Screen Smart, Rent Safer: Best Practices for Tenant Screening in 2026

It’s become increasingly challenging for housing providers to attract desirable tenants while balancing risk management, legal compliance, and fair housing protections. These practices are especially important in the new year as California continues tightening rules around fees, disclosures, and discrimination. 

Bornstein Law has said it time and time again, and it’s worth repeating that one of the greatest determinants of success in a rental business is the proper selection of a tenant.

The greatest predictor of dysfunction in a rental relationship is prior dysfunction, yet prospective tenants will go to great lengths to hide failed rental relationships. In fact, California law is on their side. For example, Assembly Bill 2819, passed in 2016, is a significant tenant protection law that automatically seals limited unlawful detainer (eviction) case records if the landlord doesn’t win within 60 days.

Automatic Sealing (AB 2819) 

• When it Happens: All limited unlawful detainer (eviction) cases are automatically sealed for 60 days from the filing date.

• What It Means: The public, including tenant screening companies, generally can't see the case during this period.

• When It's Unsealed (Public): The record becomes public only if the landlord wins the case (gets a judgment) within 60 days of filing (unless a default or default judgment is set aside).

60 days may seem like ample time for housing providers to prevail, but not with a phalanx of tenants’ attorneys adept at delaying eviction proceedings. What this means is that despite all of the marvels of technology we have to uncover information on people, the most alarming red flag of them all – a prior eviction – can go unnoticed. Some old-fashioned personal sleuthing is in order, then. It’s critical to check references from prior landlords.

Another blinder: the rental applicant has a history of suing other landlords

We’d venture to say that no one in their right mind would rent to someone who has sued their past four landlords. Because lawsuits are public records, they can be found by searching for serial litigants by name and location through county court records. This information often appears in the public domain for years.

Taking a tenant willing to pay the highest rent may backfire

The adage applies – if it sounds too good to be true, it just might be. After the landlord has a vacancy and they’ve spruced up the unit to command a high rent, be wary of a rental candidate who jumps at the opportunity when a previous landlord provides an ambivalent reference at best.

Contrast with another tenant who says they cannot afford the high price tag, but has a list of stellar references, and housing providers have a decision to make. Above all else, they should not invite dysfunction into the building.  It may be prudent to accept lower rent from a more ideal tenant than selecting a tenant committed to paying more, but has question marks about their history.

Sometimes, we see tenants all too willing to pay higher rent because no one else wants to rent to them. Housing providers can be thrilled to find a prospective tenant ready to move in and pay top dollar, only to be horribly disappointed to learn that the tenant is unable or unwilling to make timely rent payments or worse, create costly damage to the unit.

When doing this calculus, it’s important to understand that it’s not merely about maximizing revenue for a particular unit; dysfunction in one unit tends to impact all other residents of the building. What if tenants in the building go on a rent strike because the actions of one bad actor are going unaddressed?

If a tenant is creating an eyesore, being disrespectful of neighbors, and bringing in visitors at all hours of the night, housing providers have fostered an environment that deteriorates the rental community. At Bornstein Law, we are not only attorneys representing landlords. Our goal is to sort through acrimony and ensure the stability of the rental community. Sometimes that involves transitioning tenants out of the unit, but most importantly for landlords and property managers, it is crucial not to introduce dysfunction in the building in the first place. This can be achieved by thoroughly evaluating rental applicants on the front end. Remember, the best type of eviction is one that doesn’t occur at all.

Is there a rush for a tenant to move in, or unexplained periods where the prospective tenant has no rental history? 

Whenever a rental applicant needs to urgently move, the question we have to ask is why? What is the rush? Is the hurried candidate vying for a unit facing an eviction at their last residence? Normally, a move from one set of surroundings to another is a well-planned project. If the tenant wants immediate possession of the rental unit, this can be a concerning red flag.

It is also concerning to see gaps in rental history. If there is a long period – months or years – where the tenant’s living arrangements were unaccounted for, we need to ask why. Were they evicted? Were they incarcerated?

In one respect, we like a relatively new law (Assembly Bill 2747) that requires many landlords of 15+ unit properties to offer tenants the option of having their on-time reporting payments to credit bureaus. While the public policy behind this law is for tenants to boost their credit scores by making timely rent payments to their landlord, it can also point to an erratic payment history. If a positive rental history is being reported, but it suddenly stops, we need to ask why the interruption occurred. Has the tenant fallen on hard times and is unable to keep up with their financial obligations?

