California Statewide

California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482)

AB 1482 established the first statewide rent control and just cause eviction protections in California history. California tenants facing wrongful eviction or unlawful rent increases may have claims under this law. It has two distinct parts — each with its own coverage rules and exemptions.

Civil Code §§ 1946.2 & 1947.12·Effective January 1, 2020

Read the statute ↗

At a glance

Just cause required

Yes — for covered units, after tenancy qualifies (generally 12 months)

Rent cap

5% + local CPI, never more than 10% per year

Relocation assistance

1 month's rent for no-fault evictions

Attorney fees

At court's discretion for material violations

Treble damages

Up to 3× actual damages for willful, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct

Effective date

January 1, 2020

Part 1 — Just Cause for Eviction

Civil Code § 1946.2

Read Civil Code § 1946.2 ↗

Overview

Civil Code § 1946.2 prohibits landlords from terminating covered tenancies without a valid just cause reason — which must be stated in the termination notice. California tenants who are wrongfully evicted in violation of AB 1482 may have a claim for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and treble damages. This protection applies to both at-fault and no-fault situations, and landlords must follow strict procedural requirements for each.

Covered tenancy

Just cause protection generally begins after a tenant has lived in the unit for 12 months. However, if new adult tenants were added to the household before the original tenant reached 24 months, protection only begins when either:

→All tenants in the household have been there at least 12 months, or
→At least one tenant has been there for at least 24 months

Covered units

Not every residential rental qualifies. § 1946.2 applies to units that are not exempt under § 1946.2(e). Even if the unit is covered, the tenancy itself must qualify separately.

Some of the more common exemptions under § 1946.2(e):

✕Housing where the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen with an owner who maintains their principal residence at the property
✕Single-family owner-occupied residences — including where the owner-occupant rents no more than two units or bedrooms (including an ADU or JADU), and including mobilehomes
✕A two-unit property in a single structure where the owner occupied one unit as their principal residence at the start of the tenancy, continues to live there, and neither unit is an ADU or JADU
✕Housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years (the 15-year exemption does not apply to mobilehomes)
✕Separately alienable residential property (including mobilehomes) where the owner is not a REIT, corporation, LLC with at least one corporate member, or mobilehome park management — AND the tenant received the required written exemption notice. For tenancies started or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, this notice must appear in the rental agreement itself

Valid just causes

At-fault

·Nonpayment of rent
·Breach of a material lease term after written notice to cure
·Maintaining or committing a nuisance
·Committing waste of the property
·Criminal activity on the premises or directed at the owner or their agent
·Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's lease
·Refusing to allow the owner lawful entry after proper notice
·Using the property for an unlawful purpose
·Refusing to renew a written lease after the owner's written request, where the renewal is for a similar duration and similar provisions
·Failing to vacate after giving the owner written notice of intent to terminate the tenancy, or after a written offer to surrender that the owner accepted in writing
·An employee or licensee whose right to occupy is tied to employment that has ended

No-fault

·
Owner or qualifying family member intends to occupy the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 continuous months
- Does not apply if a similar vacant unit already exists on the property, or if the intended occupant already lives there
- Intended occupant must move in within 90 days of the tenant vacating
- If the owner fails to follow through (no move-in within 90 days, or less than 12 months of occupancy): must re-offer the unit to the displaced tenant at the same rent and reimburse excess moving costs
·Owner withdraws the unit from the rental market entirely (Ellis Act)
·
Owner intends to demolish or substantially remodel the unit
- "Substantially remodel" means replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system requiring a permit — or abatement of hazardous materials (lead paint, mold, asbestos) — that cannot be safely done with the tenant in place and requires vacancy for at least 30 consecutive days
- Cosmetic improvements alone (painting, decorating, minor repairs, or work that can be done safely without vacancy) do not qualify
- Notice must include: a description of the work, expected duration, copies of required permits (or contractor contract for hazardous material abatement not requiring a permit), and notification of the tenant's right to re-occupy
- Right to return: if the remodel is not commenced or completed, the owner must offer the unit back to the displaced tenant at the same rent and terms
·Government order or local ordinance requiring vacancy

No-fault evictions require payment of one month’s rent as relocation assistance.

Remedies

An owner who attempts to recover possession in material violation of § 1946.2 is liable to the tenant for all of the following (Civil Code § 1946.2(h)(1)):

A — Actual Damages

Recoverable losses include:

·Lost rental value of the rent-controlled unit
·Moving costs
·Emotional distress
·Among others, depending on the circumstances

B — Attorney’s Fees & Costs

At the court’s discretion

Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs may be awarded against the landlord. For tenants represented on contingency, this effectively increases the total settlement or judgment amount.

