Putting nuisances into context in light of new state law
A new California law bans local “nuisance property” laws and “crime-free housing” programs that have emboldened landlords to act as their own police force and evict tenants for vaguely defined criminal activities. We wholeheartedly support the law, but point out that landlords can still terminate tenancies based on nuisance activities and, absent any local restrictions, can still conduct criminal background checks.
The Golden State always has been a pioneer in enacting laws with societal impact and in another first-in-California moment, AB 1418 prohibits local governments from requiring housing providers to evict tenants because of calls to law enforcement, a mere hint of suspected criminal activity, and other alleged nuisances.
It also bans municipalities from requiring or encouraging landlords to conduct criminal background checks and also says that an entire family cannot be evicted due to a felony conviction of a single family member.
There is a mountain of evidence that suggests these types of now-banned anti-crime housing ordinances disproportionately target low-income and minority renters for eviction, violate their civil rights, and particularly harm survivors of domestic violence. The consensus is that these policies not only fail to reduce crime; they are a breeding ground for even more crime as people are wrongfully displaced and residents fear seeking the help of the police lest they lose their housing.
In distant memory, we recall that under Oakland’s anti-loitering ordinance, several residents were purportedly afraid to gather outside in their yards or risk being stopped, handcuffed, or fined for acts such as sitting in a lawn chair, getting fresh air, or having a family barbeque.
In the words of Jude Pond, then an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco, the overstepping ordinance was to maneuver residents and guests, telling them “they can’t be where they are, they have to leave, and they can’t associate with friends and family in public spaces.” The group joined the ACLU in suing the Oakland Housing Authority in federal court claiming the law was vague, unconstitutional, and unfairly criminalizes people of color.
The law does not prevent housing providers from addressing nuisance behavior head-on.
In our nearly 30 years of being injected into landlord-tenant disputes, we have a good gut feel for what constitutes a nuisance, a legal term used to describe certain activities or behaviors by tenants and others that interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring tenants. All manner of conduct can cause a disturbance, annoyance, or harm to others in the vicinity. This can range from playing loud music at night to setting fire to a unit, and everything in between.
Often, the problem can be fixed with a simple reminder or warning.
Once told that a resident downstairs has to wake up early in the morning, the tenant, hopefully, will lower the decibels of their music. When hot-headed neighbors get into an argument about doors being slammed, we hope that it gets soothed over and the tenant closes the door gently. When someone fixing their car has parts spilling over into someone else’s parking space or is using power tools at late hours, we hope that the backyard mechanic gets the message that this conduct is unacceptable, but simply hoping is not an ideal landlording strategy.
When there is acrimony in a rental relationship, please don't be a conflict-avoider. We've found that being fearful and thinking about broaching a frank conversation with a problematic tenant is more stressful than actually having the conversation.
Don’t let the issue enlarge and hope that the problem will resolve itself on its own.
From our hard-won experience, many landlords are conflict-avoiders and would rather kick the can down the road and let problems fester. When there is friction in rental units, it must be addressed without delay or the issue can spiral out of control.
As one example, during the height of the pandemic when courts were not hearing eviction cases except for the most egregious of circumstances when there was a threat to public health and safety, we were able to obtain a judgment when a downstairs tenant got so enraged with an upstairs neighbor that he smashed out the door window with a crowbar. Suspected drug use goes ignored and someone overdoses on fentanyl and dies when sitting on a toilet. A domestic dispute where the aggressor grabs his girlfriend’s head by the hair and throws her into a stove creating a brain hemorrhage. A gun is discharged in a building.
The list can go on, but suffice it to say that when housing providers ignore a threat, they can face colossal liability because the problem could have been nipped in the bud. The foremost obligation of landlords is to provide safety and ensure the well-being of residents.
Menacing behavior is one of severity. Can a nuisance be cured or not?
In instances of violence, threats of violence, drug dealing, stealing of packages, prostitution, arson, and the like, the tenant has forfeited their ability to live in that community of other residents and our office is aggressive in serving 3-day notices to quit, meaning the tenant has to vacate. If they don’t, we will proceed with an eviction action. When the threat posed to neighboring residents is so serious, the offender cannot be given the opportunity to clean up their act.
Many residents who have witnessed illegal behavior are afraid to come forward for fear of retaliation - they don’t want to be a “snitch” - and their concerns can be assuaged knowing that when we file an unlawful detainer action, we do not have to name them. Most eviction cases settle, so chances are witnesses will not have to testify, and we’ve learned that once bad actors are served a notice to quit and light is shone on their activities, they do not want to stick around - they’ll take their criminal enterprise elsewhere.