Research study
Is a new ADU exempt from rent control? Two statutes, two clocks
One exemption is permanent, one expires, and the one most landlords reach for is the one an ADU probably cannot use.
Written by HyreADU Research Desk Primary-source research and data analysis
Audited by HyreADU Research Desk Statutory citation and retrieval-date audit
The finding
“Rent control” is two different regimes with two different exemptions, and an ADU sits differently in each. Costa-Hawkins exempts new construction from local rent stabilisation, permanently. Civil Code section 1954.52(a)(1) turns on whether the dwelling “has a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995.” That is a fixed date, it does not move, and a newly built ADU passes it comfortably.
The Tenant Protection Act exempts new construction from the statewide rent cap on a rolling clock. Civil Code section 1947.12(d)(4) exempts “[h]ousing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years.” An ADU completed in 2026 is outside the cap until 2041 and inside it from 2041.
The exemption is a countdown, not a status. The single-family exemption is the trap. Both statutes carry an exemption for property “alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit”, and Government Code section 66314 forbids an ADU being sold separately from the primary residence.
HyreADU analysis: an ADU is therefore not separately alienable, and in our reading the single-family exemption does not reach it. The just-cause statute names ADUs twice, once to include and once to exclude. Section 1946.2(e)(5)(A) reaches an owner-occupied residence letting no more than two units or bedrooms including an ADU; section 1946.2(e)(6), the duplex exemption, applies only where neither unit is an ADU.
The garage conversion is genuinely unsettled. Both new-construction exemptions turn on a certificate of occupancy, and no text we retrieved says whether converting a 1948 garage produces one. Not legal advice.
Read this first
- Nothing here is legal advice, and getting it wrong hurts a tenant
Rent regulation is tenancy law. A rent increase served on a mistaken exemption, or a termination served without just cause where just cause applies, exposes the landlord to damages and the tenant to a displacement that should not have happened.
This page sets out statutory text as retrieved on one date. It cannot see your unit, your city’s ordinance, your certificate of occupancy or your tenancy.
If you are about to raise a rent or end a tenancy, that is a conversation with a lawyer, not a website.
- One passage on this page is our analysis, not the law, and we have labeled it
The separate-alienability point — that an ADU cannot use the single-family exemption because state ADU law forbids separate conveyance — is a reading we reached by putting two statutes side by side.
It is not a holding, we found no case or agency guidance stating it, and we did not find any source stating the contrary either.
It is labeled HyreADU analysis everywhere it appears, and it is the passage on which you should most want a lawyer’s view.
- The local ordinance layer is not covered here
Roughly two dozen California jurisdictions operate local rent stabilisation ordinances and they differ on how they treat an added unit, on the vintage cutoff they apply and on the registration duties they impose.
Codified municipal text could not be retrieved for this edition, so this page covers the two state statutes and Costa-Hawkins preemption, and does not attempt a per-city table.
San Francisco in particular is known to treat some added units differently from what Costa-Hawkins alone would suggest, and we could not verify how.
- Both statutes have sunset dates and one was amended eight months ago
Civil Code section 1947.12 is repealed as of 1 January 2030 by its own provisions, and section 1946.2 carries the same 2030 repeal.
Section 1946.2 was last amended by AB 1529 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 203) effective 1 January 2026.
Anything written about this subject before 2026 needs re-checking against the current text, and everything written about it needs re-checking before 2030.
Why the question is harder than it sounds
Ask whether an ADU is exempt from rent control and you will get a confident yes from most sources, on the reasoning that it is new construction and new construction is exempt. The reasoning is not wrong. It is incomplete in three ways, and each of the three can change the answer.
First, there are two regimes and the word "exempt" means something different in each. Costa-Hawkins governs what a city may do — it removes new construction from the reach of local rent stabilisation, permanently, on a date fixed in 1995.
The Tenant Protection Act is the state’s own rent cap, and its new-construction exemption is a rolling fifteen-year window that expires. A unit can be exempt from one and covered by the other, and every ADU built today eventually will be.
Second, the exemption most landlords actually invoke — the single-family one — depends on a property being separately saleable, and an ADU by statutory definition is not.