C — Treble Damages

Up to 3× actual damages

Upon a showing that the owner acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, the court may award up to three times the actual damages.

Part 2 — Rent Control

Civil Code § 1947.12

Read Civil Code § 1947.12 ↗

Overview

Civil Code § 1947.12 limits how much a landlord can raise rent in any 12-month period for covered residential rental units. California tenants who have received an unlawful rent increase under AB 1482 may have a claim for the excess amount charged. The just cause protections and rent control provisions are separate — a unit can be covered by one but not the other, and each has its own exemptions.

Rent cap

5% + local CPI

Never more than 10% per year regardless of CPI

Only one rent increase is permitted per 12-month period.

Covered units

The rent control provisions have their own separate exemptions under § 1947.12(d) — distinct from the just cause exemptions under § 1946.2(e). A unit may be exempt from one but not the other.

Exemptions under § 1947.12(d)(3)–(6):

✕Housing already subject to a local rent ordinance or price control that restricts annual increases to less than the TPA cap — meaning the local ordinance provides equal or stronger rent control protection
✕Housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years (the 15-year exemption does not apply to mobilehomes)
✕Residential property alienable separate from any other dwelling unit (including mobilehomes) where the owner is not a REIT, corporation, LLC with at least one corporate member, or mobilehome park management — AND the tenant received a written exemption notice. For tenancies started or renewed on or after July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2022 for mobilehome tenancies), this notice must appear in the rental agreement.Required notice language: "This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation."
✕A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure where the owner occupied one unit as their principal residence at the start of the tenancy, continues to live there, and neither unit is an ADU or JADU

Note: § 1947.12(d)(1)–(2) (affordable housing and dormitories) are omitted here as they rarely arise in practice.

Remedies

An owner who demands, accepts, receives, or retains rent in excess of the maximum allowed by § 1947.12 is liable to the tenant for all of the following (Civil Code § 1947.12(k)(1)):

A — Injunctive Relief

A court can order the landlord to stop the unlawful rent increase — preventing further overcharges while the case is pending.

B — Excess Rent Damages

The full amount by which any payment demanded, accepted, received, or retained exceeds the maximum allowable rent.

C — Attorney’s Fees & Costs

At the court’s discretion

Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs may be awarded against the landlord.

D — Treble Damages

Up to 3× the excess rent

Upon a showing that the owner acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, the court may award up to three times the amount overcharged.

How the TPA interacts with local rent ordinances

Local rent ordinances in cities like San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Antioch generally provide stronger protections than the TPA — with lower rent caps, more robust just cause requirements, mandatory attorney fees, and treble damages. The TPA acts as a statewide floor: it does not preempt local ordinances that go further.

Where both the TPA and a local ordinance apply to the same tenancy, the analysis can be complex. The protections operate somewhat independently, and determining which law governs a specific aspect of your situation requires case-by-case evaluation.

San Francisco →Oakland →Berkeley →Los Angeles →Antioch →

Common questions

Do the just cause and rent control protections have the same exemptions?+

No. The just cause protections (Civil Code § 1946.2) and the rent control provisions (Civil Code § 1947.12) are separate statutory sections with their own coverage rules and exemptions. A unit can be covered by one but not the other.

I moved in over a year ago, but my roommate was added recently. Are we covered by just cause?+

It depends on timing. If a new adult tenant was added before the original tenant reached 24 months of residency, just cause protection only begins once either all tenants have been there 12 months, or one tenant has been there 24 months.

My landlord gave me an exemption notice. Does that mean I have no rights?+

Not necessarily. The exemption notice only removes TPA protections for qualifying properties where proper notice was given at the right time. You may still have rights under a local ordinance, and if the notice was defective — wrong language, wrong timing — it may not be valid. Bowlay Law can evaluate your situation.

Can I recover attorney fees and treble damages under the TPA?+

Yes — in certain circumstances. An owner who attempts to recover possession in material violation of the just cause provisions is liable for actual damages, attorney's fees and costs at the court's discretion, and up to three times actual damages upon a showing of willful, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.

My landlord raised my rent above 10%. What can I do?+

If your unit is covered by the TPA rent control provisions and your tenancy qualifies, an increase above the annual cap (5% + local CPI, never more than 10%) may be unlawful. Bowlay Law can evaluate whether the increase violated the law and whether you have a claim.

Think the TPA applies to your situation?

Determining whether a tenancy and unit are covered — and which protections apply — is often the first and most important question in a TPA case. Bowlay Law offers a free screening call to walk through your situation.

Get a Free Case Review