Tenants can be transitioned out of the rental unit through a substantial rehabilitation eviction with a host of caveats and procedural requirements
An owner can remove a tenant from a rental unit to perform significant renovations that make the unit uninhabitable for an extended period. Similar to owner move-in evictions, lawmakers have become distrustful of these types of evictions because some opportunistic landlords have displaced tenants under the guise of doing major work to the unit with the real intention of increasing property value or evicting tenants to raise rents.
In response, the California legislature and local bodies have implemented safeguards for these so-called “renovictions.”
The first riddle to solve is what law the property is subject to, and our office will need some information about the property to ascertain this. Is the property subject to statewide “just cause” eviction protections, or is it covered by more robust local tenant protections? Or, is the property exempt from both state and local eviction controls, like newly constructed units, single-family homes, or condominiums, or owner-occupied units in small buildings? To get the ball rolling and start an informed conversation, you can share details about the property here.
We’ll begin with an overview of state law before going into the added protections of certain jurisdictions that impose more onerous requirements on housing providers. Recurring themes throughout a tapestry of laws are that rehabilitation of the unit must be essential, relocation payments are required to compensate displaced tenants, and in some circumstances, tenants are allowed to return at the same rent after the rehabilitation is complete.
The operative term in a substantial rehabilitation eviction is substantial. Cosmetic repairs do not qualify.
Rest assured that resanding a hardwood floor, replacing an appliance, or painting is not considered substantial enough to uproot a tenant. Contrast this with structural repairs, major electrical and plumbing overhauls, replacement of HVAC and gas systems, and the like.
When in doubt if the scope of work satisfies the requirements of the law, contact our office. We have a good feel for what is considered substantial or not. Weighing whether to go down the path of a substantial rehabilitation eviction is an important decision with several consequences.
Tenants facing eviction 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 in a timely manner, 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.
Believe us when we say that housing providers do not want to be accused of a fraudulent eviction or failing to follow the rules to the letter. Disgruntled tenants have remedies, including the possibility of legal fees, costs, and potentially triple damages in cases of willful misconduct.
Let’s move on to local rules
San Francisco substantial rehabilitation evictions
A landlord may evict a tenant for a major rehab in uninhabitable buildings that are 50 or more years of age and require major renovation to conform to contemporary standards for decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Yet for these units to be deemed substantial, the estimated cost of the intended work must exceed 75% of the cost of a newly constructed comparable building.
The Rent Board wants transparency in these types of evictions, and so new petition requirements are imposed on landlords. Tenants must be informed of the opportunity to advise their landlord in writing that they are claiming a protected status. The failure to assert this claim within 30 days will be deemed an admission that the tenant is not protected and this must be conveyed to the tenant. Yet we are not done yet. Rent Board Form 1007 must also be attached to the eviction notice, as well as a copy of San Francisco’s Ordinance 37.9C, which delineates the rights of tenants
Under California just cause protections, tenants must be notified of their right to relocation payments, but there is no such thing as vulnerable tenants entitled to even more payments. San Francisco has carved out a rule that housing providers must pay out more money to tenants with a protected status. While state law merely requires the equivalent of one month’s rent as relocation assistance, housing providers can spend many thousands of dollars to effectuate a substantial rehabilitation eviction.
After all of the notice requirements are met, the left hand wants to know what the right hand is doing; the notice must be filed with the San Francisco Rent Board, accompanied by a proof of service on the tenant, within ten days of service.
Get the official scoop on the board’s website.
Oakland substantial rehabilitation evictions
One of the theories for eviction under Oakland’s Just Cause Ordinance is the owner making substantial repairs that cannot be made while the unit is occupied and which affect the health and safety of tenants in the building.
Like San Francisco, Oakland requires that the cost of contemplated work be 75% or more of the cost of purchasing a newly constructed building of the same number of units and type of construction, excluding land costs and architectural/engineering fees.
When these dual requirements are met, Oakland landlords have a tall bar to avail a substantial rehabilitation eviction. Moreover, there is a pesky obligation called business taxes. When housing providers in Oakland endeavor to transition tenants out through a no-fault eviction, they must furnish a copy of the Current Business Tax Certificate and a statement to the effect that there will be limitations on evictions when property owners are delinquent on business taxes.
Berkeley substantial rehabilitation evictions
In many respects, Berkeley has the same spirit as other laws but has an interesting requirement that if the owner has another vacant unit in the city, one of these units must be offered to the outgoing tenant on a temporary or permanent basis.
Additionally, landlords who transition tenants out of the rental unit to effectuate repairs may need to provide relocation payments and allow them to move back in once the repairs are completed, per the city’s Relocation Ordinance.
Once repairs are done and the unit is in move-in condition, the tenant is given the option to reoccupy the rehabbed unit at the same rent, plus any authorized increases.
Other cities in the Bay Area with special rules governing substantial rehabilitation evictions include East Palo Alto and Mountain View.
It is imperative that owners endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit through a no-fault eviction seek proper counsel to avoid costly mistakes.
No-fault evictions are tricky. Don’t go it alone.
Notice requirements are specialized, deadlines are unforgiving, and tenants have an abundance of rights. Bornstein Law can oversee this process from start to finish and ensure compliance with the law.