Third, the just-cause statute has its own set of exemptions that overlap imperfectly with the rent-cap exemptions, and it names accessory dwelling units expressly, in one place to include them and in another to exclude them.
HyreADU analysis: the practical consequence is that "is my ADU exempt from rent control" has at least four answers depending on which of these you mean, and a landlord who has satisfied themselves on one of them has not necessarily satisfied themselves on the others.
The rent cap, the just-cause obligation and the local ordinance are three separate compliance questions with three separate tests.
The two regimes, side by side
The distinction the rest of the page rests on. Quoted as retrieved from leginfo on 2026-09-05.
| Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act | Tenant Protection Act of 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Citation | Civil Code § 1954.52. Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 568, § 4, effective 1 January 2005 — over twenty years stable. | Civil Code § 1947.12 (rent cap) and § 1946.2 (just cause). Section 1947.12 repealed and added by Stats. 2023, Ch. 290, § 4 (SB 567), operative 1 April 2024; § 1946.2 amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 203 (AB 1529), effective 1 January 2026. |
| What it does | Limits what a local rent stabilisation ordinance may reach. It is a preemption statute, not a rent cap. | Imposes a statewide rent cap and a statewide just-cause requirement, independently of any local ordinance. |
| The new-construction test | § 1954.52(a)(1): the dwelling “has a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995.” A fixed date. | § 1947.12(d)(4): “Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome.” A rolling window. |
| Does the exemption expire? | No. 1 February 1995 does not move. A unit that qualifies today qualifies in 2050. | Yes. Fifteen years after the certificate of occupancy. An ADU completed in 2026 falls under the cap in 2041. |
| The single-family exemption | § 1954.52(a)(3)(A): the property “is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision.” Excludes a condominium not yet sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser. | § 1947.12(d)(5): “Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome” — but only where the owner is not a real estate investment trust, corporation or LLC with a corporate member, and the tenant has been given written notice that the property is exempt. |
| Does it mention ADUs? | No. The section does not mention accessory dwelling units anywhere. | Section 1946.2 does, twice — at (e)(5)(A) to include an ADU within the owner-occupied exemption, and at (e)(6) to exclude an ADU from the duplex exemption. |
| What the cap actually is | Not applicable — Costa-Hawkins does not cap rent. It removes units from the reach of local caps. | § 1947.12(a)(1): no increase in the gross rental rate “more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower”, over a twelve-month period. |
| Sunset | None. | Both § 1947.12 and § 1946.2 are “[r]epealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.” |
The two California rent regulation regimes and how each treats new construction. Source: California Civil Code as retrieved from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2026-09-05.
HyreADU note: the single most common error we saw while researching this page is treating “exempt under Costa-Hawkins” as meaning “exempt from rent control”. It means exempt from a local ordinance.
The statewide cap in § 1947.12 has its own, narrower, expiring exemption, and it applies whether or not your city has an ordinance at all.
Two clocks, and only one of them stops
The structural point of this page, drawn. A permanent exemption and an expiring one, on the same unit, at the same time.
The Costa-Hawkins clock stopped in 1995
Section 1954.52(a)(1) asks a single question: was the certificate of occupancy issued after 1 February 1995. A newly built ADU passes it, and passes it permanently, because the date is a historical fact rather than a moving window.
This is the source of the widely repeated "ADUs are exempt from rent control" claim, and within its own scope the claim is sound. Its scope is local rent stabilisation ordinances, which is not all of rent regulation and, since 2020, not even most of it.
The Tenant Protection Act clock is still running on every ADU ever built
Section 1947.12(d)(4) exempts housing issued a certificate of occupancy "within the previous 15 years". The phrase does the work: previous to now, wherever now happens to be. Every ADU built in California is somewhere on a fifteen-year countdown to falling under the statewide cap.
HyreADU calculation: an ADU completed in 2012 has already lost the exemption. One completed in 2016 loses it in 2031. One completed today loses it in 2041 — assuming section 1947.12 survives its own 1 January 2030 repeal date in something like its current form, which is a legislative question nobody can answer today.
