How do you balance rent increases with tenant retention?

Question

The goal isn’t “maximize rent”, it’s “maximize long-term return.” A vacancy costs more than most modest under-market renewals. There are three common approaches, but the best strategy blends them:

What typically works best:

- Small predictable annual increases (2–5%)

Tenants expect it, it prevents large jumps, and it keeps rent closer to market over time.

- Market realignment at turnovers

When a tenant moves out, reset to true market value.

- Context matters

- If tenant is excellent then prioritize retention with reasonable increases.

- If tenant is marginal then market reset or even strategic turnover can make sense.

- If market rents drop then sometimes holding steady prevents costly vacancy.

What I avoid:

Huge catch-up increases. They shock tenants and dramatically increase move-outs.

Bottom line:

A small annual increase + market resets at turnover generally produces the highest net return with the least friction.

David Peschio · Answer

I agree with @Drew Sygit. Being consistent with rental increases every year or two ensures that tenants are not surprised when an adjustment occurs.  By implementing smaller, regular increases, you avoid the need for significant jumps to catch up after years of no changes. Most tenants expect some adjustment since the cost of living continues to rise.

Drew Sygit · Answer

Uhm, maximizing long-term return also involves proper management of maintenance, CapEx and more.

Stabilized rental income or max annual income is what I think you were going for.

And yes, there is a benefit to keeping a tenant vs chasing highest rent possible.

The apartment industry knows this and considers around 95% occupancy "optimized" for maximum income. If it goes higher than 95% - time to raise rents!

Too many DIY landlords prioritize a stable tenant and sacrifice ANY rent increase😨

Then when they finally figure it out, they're shocked the tenant would rather move than pay a decent increase.

So important to train tenants to expect an increase every 2 years at a minimum.

Jim Johnson · Answer

I agree with the idea that maximizing rent and maximizing return aren't always the same thing.

When I look at rent increases, I'm usually weighing a few things:

• How far below market rent the unit is
• Tenant payment history
• Property condition and maintenance costs
• Local vacancy trends
• The cost of a turnover if the tenant leaves

A lot of landlords focus on the additional rent but forget to factor in:

• Vacancy
• Cleaning and repairs
• Leasing costs
• Time spent finding a new tenant

That's why I've generally found that good tenants are worth keeping. A slightly below-market rent with a reliable tenant can often outperform a market-rate unit that turns over every year or two.

The challenge is finding that balance between staying reasonably close to market and giving a good tenant a reason to renew. That's where the long-term returns tend to come from.

Jules Aton · Answer

This is a great topic and strategy that I didn't consider when I was doing multiple long term rentals. Putting it in the lease does away with any hurt feelings later. I would also be flexible if a good tenant requested to skip an increase.

How do you balance rent increases with tenant retention?

Most Popular Reply