rental Property Investor · San Francisco Bay Area · Member since 2022 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
That's a good point... wish they would cap these gasoline price increases here lol
As far as rent control, I'm against rent control and generally vote against any local or state measures would be anti-landlord. I'm going to guess it's mainly renters voting for these measures.
I feel like this thread is going off topic from the original post.
- OP bought the property 2 years ago so in 2023. Tenants have lived there since 2011.
- At the time there were 2 adults and 3 kids so 14 years later, the kids are working adults. With 5 working adults, they should be able to pay more rent.
- OP said he raised the rent from $910 to $1000. He asked if there is a way to increase this to $1500 (he said $1900 is the market rate rent)
- According to CA laws, he could theoretically raise the rent 8.9% (about $96) unless LA has a stricter local rent control law. $500 increase is not in line with this increase.
- So it seems like maximum occupancy is not a violation since it wasn't stated in the lease. I think if he tries to evict them via some reason (did they violate the lease in some way?) or loophole (especially threatening to call ICE), this is going to turn out badly for him without proper legal advice.
- Just Googled this: landlord in LA can offer tenants cash for keys to vacate property but it's voluntary and must follow all the local regulations.
- People commented to talk to the tenants and talk to an attorney and LA Housing Dept. This is best next step to take
- Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes1y
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Becca F.:
Quote from @Dan H.:
Quote from @Bill B.:
Ps. California has a “2+1 rule” meaning 2 adults per bedroom plus 1 extra adult. I don’t know if they’re breaking the law or you are. But I’m sure you’d be held responsible if something happened because of illegal overcrowding in a property you owned.
You are interpreting the rule incorrectly. That is the lowest max occupancy that seems commonly enforceable in the state even though finding a law that specifies this is a challenge.
However, if your lease does not state a max occupancy (which cannot be lower than (2 * BR + 1) the tenant can place 5 in a single BR.
@Frederick William does you lease have a maximum allowed occupancy? It could provide means for a lease termination. It may sound mean, but 2 years ago I let a good tenant go because of a growing family. They were about to go 2 over what my lease allows (and I gave them a warning when they went 1 over that I would not be allowing 2 over). 7 in a 2 BR was too many people. 5 in a 1 br is also 2 over my max occupancy. You may have an issue enforcing this even if you have a limit in your lease because they have had 5 for quite a while.
I am assuming your unit is a MF because single family home is exempt from rent control (costa Hawkins).
Other options to break AB1482 (not sure if you have stricter local ordinance) are 1) move in a close family member. Ab1482 is not clear on duration but locally (San Diego) is interpreting it to be for a year. 2) renovation extensive enough that tenant cannot reside in unit through the effort. Abatement works. Take down textured ceiling may suffice if it has asbestos. City of San Diego explicitly states flooring replacement without abatement and painting does not suffice. Find out what your jurisdiction dictates as requiring tenant vacating but I am fairly certain pulling down asbestos texture is will suffice.
If you do not desire these, then abide by the rent control increase. In San Diego it is 8.6% for the current period. Seeing it is based on local inflation rate, your max increase will likely be slightly different.
Good luck
This is good to know about the maximum allowed occupancy stated in the leases.
On the rental increase, you mentioned for San Diego is 8.6%. Is that for multi-family?
What I'm understanding is that there are two definitions of rent control:
- Strict "local" rent control: can't raise rent more than 1 to 3% (whatever the local number) is on multi-family if local law is stricter than California law
- "California rent control": can't raise rent more than 5% + CPI (maximum of 10%) including on single family. This is what local investors told me about SFH rental. I could raise the rent 8.8% (see chart in link below). I can't raise the rent 20% (not that I would do that) on existing tenants.
I found this chart which calculates maximum rental increase in different counties (I don't know anything about this site and their services but I thought the calculator was useful).
https://www.fastevictionservice.com/cpi-rent-increase-calcul...
In the chart it says 8.9% for LA county from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. I don't know if LA has a stricter local rental law so OP should ask an attorney or the LAHD.
I'd be curious to know, does CA or San Diego or really anyone have a chart telling McDonalds the maximum they can increase the price of a quarter pounder and fries?