What that means for a long-hold model
An ADU underwritten on a twenty or thirty year hold will spend part of that hold outside the cap and part of it inside. The exemption is a feature of the first fifteen years of the asset’s life, not a feature of the asset.
Not investment advice, and we are not modeling it. The point is narrower: a pro forma that treats "exempt from rent control" as a permanent characteristic of an ADU has mixed up the two statutes, and the error only shows up in year sixteen.
The single-family exemption, and why we think an ADU cannot use it
The most consequential passage on this page, and the one where we are reasoning rather than reporting. Read the label on each block.
What both statutes require
Fact. Costa-Hawkins, at § 1954.52(a)(3)(A), applies where the dwelling “is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision.” The Tenant Protection Act, at § 1947.12(d)(5), uses the same formulation: “Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome.”
Both are asking the same question. Can this dwelling be sold on its own?
What ADU law answers
Fact. Government Code section 66314 provides that an accessory dwelling unit “may be rented separate from the primary residence, but shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence.” The prohibition is the general rule for ADUs and is subject only to two narrow routes: the nonprofit-developer pathway at section 66341 and a local condominium ordinance adopted under section 66342, the AB 1033 mechanism.
The reading we draw, and the label on it
HyreADU analysis — not a legal conclusion, and not advice. Putting the two together: an ADU is, as a matter of state law, not alienable separate from the title to the primary residence.
If that is right, the separately-alienable exemption in both statutes does not reach an ordinary ADU, and a landlord relying on it is relying on the wrong exemption.
The exemption that does the work for a new ADU is the new-construction one — permanently under Costa-Hawkins, and for fifteen years under the Tenant Protection Act.
What would change this. An ADU conveyed under section 66341 or under a local condominium ordinance adopted under section 66342 is separately alienable, and the analysis above would not apply to it. Those are rare, and whether your city has adopted a section 66342 ordinance is a checkable fact.
What we could not find. Any case, agency guidance or published analysis stating this either way. We searched the statutory text and found no ADU mention in section 1954.52 at all. We are publishing the reasoning so it can be checked, not because we are confident enough to advise on it.
Why it matters even if you think the new-construction exemption covers you
Because the two exemptions expire differently. If a landlord believes the single-family exemption applies, they believe they hold a permanent exemption from the statewide cap. If in fact only the new-construction exemption applies, what they hold expires fifteen years after the certificate of occupancy. Same unit, same tenant, entirely different position in year sixteen.
The Tenant Protection Act single-family exemption also carries conditions the new-construction exemption does not: the owner must not be a REIT, corporation or LLC with a corporate member, and the tenant must have been given written notice that the property is exempt.
A landlord who has not served that notice does not have that exemption even where the property qualifies.
Just cause: where the statute names ADUs
Civil Code section 1946.2 is a separate obligation from the rent cap, with its own exemptions, and it is the only statute on this page that mentions accessory dwelling units by name. As amended by AB 1529 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 203), effective 1 January 2026.
| Provision | What it says | What it means for an ADU |
|---|---|---|
| § 1946.2(a) — the trigger | “after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause”. | The obligation attaches at twelve months of occupancy, and it attaches to the tenancy rather than to the building. It is entirely separate from whether the rent cap applies. |
| § 1946.2(e)(5)(A) — the owner-occupied exemption, which names ADUs to include them | “Single-family owner-occupied residences, including both of the following: (A) A residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.” | This is the ADU landlord’s exemption, and it has an owner-occupancy condition attached. Note the irony worth flagging: state ADU law forbids a city from requiring the owner to live on the property, while this tenancy statute makes owner-occupancy the condition of an exemption. The two are not in conflict — they regulate different actors — but the effect is that an owner-occupant and an absentee investor are in different positions here even though the city cannot treat them differently at the permit counter. |
| § 1946.2(e)(6) — the duplex exemption, which names ADUs to exclude them | “A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.” | An owner-occupied house with an attached ADU cannot use the duplex exemption. The Legislature wrote the carve-out expressly. An owner in that position must look to (e)(5)(A) instead, which carries the two-unit limit rather than the one-structure test. |
Civil Code § 1946.2 provisions bearing on accessory dwelling units, retrieved 2026-09-05. Enactment line: “Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 203, Sec. 1. (AB 1529) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.”
