Nearly two years later, let’s revisit AB 1620, a state law that opens the door for local governments to compel landlords to rent “Accessible floor” units to tenants permanently disabled. 

In a previous article, we gave a refresher for landlords or managers of buildings not subject to state or local rent control. Although the law says that even if the building is exempt (new construction, single-family homes, and condos), it will nonetheless be covered by statewide rent control if the tenant was not properly notified of the exemption.

This obscure requirement has frustrated many housing providers who are eager to raise rents but have been limited in their ability to implement a rent increase because they’ve been asleep at the wheel and forgot to tell their tenants that statewide rent control doesn’t apply.

Let’s review another law that some in the rental housing community may not be aware of, which also impacts a landlord’s ability to raise rents: Assembly Bill 1620. 

AB 1620 was designed to make a difference in people’s lives by reducing housing insecurity for people living with physical disabilities and helping older Californians age in place and with dignity.

The law went into effect in 2024 and amends Section 1954.53 of the California Civil Code to address housing for tenants with mobility-related disabilities in rent-controlled properties.

Essentially, it modifies the decades-old Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state law that allows housing providers to raise rents when a rental unit is vacant, even if a local jurisdiction has a rent control ordinance. We know that the value of a vacancy is huge, which is why we are big proponents of tenant buyout agreements when there are no convenient or legal means to evict.

Until 2024, Costa-Hawkins was silent on fair housing laws, but AB 1620 has put forth a policy that allows localities to require landlords to allow tenants with permanent physical disabilities to:

Relocate to a “comparable” or smaller unit located on an accessible floor of the same building or parcel—without increasing rent or changing lease terms. Comparable means similar surroundings in terms of bedrooms, square footage, and parking space.

Although Costa-Hawkins prohibits local lawmakers from setting limits on what landlords can charge in vacant units, an exception was carved out for disabled persons whose daily life activities would be improved by reducing the strenuous trek to their apartment.

This relocation is only valid if:

  • The move is determined to be necessary to accommodate the tenant's physical disability related to mobility.

  • There is no working elevator serving the tenant’s current floor. When there are defects in elevators, there is a whole host of obligations on the part of the landlord that goes beyond the scope of this article.

  • The new unit is within the same building or parcel, comprises at least four other units and shares the same owner.

  • The rent control board or local authority ensures the landlord continues to receive a fair rate of return, or offers an administrative procedure ensuring a fair rate of return for the new unit.

  • The accessible unit does not require any critical renovations to resolve health and safety issues.

  • The tenant looking to move cannot be behind on rent.

  • The tenant provides the owner a written request to move into an available comparable or smaller unit located on an accessible floor of the property prior to that unit becoming available.

  • The move must be agreed upon by all tenants on the lease.

The legal protections and reasonable accommodation process coexist with other fair housing laws, such as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Federal Fair Housing Act. Notably, security deposits are handled under existing law (Civil Code Section 1950.5).

We want to put an asterisk on Owner move-in and Relative move-in evictions (OMI/RMI). When the landlord or a close relative intends to occupy the property, this is a perfectly acceptable reason to deny the disabled tenant’s request to move.

What is the definition of a disability? Tenants may have a different interpretation. 

AB 1620 does not directly define the term “physical disability.” Rather, it references Section 12926(m) of the California Government Code. Although federal acts provide a floor of protection, we always see California adding additional protections.

Not uncommonly, tenants in an upstairs unit will want to reside in a ground unit because it is more convenient for them. They may even say that they are having knee surgery next month and will be on crutches. The key question housing providers need to ask is whether the tenant is genuinely disabled and meets the threshold of disability.

We have to recognize that some tenants will falsely claim a disability, and we often see this when tenants claim a protected status and cannot be displaced through a no-fault eviction, or that they require the need of an emotional support animal. Landlords are walking a tightrope. If a tenant is genuinely disabled and is denied a reasonable accommodation, they can sue their landlord. If a tenant feigns a disability, the landlord can give away the store.

From time to time, in high-stakes tenancies, we will hire a private investigator to ascertain whether the tenant is, in fact, disabled. Whenever a tenant asserts that they are disabled and somehow are entitled to additional protections or reasonable accommodations, our best advice is to contact an attorney.

What is a vacant unit that is being renovated? 

When there is a vacant unit in a rent-controlled apartment, it is cause for celebration because the landlord can raise the rent. To do so, they may make significant improvements to the unit.

One possible scenario is that the tenant is requesting to move into that pristine unit that has been upgraded. Let’s say that the disabled tenant wants to move into the pristine apartment downstairs. The tenant has been paying $1,200 in rent for their rent-controlled apartment upstairs, but the newly renovated apartment downstairs is listed at $3,200. Does the landlord have to rent the downstairs apartment at the original rent-controlled level of $1,200, or demand that the disabled tenant pay the increased market-rate rent?

If we were to take a poll and ask San Francisco landlords if they know the requirements of maintaining access for disabilities, we guess that most landlords will be uninformed. The rental housing community needs to make a concerted effort to be in the know.

There are many nuances in this maddening regulatory regime. Each case is unique, and Bornstein Law is open to hearing about your specific circumstances

 

 

.