Or maybe instructing Valvoline on the maximum they can increase price of an oil change?
Or how about a mandate imposing a cap on what Costco can increase price of groceries.....
Why is it an accepted notion in USA that government get's to instruct Landlords for what there pricing is to be yet virtually everything else in life, the food you eat, the things you drink, the fuel you need to get to and from work, that can just run buck-wild because "it's the market".......
Why is rental real estate considered a special carve-out from all other commerce and economics?
Why do so many people buy into the BS and allow such economic lies to persist.
Free market economics applies 1,000% to rental housing exactly as it does to hot dogs. If the vendor over-prices for market price acceptance they won't sell, and will be pressured by the market to reduce pricing or increase offering.
Manipulating the market will ALWAYS create problems. Service and product declines, supply constricts, it's a manufactured problem. It's solving a "problem" by generating a bigger more pervasive systemic problem.
People need to stop choking down the BS and lies like good little quiet sheep and SPEAK UP and OUT on the lies of it all.
That's a good point... wish they would cap these gasoline price increases here lol
As far as rent control, I'm against rent control and generally vote against any local or state measures would be anti-landlord. I'm going to guess it's mainly renters voting for these measures.
I feel like this thread is going off topic from the original post.
- OP bought the property 2 years ago so in 2023. Tenants have lived there since 2011.
- At the time there were 2 adults and 3 kids so 14 years later, the kids are working adults. With 5 working adults, they should be able to pay more rent.
- OP said he raised the rent from $910 to $1000. He asked if there is a way to increase this to $1500 (he said $1900 is the market rate rent)
- According to CA laws, he could theoretically raise the rent 8.9% (about $96) unless LA has a stricter local rent control law. $500 increase is not in line with this increase.
- So it seems like maximum occupancy is not a violation since it wasn't stated in the lease. I think if he tries to evict them via some reason (did they violate the lease in some way?) or loophole (especially threatening to call ICE), this is going to turn out badly for him without proper legal advice.
- Just Googled this: landlord in LA can offer tenants cash for keys to vacate property but it's voluntary and must follow all the local regulations.
- People commented to talk to the tenants and talk to an attorney and LA Housing Dept. This is best next step to take
Rent Control is just another example of left wing policies that actually harm those they are supposed to help.
If this family wasn't living in a Rent Controlled home their landlord wouldn't be trying to get them deported......Go figure.
- Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes1y
I don't know. I’d never invest in California as a landlord when we have 49 other states and at least 45 of them are better. Hopefully you or your PM know the law if you’re forced to invest there. I just googled it. It just said adults. Hard to believe they’d let 3 adults and 10 kids live in a 1bedroom. But the first result only said adults. Your OP said 5 adults live there. So I figured I provided enough info to stop that.
- Investor · Anchorage, AK · Member since 2015 · 267 posts · 76 votes1y
Do you own the rental in your own name or as an LLC? If you own it in your own name and you own no more that 2 rental units, you are exempt from California's statewide rent control. However, if not, you have to abide by rent control which allows you to increase rents a certain amount each year based on some government statistic... I think it's the "consumer price index." In most counties of California, people follow the HUD recommendation of maximum capacity of 2 persons per bedroom plus 1 extra so 3 people max for a 1 bedroom apartment. So, perhaps the appropriate thing to do is give them a 30 day notice to reduce the occupancy to 3 people maximum. Then if they don't do that, maybe you could kick them out and then raise the rents to $1500. But if they took you to court to fight the 30 day notice to vacate, maybe they could win because all 5 of them are already on the lease. Best to consult a property manager in LA county and see what they suggest. I think whether they are here legally or not is irrelevant.
- 1yAdam BartomeoBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · Cape Coral, FL · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
There are so many wrong things throughout this thread
1. Renting to illegals. Why not rent to tax paying American Citizens for $1,000 a month. I am sure that there are many people in LA who would love to pay that.
2. Federal guidelines encourage 2 people per bedroom. 5 people is a disgrace. You are putting them in danger, you in danger, and the rest of your building in danger.
3. @Mike D. Would he be a Scumbag if he reported to the police that he is renting to a thief, murderer, escaped convict, or anyone else breaking the law? NO! He wouldn't! Actually, he could be brought up on charges for doing so and not informing the police. You should really think through your morals and not pick and choose what laws you want to follow. He should just get them out, period.