HyreADU note: the just-cause obligation and the rent cap travel together in most commentary because they arrived in the same 2019 bill, but they are separate sections with separate exemption lists. A unit can be outside the cap and inside the just-cause requirement. Check both.
The genuinely unsettled case: a garage conversion
Both new-construction exemptions turn on a certificate of occupancy and its date. That is a clean test for a detached unit built from nothing on a bare corner of a lot. It is not a clean test for a conversion of existing space, and conversions are a large share of all ADUs.
The question is genuinely open on the text we retrieved. Does converting a 1948 detached garage into a dwelling produce a certificate of occupancy for a new dwelling unit, dated on completion?
Or is it an alteration within a structure whose occupancy dates from 1948? The answer determines whether the unit is exempt from local rent stabilisation permanently, or is a pre-1995 unit inside whatever the local ordinance reaches.
We did not resolve it, and we are not going to guess. Nothing in Civil Code section 1954.52 or section 1947.12 addresses conversions.
We found no agency guidance on the point and could not search for case law on this retrieval.
The variable is likely to be what the local building department actually issues and how it dates it, which would make the answer differ between two identical conversions in two different cities — an unsatisfying answer, and the honest one from where we are standing.
HyreADU recommendation: if you are converting existing space and the rent regulation position is material to the model, get the certificate-of-occupancy question answered by the building department in writing before you start, and take the answer to a lawyer. It is a five-minute question at the counter and a very expensive one in year three.
Working out where a particular unit stands
Four questions, in this order. They are separate questions and they can have different answers.
- 1 Find the certificate of occupancy and its date
Everything on this page turns on this document. Both new-construction exemptions are dated from it. For a conversion, establish what the building department actually issued and what date it carries — see the warning above. Without this document you cannot answer any of the remaining questions.
- 2 Ask whether your city has a local rent stabilisation ordinance at all
Costa-Hawkins only matters where there is a local ordinance for it to preempt. Most California jurisdictions do not have one.
If yours does not, the Costa-Hawkins analysis is academic and the Tenant Protection Act is the whole of your exposure — which is the situation most ADU landlords in California are actually in, and the opposite of the impression the commentary gives.
- 3 Work out the statewide cap position separately, and date the expiry
Certificate of occupancy year plus fifteen. Write the expiry year down. It is the date at which increases become limited to 5 per cent plus the change in the cost of living, or 10 per cent, whichever is lower — and it will arrive during the hold period of most ADU projects.
- 4 Work out the just-cause position, which is a different question again
Section 1946.2 attaches at twelve months of occupancy and has its own exemption list. If you are an owner-occupant letting an ADU, look at (e)(5)(A) and its two-unit limit. Do not look at the duplex exemption at (e)(6): it expressly does not apply where either unit is an ADU or a JADU.
- 5 Serve any notice the exemption requires — before you need it
The Tenant Protection Act single-family exemption requires written notice to the tenant that the property is exempt. An exemption with a notice condition is not self-executing. This is a documentation task, it is cheap, and it is the sort of thing that is discovered to have been missed at exactly the wrong moment.
- 6 Take it to a lawyer before you act on it
Including, and especially, the separate-alienability analysis on this page. We have set out our reasoning so it can be checked. Checking it is a lawyer’s job.
What we could not verify
The garage conversion question, in either direction. Named above as genuinely unsettled. Nothing in the statutory text we retrieved addresses whether a conversion of existing space produces a new certificate of occupancy for these purposes, and we could not search for case law or agency guidance on this retrieval.
Whether our separate-alienability reading is right. We found no authority on it either way. It is labeled as analysis throughout, and it is the passage we would most want a land-use or landlord-tenant lawyer to check.
The local ordinance layer entirely. Codified municipal text could not be retrieved for this edition — the platform that hosts most California municipal codes returned HTTP 403 to every automated request, and web search was unavailable.
San Francisco is the case we most wanted and least have: its rent ordinance is known to reach some added units in ways Costa-Hawkins alone would not predict, and we could not confirm how it treats an ADU.
