New ordinances in Redwood City and San Mateo discourage owners from making upgrades to their properties, joining a growing list of cities whose housing plans include provisions to implement right-of-return policies. 

On November 10, 2025, the Redwood City City Council passed a Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO), which, among other things, gives tenants the “Right to Return” when they are displaced by substantial remodels. Tenants are given the first opportunity to move back into the rental unit once work is complete, at the same rental rate plus any increase allowed by state law.

In the City of San Mateo, meanwhile, lawmakers moved forward to strengthen tenant protections with an ordinance of its own. If a tenant is evicted due to a substantial remodel or renovation, they must be explicitly contacted when the unit is again available for rent. Unlike Redwood City’s ordinance, however, no preference is given to the original tenant.

Why would an owner renovate their property when there is no upside potential? The obvious answer is they wouldn’t. Increasingly, substantial remodels are becoming pointless.

 

If you purchase a property, it stands to reason that you can upgrade it to rent out the new surroundings at a higher rate, thereby increasing the resale value of the property. But not in California, where the public policy is to prioritize housing stability over the rights of property owners.

Before we take a trip around the Bay Area to explore the nuances of more protective local ordinances, let’s get a refresher on the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482), a balanced piece of legislation enacted in 2019 that – with several exemptions –  imposed statewide rent and eviction controls on a vast amount of housing stock throughout California. This law was later amended by SB 567, which tightened rules for no-fault evictions, including those based on a substantial remodel.

Essentially, lawmakers and tenants’ advocates got together to express mistrust of the original law of AB 1482, citing concerns that a tenant could be evicted under the guise of the unit being substantially remodeled, only to have the major work not be performed. The amended law includes several guardrails to ensure that housing providers may only effectuate these types of evictions (dubbed “renovictions”) in good faith and without ulterior motive.

 

Some key changes that went into effect on April 1, 2024:

  • The operative term of a substantial remodel is substantial: Rest assured, it is not cosmetic improvements, such as applying a fresh coat of paint or resanding a hardwood floor. Rather, the work cannot be safely done while the tenant stays in place – i.e., requiring the tenant to vacate for at least 30 consecutive days. Think structural repairs, major electrical and plumbing overhauls, replacement of HVAC and gas systems, and the like

  • The intended remodel must require a permit from a governmental agency.

  • The requisite permits must be pulled PRIOR TO serving a termination notice.

  • Blueprints in hand: The termination notice must include, with specificity, the scope of work to be performed, along with copies of permits and an expected completion date.

  • If the remodel doesn’t actually happen (or isn’t completed), the tenant must be offered the right to re-rent under the same terms.

Let’s put an asterisk on the last point. If the owner performs their statutory obligations under state law, the original tenant is not afforded any right to return to the unit.

 

 

What about relocation payments under state law? 

Since it is a no-fault eviction, the outgoing tenant is entitled to the equivalent of one month's current rent. Landlords must pay this amount to eligible tenants within 15 days of serving the eviction notice; alternatively, they may elect to waive the final month's rent instead.

We caution that the work to be performed should be completed on time, but this is not a perfect world we live in. 

Because AB 568 mandates waiting until all required permits are obtained before serving a termination notice, housing providers may face delays in starting major rehab projects.

Once the project starts, it must be completed by the stated end date. Things can and do go wrong, be it financing falling apart, or any number of glitches in the work that can occur. If deadlines are not met, the owner may end up with their original tenant back with no upside potential.

Let’s look at local rules that extend protections that are more onerous than state law and require landlords to fork over more money to tenants displaced by a no-fault eviction.

 

Other local jurisdictions with tenant protections greater than state law:

 

 

Tenants facing eviction for a substantial remodel, or who have already been displaced, may have several grievances, including:

  • The eviction notice lacks proper documentation.

  • The work was unnecessary or minimal.

  • The work did not commence promptly, or the work has not been completed because of unreasonable delays.

  • The landlord did not follow through with the major rehabilitation but instead, re-rented the unit at a higher price.

  • Relocation payments were not properly provided. Under state law, the relocation payment amount is equal to one month’s rent and is payable directly to the tenant or as a rent waiver for the tenant’s final month.

Tenants have plenty of recourse to air out their grievances, ranging from complaints to a local Rent Board to a costly wrongful eviction lawsuit.

Why consult an attorney?

One of the biggest quandaries for owners endeavoring to improve their properties is what constitutes a “substantial remodel” and what may be considered a minor repair. This is an ambiguous term that is open to interpretation. If this judgment call is not made right, landlords are potentially exposed to disputes or litigation. 

Before contemplating an eviction on the grounds of a substantial remodel, please consult Bornstein Law. We have a good feel for what will pass this test. 

Documentation and notices are specialized, timelines are unforgiving, and the carefully choreographed steps of a substantial remodel must be followed to the letter, including scheduled relocation payments. 

If a substantial remodel is not feasible, Bornstein Law can also provide informed advice on how to proceed with other theories for eviction. If there are no legal or convenient means to evict, a properly negotiated and legally enforceable tenant buyout agreement may be a viable option to create a vacancy.