4. Someone who hasn't paid taxes for a decade should not be allowed rent control! End of story!
Bartomeo Property Management4.7150 Reviews- Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes1y
Quote from @Adam Bartomeo:
There are so many wrong things throughout this thread
1. Renting to illegals. Why not rent to tax paying American Citizens for $1,000 a month. I am sure that there are many people in LA who would love to pay that.
2. Federal guidelines encourage 2 people per bedroom. 5 people is a disgrace. You are putting them in danger, you in danger, and the rest of your building in danger.
3. @Mike D. Would he be a Scumbag if he reported to the police that he is renting to a thief, murderer, escaped convict, or anyone else breaking the law? NO! He wouldn't! Actually, he could be brought up on charges for doing so and not informing the police. You should really think through your morals and not pick and choose what laws you want to follow. He should just get them out, period.
4. Someone who hasn't paid taxes for a decade should not be allowed rent control! End of story!
If you can sleep at night after terrorizing and strong-arming immigrants to accept illegal leases, you have a stronger stomach than me.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Adam Bartomeo:
There are so many wrong things throughout this thread
1. Renting to illegals. Why not rent to tax paying American Citizens for $1,000 a month. I am sure that there are many people in LA who would love to pay that.
2. Federal guidelines encourage 2 people per bedroom. 5 people is a disgrace. You are putting them in danger, you in danger, and the rest of your building in danger.
3. @Mike D. Would he be a Scumbag if he reported to the police that he is renting to a thief, murderer, escaped convict, or anyone else breaking the law? NO! He wouldn't! Actually, he could be brought up on charges for doing so and not informing the police. You should really think through your morals and not pick and choose what laws you want to follow. He should just get them out, period.
4. Someone who hasn't paid taxes for a decade should not be allowed rent control! End of story!
I inherited these tenants tenants exactly 2 years ago from the previous landlord. I did not lease to illegal immigrants. Unfortunately in California, illegal immigrants are afforded the same tenant rights and rent control rights as American citizens. I think right now with Trumps efforts to clean Los Angeles. I have an opportunity
- 1yTheresa HarrisPro MemberMember since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
Starting increasing the rent every year. If there are caps on how much you can increase the rent, then increase it by that amount.
- Member since 2020 · 351 posts · 329 votes1y
Given this is California, probably the only thing you can do is update the rent the maximum amount allowed by law.
You can look into nonrenewal due to you moving in or needing to rehab. Likely this comes with a 3 month rent penalty you would need to pay to them.
You also should also look into max occupancy laws, as you might have the ability to evict based on occupancy laws, provided your lease allows it. Read your local code and tenants rights literature, and then if it seems you have a problem or case to evict go get help from a lawyer.
I don't think their status: illegal immigrant, immigrant, permanent resident, citizen etc has anything to do with your relationship as landlord now that they are in your house.
Disclosure, I am not a California landlord nor am I a lawyer, just a busybody.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
This might be a sensitive topic. I have a unit in the city of Los Angeles, echo park area. tenants moved into the building with the prior owner and at the time that they moved in ( 2011), it was just mother and father with 3 minor children. , the kids are now adults and no one has moved out. So there are 5 adults and they all live in a 1 bedroom unit. I don’t want to kick them out because they are good, law abiding , rent paying tenants. However, their rent is well below market at $1,000 a month. I want to negotiate with them to sign a new lease with a higher rent( $1500). However, the unit is a rent controlled building built in 1940s. What would u do? is it legal to request a rent controlled tenant to pay higher ? Would I be harassing them because they are illegal immigrants?
End of the day, get an attorney to tell you what you can and cannot do as all this post is going to do is start to bring in some political banter back and forth.
7e investments53 Reviews - Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
This might be a sensitive topic. I have a unit in the city of Los Angeles, echo park area. tenants moved into the building with the prior owner and at the time that they moved in ( 2011), it was just mother and father with 3 minor children. , the kids are now adults and no one has moved out. So there are 5 adults and they all live in a 1 bedroom unit. I don’t want to kick them out because they are good, law abiding , rent paying tenants. However, their rent is well below market at $1,000 a month. I want to negotiate with them to sign a new lease with a higher rent( $1500). However, the unit is a rent controlled building built in 1940s. What would u do? is it legal to request a rent controlled tenant to pay higher ? Would I be harassing them because they are illegal immigrants?