 

That’s the number of landlords who have discovered fraudulent tenant documents, with 84% reporting they have uncovered false income or bogus claims of employment, according to HousingWire.  Fraud detection and income verification software Snappt, meanwhile, reports that 6.4% of rental applications were fraudulent in 2024.

We believe these numbers are artificially low as the Bay Area’s rental market picks up steam. In a landlord’s market where more and more tenants are competing for fewer available units, people are bound to fib about their financials and other characteristics used in evaluating rental applications. Many of these prevarications are perpetrated by career scammers who bounce security deposits, lie on applications, and defraud housing providers to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

Verify the information provided by the rental applicant

It’s not enough for a tenant to have impeccable credentials to rent a unit. Rather than taking an applicant’s word for it, this information should be verified. Here are a handful of tips for housing providers to know who they are actually renting to and how to avoid nightmare tenants.

 

As for proof of rent payments to the previous landlord, dating back at least six months. While it’s comparatively easy to forge documents, it is harder to doctor false evidence that the last landlord was consistently paid rent.

When the applicant gives housing providers the name of their employer, and the landlord/property manager wants to verify employment, do a Google search on the name of the business and call the published number of the business. Too often, prospective tenants provide phone numbers of family or friends who are willing to lie about the applicant’s place of employment.

When conducting credit checks, make sure that the credit report is tied to the applicant’s cell phone number to ensure that the applicant is who he or she says they are. There are tools to compare self-reported data against the databases of credit reporting agencies  to flag discrepancies like fraud or deceased alerts, ensuring the person applying is real before trusting financial data

Insist on secure payments through a check or secure payment methods through verifiable platforms if paying electronically. There is a host of rules surrounding how a tenant can pay rent – Housing providers need to familiarize themselves with them.

Screen all adult tenants who apply, not just one. Failing to screen one adult leaves you vulnerable to lease violations, property damage, and costly evictions, even if another tenant seems responsible.

Ensure that the applicant has all of the funds necessary to move in. If a prospective tenant does not have the wherewithal to move in, this is a huge red flag that may be a premonition that the landlord will be paid in installments.

Never hand the keys over to a tenant until payment clears. It is not uncommon that unscrupulous rental applicants hand their new landlord a check with insufficient funds and, worse, write a check on a closed account. We’ve even seen counterfeit cashier’s checks. The pickle housing providers find themselves in is that once a tenancy is established, the tenant is entitled to certain protections in rent-controlled jurisdictions, and it can take several months to remove them, even if the tenant does not pay.

 

Establish clear screening criteria

What are the characteristics of a successful rental applicant? Is it a minimum credit score, no bankruptcies, positive references, and income that is at least 3x’s the rent? Housing providers should list the qualifications to be welcomed into the unit. You can view a templated Rental Leasing Requirements one-pager here.

Where we need to be careful is when a Section 8 tenant applies. When the applicant has a housing voucher in hand, housing providers cannot discriminate based on the source of income. Rather, landlords and property managers can only focus on the tenant’s ability to pay their portion of the rent. Think pay stubs, bank statements, government benefit award letters, W-2s, and other verifiable documentation.

It’s vitally important to consider where the rental property is located, as certain California cities and counties limit how (and whether) landlords can check criminal histories. Some municipalities have also instituted their own rules concerning when and how credit and other background information can be used in tenant screening. These local ordinances go beyond California state law and can significantly change what screening practices are lawful in those jurisdictions.

 

Following fair housing laws and avoiding discrimination

A myriad of California and federal laws prohibit screening practices that discriminate based on an ever-growing number of protected characteristics. Believe us when we say there is no shortage of opportunistic attorneys chomping at the bit to sue housing providers who are caught in the act of discrimination, and these types of lawsuits are hard to defend against.

Our office has crossed paths many times with an East Bay attorney, for example, who has carved out a lucrative practice in catching unsuspecting landlords and property managers who summarily reject Section 8 tenants. Once a tenant with a housing voucher is told that Section 8 is not accepted, a letter is sent out reminding the landlord or their agent of fair housing laws and referencing the violation with the offer to settle out of court for an exorbitant amount of money, in what amounts to a heavy-handed “shakedown.”

Sure, there are egregious acts like denying a tenancy based on sexual orientation/gender identity or telling a protected class a unit is unavailable when it is and then renting it out to others. But from our hard-won experience, most culprits of discrimination in the tenant screening process are good people who are simply ignorant of the law. They may even have good intentions.