Sounds like you want to make a business decision but are hoping to get people on here to make you not feel guilty about it.
You wanna get them to pay more than the law allows you too? Ok, threaten to call ICE if they don't agree to pay more than the law allows. It's your biz man, you do you, but don't come on here crying about your feelings hoping strangers will make you feel better about it. Being a landlord is not for those that want hugs and kisses.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @Frederick William:
This might be a sensitive topic. I have a unit in the city of Los Angeles, echo park area. tenants moved into the building with the prior owner and at the time that they moved in ( 2011), it was just mother and father with 3 minor children. , the kids are now adults and no one has moved out. So there are 5 adults and they all live in a 1 bedroom unit. I don’t want to kick them out because they are good, law abiding , rent paying tenants. However, their rent is well below market at $1,000 a month. I want to negotiate with them to sign a new lease with a higher rent( $1500). However, the unit is a rent controlled building built in 1940s. What would u do? is it legal to request a rent controlled tenant to pay higher ? Would I be harassing them because they are illegal immigrants?
Sounds like you want to make a business decision but are hoping to get people on here to make you not feel guilty about it.
You wanna get them to pay more than the law allows you too? Ok, threaten to call ICE if they don't agree to pay more than the law allows. It's your biz man, you do you, but don't come on here crying about your feelings hoping strangers will make you feel better about it. Being a landlord is not for those that want hugs and kisses.
This is exactly what I needed to hear.
- 1ySamuel CoronadoPro MemberInvestor · Huntsville, AL · Member since 2016 · 334 posts · 181 votes
Call ICE. I'm not even joking. I'm saying this as a son of immigrants- call ICE. They are not law-abiding if they are here illegally.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
So should I just call ICE and have all of them reported and forcefully removed? And once I have them removed , I can rent the apartment at market rate for $1900. Is this better?
- Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
This person is looking around at all the human misery happening in LA and thinking "here's my chance for some cashflow!" I'm a landlord, too. I've kicked people out when they needed to be kicked out.
But this is gross.
If you behave this way, what are people in your community going to do when *you* are down and out?
Probably, pop some popcorn and watch poetic justice unfold.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Mike D.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
This person is looking around at all the human misery happening in LA and thinking "here's my chance for some cashflow!" I'm a landlord, too. I've kicked people out when they needed to be kicked out.
But this is gross.
If you behave this way, what are people in your community going to do when *you* are down and out?
Probably, pop some popcorn and watch poetic justice unfold.
Karma.......
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
So should I just call ICE and have all of them reported and forcefully removed? And once I have them removed , I can rent the apartment at market rate for $1900. Is this better?
I am not shocked that you boil everything down to a question of do you go epic d-bag via (A) or (B), and that's it......
Are you not capable of at least pretending your a normal human being for just 1hr and having a conversation with them?
It's not a good living situation for them, not a chance it is.
Hey, how about you man-up and go tell them your line of thinking and the 2 options. That you were thinking this was a great time to really squeeze em and get around the rent controls.
As James said you-do-you but stop expecting some hugg's and BS telling you your anything but what you clearly are in all this.
Karma has a way of coming round to balance the scales of life....
- Member since 2020 · 351 posts · 329 votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Ok, let me preface this that I am an immigrant household and family.
@Frederick William exemplifies the most vile and disgusting parts of human nature. And perfectly details how illegal immigration is BAD in a whole array of ways including to the illegal immigrants themselves, as a life of exploitation is NOT a life or system of any good.
A life of exploitation harms the illegal immigrants, it harms the economy, and it harms the community via it's manufacture of poverty.
And the statements popularized to just give away to illegals everything LEGAL immigrants spent years and thousands to EARN just makes the blood boil!
It is NOT "just business" to look at such situation and salivate at the opportunity to use it as leverage to squeeze some more dollars from these people. It is no different than having a tenant whom you know is wanted for rape states away and thinking "oh, what if I tell him he's gotta pay me 20% more to keep my mouth shut, and oh, 40% more for a view of the next door school playground"..... It's vile, you are a bad person for even considering such.
There is things a person can do such as turn themselves in to ICE and request opportunity to go through the paperwork and steps to become LEGAL. Yes, that is a thing, always has been.
I just can't believe people are so devoid of a soul that they look at a family packed into a 1br and think "oooh, how can I squeeze em for few more dollars".....
And saying you inherited them is not an excuse. You accepted them as-is, there yours end of story, it's been more then enough time and you know full well the situation and are seeking to EXPLOIT it/them for profit. End of story.
Lastly; before anyone wants to get all political with this maybe look up some facts as to who was named and remains the "Deporter in Chief". Deportation for illegal immigrants has been a thing for generations, nothing new, R, D, it's always been a thing and nearly every country the world round engages in doing the same. It's necessary to have order to things. Or else we get the kind of exploitation as championed by Fred.
So should I just call ICE and have all of them reported and forcefully removed? And once I have them removed , I can rent the apartment at market rate for $1900. Is this better?
This is a better solution than threatening to call ICE on them if they don't let you raise rents above what is legally allowed. You significantly reduce your legal liability this way. The California courts and jury will eat you alive if it comes out that you tried to blackmail your tenants into accepting a rent increase above rent control levels by having ICE come out. You're also opening yourself to a federal discrimination lawsuit--regardless of whether you win or not it will be expensive. It's not about ethics it's about risk mitigation.
Either call ICE or don't. It's not my business, nor am I in a position to judge, but engaging in a negotiation using ICE as a threat will lead you open to all sorts of issues, especially in LA.
You can also just raise rents to 1500 and see what happens (without engaging the ICE question). While you aren't "allowed" to do so, the repercussions aren't obvious from a quick google search. I would likely talk to someone who knows the law (code and precedents) to understand your risk here.
- Real Estate Agent · Nashville, TN · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes1y
Raise the rent consistently as much as the law allows until you get to some level of market rent. Being "nice" has come back to bite you basically.
They sound like good tenants and I'd want to keep them. Law abiding citizens that pay rent....what else can you ask for?
- Realtor · McAllen, TX · Member since 2025 · 141 posts · 58 votes1y
Talk to an attorney or the city, or whoever is in charge of rent control.
- 1yColleen F.Pro MemberInvestor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
@Frederick William does california give you the ability to terminate due to over-occupancy? If it does that is what I would be doing asking them to cure the occupancy issue or move. In the meantime raise the rent as much as you can, recoup any utility usage costs the law allows you to and talk to a lawyer on steps forward.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Took "Professor Google" all of 2 minutes to clearly clarify the CA rules & regulations in this matter:
https://bornstein.law/immigration-status-in-rental-propertie...
California has ensconced laws that prohibit discrimination based on their immigration status or threaten them. Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation are not allowed.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) states that immigration status cannot be used to deny housing or treat tenants differently. Civil Code Section 1940.3 silences landlords from disclosing a tenant’s immigration status to anyone, including government agencies, in an attempt to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against the tenant.
Moreover, California Civil Code Section 1942.5 protects tenants from misguided landlords threatening to report a tenant’s immigration status to authorities to coerce, evict, raise rents, or otherwise harass them.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Took "Professor Google" all of 2 minutes to clearly clarify the CA rules & regulations in this matter:
https://bornstein.law/immigration-status-in-rental-propertie...
California has ensconced laws that prohibit discrimination based on their immigration status or threaten them. Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation are not allowed.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) states that immigration status cannot be used to deny housing or treat tenants differently. Civil Code Section 1940.3 silences landlords from disclosing a tenant’s immigration status to anyone, including government agencies, in an attempt to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against the tenant.
Moreover, California Civil Code Section 1942.5 protects tenants from misguided landlords threatening to report a tenant’s immigration status to authorities to coerce, evict, raise rents, or otherwise harass them.
What has happened to America when we are protecting criminals who have entered the US illegally
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Took "Professor Google" all of 2 minutes to clearly clarify the CA rules & regulations in this matter:
https://bornstein.law/immigration-status-in-rental-propertie...