For example, a gentleman walking with a cane is told that it is not prudent for him to rent a second-floor apartment. Although genuinely concerned for the safety of the rental applicant and doesn’t want to be sued in the event he falls down the stairs, the landlord may instead be sued for housing discrimination. Another example is when a mother with a young child is refused to rent an apartment on the third floor with a balcony for fear that the child will venture onto the balcony. What the landlord just did is exclude a child and invite a discrimination lawsuit.

Where we see a lot of discrimination is in the advertising of rental units. Search available rentals on Craigslist or another platform, and we guarantee it won’t be long before a listing is found with language that suggests preferences or exclusion.

• “The perfect bachelor’s pad”

• “Must speak English.”

• “No children allowed” or “no play area.”

• “Christian housing,” or “close to church.”

• “Females only” or “singles only.”

• “Perfect for young professionals” or “ideal for empty nesters.”

Training staff on housing discrimination is key

Even if management is intimately familiar with fair housing laws, that is not enough. Everyone in the organization must understand what to say and what to avoid when fielding rental applications. Who is the first person answering the phones? This first point of contact needs to be well-versed in what constitutes discrimination and avoid potential slip-ups.

Historically, the property management industry has been plagued by a high turnover rate, resulting in a revolving door of employees. Training will have to begin anew, and while the cost may be discouraging, rest assured it is less costly than a six or seven-figure lawsuit. Topics may include fair housing laws, protected classes, prohibited acts like steering, false unavailability, and harassment, with an emphasis on best practices, communications, and providing resources for reporting/handling issues to prevent legal issues and foster inclusivity, with regular refreshers recommended. Key areas may include recognizing subtle bias, handling “reasonable accommodations,” and modifications to a unit.

 

Complying with California’s Tenant Screening Fee Rules

California tenant screening fee laws are governed by a mix of existing statutes and, most recently, Assembly Bill 2493. This law reflects the public policy that tenants should not expend unnecessary funds paying for application and screening fees when they are not going to be selected for the rental. It also frowns on landlords and property management companies that become a profit center by collecting dozens of application fees when they only have one unit available.

Housing providers and their agents can opt into one of two approaches.

1. A “First Qualified, First Approved” Approach: Landlords do not have to refund an application screen fee to an applicant whose application is denied after it is considered. Why? The prospective tenant does not meet the landlord’s established screening criteria.

2. A policy to refund any screening fees collected to all applicants not approved: This approach is irrespective of the reason for denial. Landlords adopting this approach must refund the screening fee to a denied applicant, even if the reason for denial is that the applicant does not meet the landlord’s screening criteria.

The first approach

Housing providers who elect to use the first approach of first qualified, first approved approach are entitled to receive application fees from even those applicants who are rejected.

Should the landlord or property manager choose a different approach whereby they select the strongest candidate, and it’s not “first qualified, first approved,” they must refund the screening fee that has been collected from an applicant who was denied.

Many people – especially property management companies – do not want to be accused of discriminating against applicants and elect to use first qualified, first approved. This system is clean, it’s easy, and in chronological order.

The second approach

Other people – especially smaller property owners – want to choose the strongest applicant, so they attract several applicants and then look for the most excellent tenant. Of course, discrimination in any form is prohibited. Under the second option, the only applicant they can keep a screening fee from is the successful applicant who is offered the unit, accepts, and signs a lease.

As for the others in a pool of applicants who did not survive the vetting process and were declined the tenancy, their screening fee must be returned. If it’s determined that the latter option is a fit, our strong advice is not to take any application fees at all because these fees will need to be returned anyway.

Please be aware that our office has encountered a growing number of savvy tenants familiar with the rules surrounding application fees who are demanding their application fee back. Housing providers who are not in compliance can create liability for themselves above and beyond the dollar amount of the application fee, so we want our clients to be diligent in following proper protocols.

Housing providers are reminded to follow a host of other rules:

• Fee only when lawful: Landlords can only charge a screening fee if there’s a genuine opportunity to rent a unit (i.e., a unit is available or will be soon).

• Fee must reflect real costs: The amount charged must match the landlord’s actual out-of-pocket costs (credit report, background check, etc.) and the reasonable time you spent, not a penny more.

• Itemized receipt: Provide a detailed receipt listing every cost within a reasonable timeframe.

• Refunds for unused or returned fees: If landlords collect a fee but don’t screen, the unused part must be refunded.

• Credit report delivery: If you run a credit check, give the applicant a copy of the report within 7 days of receiving it.