California has ensconced laws that prohibit discrimination based on their immigration status or threaten them. Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation are not allowed.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) states that immigration status cannot be used to deny housing or treat tenants differently. Civil Code Section 1940.3 silences landlords from disclosing a tenant’s immigration status to anyone, including government agencies, in an attempt to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against the tenant.
Moreover, California Civil Code Section 1942.5 protects tenants from misguided landlords threatening to report a tenant’s immigration status to authorities to coerce, evict, raise rents, or otherwise harass them.
What has happened to America when we are protecting criminals who have entered the US illegally
It's not that simple, and why it's not that simple is the problem.
The US is to blame for the size and scope of the issue. They allowed what was short term singular problems (the act of illegal immigration) fester into a complex entrenched problem. Being here for so many years, having kids, government completely ignoring doing anything about it until it's a big problem.
And the assorted politicians weaponizing the people and issue to use for political gain. Vote pandering etc..
Think, it wasn't all that long ago that people in S.America were literally told to just mob up, walk on up, gates are wide open. That was a manufactured disaster.
As is the issue of dreamers and all that we have today, a manufactured disaster many many years in the making that no political party has clean hands of.
And now, today, it's being politically weaponized all the more.
These are human beings. Some are easy to disregard because they are horrible humans but many are just normal ordinary people who were born into a less than ideal place and when presented with opportunity to go somewhere that should be better, they took it.
Our politicians are by far the most to blame, and sadly it seems like there the only ones getting none of the blame. The ones who spent the last 10+ years manufacturing this mess.
Getting in the mud and being just as sleezy is not any kind of solution. It just makes the mud-hole bigger.
Step away and be the better person. Talk to the tenants like there regular people in a sh#t situation until they give you evidence there something or someone else.
I wouldn't threaten them or try to squeeze them but I wouldn't placate to the BS either. The answer, as with most things, is somewhere in the middle.
Or if it's all too much sell, buy some NVDA or an investing that's more a fit for you then being a landlord who hates landlording.
- Investor · Washington, Washington D.C. · Member since 2012 · 239 posts · 168 votes1y
Don’t you have fire code laws in California? In Maryland you can have 2 people in each bedroom plus one. So that family of five could make it work in a 2-bedroom apartment, but in a 1-bedroom apartment they are violating the fire code laws, and as a landlord, so are you. This has nothing to do with immigration, it’s a liability issue for you and a safety issue for them. Two of the people need to move out.
Take care of that first, then raise the rent to the extent you are allowed to.
- Real Estate Agent · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
You have to follow rent control, regardless of status.
When I spoke to the fire department about the number of people in a space, they said that there are rules in place (such as the 2 people per bedroom plus 1) but they were told not to enforce it. You need to call the City.
In either case, because they were minors when they moved in, the previous owner probably didn't want to get it with family discrimination.
Don't try to find a loophole in this. It will cost you in time, money, and reputation. There are plenty of organizations out there ready to attack owners.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Rick Albert:
You have to follow rent control, regardless of status.
When I spoke to the fire department about the number of people in a space, they said that there are rules in place (such as the 2 people per bedroom plus 1) but they were told not to enforce it. You need to call the City.
In either case, because they were minors when they moved in, the previous owner probably didn't want to get it with family discrimination.
Don't try to find a loophole in this. It will cost you in time, money, and reputation. There are plenty of organizations out there ready to attack owners.
What will the city do if I call and complain? I will have to go through eviction courts, and it might end up being worse. Who can enforce the 2+1 law for occupancy?
- Real Estate Agent · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Frederick William:
Quote from @Rick Albert:
You have to follow rent control, regardless of status.
When I spoke to the fire department about the number of people in a space, they said that there are rules in place (such as the 2 people per bedroom plus 1) but they were told not to enforce it. You need to call the City.
In either case, because they were minors when they moved in, the previous owner probably didn't want to get it with family discrimination.
Don't try to find a loophole in this. It will cost you in time, money, and reputation. There are plenty of organizations out there ready to attack owners.
What will the city do if I call and complain? I will have to go through eviction courts, and it might end up being worse. Who can enforce the 2+1 law for occupancy?
Honestly, probably nothing. They will listen and probably not care because politicians know that the majority of Angelenos are tenants and their jobs are based on votes and what they say and do trickles down.
Contact LAHD and see what they say. I just don't think bringing up immigration status is going to go well and will likely create more gatekeepers.
- Real Estate Agent · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Also, and I don't know the answer, but does that 2 people plus 1 apply to only adults since typically children aren't counted? If so, then the kids growing up doesn't really change things and you may not be able to enforce it. It would be good to get clarity on it since they are likely going to ask you.
- Member since 2022 · 49 posts · 17 votes1y
Quote from @Rick Albert:
Also, and I don't know the answer, but does that 2 people plus 1 apply to only adults since typically children aren't counted? If so, then the kids growing up doesn't really change things and you may not be able to enforce it. It would be good to get clarity on it since they are likely going to ask you.
From what I have gathered, kids are counted as 1/2 adults. So 2 kids + 2 adults per bedroom. LA is just so tenant friendly that I have no way around paying for 5 daily showers water bills, wear and tear on the property + 4 extra cars parked on the street since they only have 1 parking spot. The neighbors have difficulty finding parking as is. I feel that I have to find a loophole
- 1yColleen F.Pro MemberInvestor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
@Dan H. It also can be a code enforcement issue if local code has occupancy limits but that would just bring the town down on him. And it is California so maybe you can have large numbers in a 1 bed and no one cares
- 1yDan H.Pro MemberInvestor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
Quote from @Colleen F.:
@Dan H. It also can be a code enforcement issue if local code has occupancy limits but that would just bring the town down on him. And it is California so maybe you can have large numbers in a 1 bed and no one cares
Correct that state and virtually all jurisdictions allow high occupancy. The state rules are written so that you cannot place low max occupancy limits due to housing shortages in many of the large coastal cities. The state therefore is fine with 5 people in a 1 br if the LL does not limit to less. However, the state has issues if a LL sets an occupancy limit lower tha 2 * BR + 1. The LL could have placed an occupancy limit of 3 on the 1 BR at initial lease signing. However, seeing they did not, AB1482 prevents any substantial change of lease terms on MF units. Therefore, the OP cannot at this time lower the occupancy to the 3 maximum that would have been allowed at initial Lease signing.
There are a lot of rules in both directions due to housing shortage. For example safe, unpermitted units are protected because the state does not desire safe units to be removed from the inventory.
The OP should abide by an1482 and local rules and raise rents allowed per the rules or use one of the legal means to execute a no fault eviction (that I summarized in earlier post). He purchased the property with the tenant. If he did minimum due diligence, he should have been aware of ab1482 and any relevant local ordinances. To purchase and then have sour grapes at the low rent that OP was aware of at purchase is not logical. If he did not due minimum DD to be aware of AB1482 impacts, then it is similar to any other insufficient DD and you live with the consequences.
@Frederick William were you aware of AB1482 when you purchased?
Good luck
- 1yAmit PatelBusiness MemberProperty Manager · Bartlett, IL · Member since 2025 · 151 posts · 61 votes
Hi Frederick! This is definitely a sensitive situation. Since your unit is in a rent-controlled building in LA, you can’t just raise the rent from $1,000 to $1,500 all at once. The city’s rent control laws limit how much and how often you can increase rent, even when renewing a lease. I’d recommend checking the specific rules for your building to see what increase is allowed.
Regarding the five adults living in a one-bedroom, it’s understandable to be concerned about overcrowding, but you need to be careful. Taking action based on family size or immigration status could lead to legal trouble, especially since discrimination and harassment laws protect tenants regardless of their immigration status.
My advice is to have a respectful conversation with your tenants about renewing the lease and any rent increase within the legal limits. You can also gently remind them of occupancy guidelines if those apply, but always approach it fairly and without discrimination.
This way, you protect yourself legally while maintaining a good relationship with your tenants.
Casanomy Property Management564 Reviews - Member since 2025 · 244 posts · 99 votes1y
@Frederick William Tough situation! Good on you for handling it with care. Maybe consult a local landlord-tenant attorney to navigate rent control rules fairly. Wishing you luck!
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.