The full exemption list in § 1947.12(d). We retrieved the two exemptions that bear on ADUs, at (d)(4) and (d)(5), and the rent cap formula at (a)(1). The subdivision contains further exemptions — deed-restricted affordable housing, dormitories, certain owner-occupied arrangements — that we did not enumerate and that could apply to a particular unit.
What happens after 1 January 2030. Both section 1947.12 and section 1946.2 are repealed on that date by their own provisions.
Every statement on this page about the statewide regime is a statement about the law before that date.
Whether the Legislature extends, amends or lets it lapse is not knowable now, and any bar on the chart above that extends past 2030 depends on the answer.
Questions
Is a new ADU exempt from rent control in California?
Does the single-family home exemption cover my ADU?
What is the AB 1482 rent cap?
Do I have to have just cause to end a tenancy in my ADU?
I live in half a duplex and rent the other half — does that exemption work if the other half is an ADU?
Is a converted garage treated as new construction?
Does the exemption run out?
What about local rent stabilisation ordinances specifically?
Written and audited by
HyreADU Research Desk
Primary-source research, data analysis and fact checking
We are a research desk, not a builder. We read the permit extract, the statute, the HCD return or the fee schedule ourselves, and publish each figure with its source and retrieval date.
Where a number cannot be traced to a primary source, we leave it out and say what we could not verify. Our store-based claims cover California only.
- CA
- the only state this desk will make store-based claims about
- 5
- jurisdictions with extracted ADU permit evidence
- 735
- CSLB-verified companies in the California store
- 0
- national claims from a one-state store
How this desk works
- Primary sources only. Permit counts come from the city or county that issued the permit. Production counts come from HCD’s Annual Progress Report. Rents come from HUD or the Census. We do not cite an article that cites a source; we download the source and compute the figure ourselves.
- This is a California site. The company store is 734 California firms and one New Mexico firm. Permit evidence exists for five named jurisdictions: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San José and unincorporated Marin. A number from that store is titled to those places, never to the United States.
- A permit is not a completion, and a license is not an ADU grade. California licenses no ADU classification. Being named on an ADU permit is evidence of engagement in that jurisdiction, not of quality, completion, or work anywhere else. Owner-builder permits are excluded from contractor counts.
- Calculation is labeled as calculation. Figures we derive are never presented as something HCD, HUD, the Census or a city published. Terner Center research is cited as Terner’s, never restated as ours.
- We do not design, permit or build ADUs, and we take no payment for placement, ranking or a favorable mention. Pages that look like rankings are not: they publish public-record counts and let the reader decide.
- Nothing here is legal, tax or financial advice. Zoning, underwriting and appraisal practice vary by jurisdiction, lender and appraiser. The useful next step on a specific lot is the planning counter and a licensed professional.
Data as of Civil Code §§ 1946.2, 1947.12 and 1954.52 and Government Code § 66314 retrieved from leginfo.legislature.ca.gov 2026-09-05. Authorship on this site is organizational: the analysis belongs to the desk rather than to a named individual, and we do not publish credentials we do not hold.
Our editorial policy sets out how we source, date and correct what we publish.
Sources & retrieval dates
- California Civil Code § 1954.52 — Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, exemptions from local rent stabilisation , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Subdivision (a)(1): “It has a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995.” Subdivision (a)(3)(A): “It is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit or is a subdivided interest in a subdivision”, with the condominium carve-out for a unit “that has not been sold separately by the subdivider to a bona fide purchaser for value”. Subdivision (b) disapplies the exemption where the owner has contracted with a public entity in exchange for financial assistance under Gov. Code § 65915 et seq. The section does not mention accessory dwelling units anywhere. Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 568, Sec. 4, effective 1 January 2005. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Civil Code § 1947.12 — Tenant Protection Act statewide rent cap and its exemptions , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Subdivision (a)(1) rent cap: no increase “more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower”. Subdivision (d)(4): “Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years, unless the housing is a mobilehome.” Subdivision (d)(5): “Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome”, conditioned on the owner not being a real estate investment trust, corporation or LLC with a corporate member, and on written notice to the tenant that the property is exempt. Enactment line: “Repealed (in Sec. 3) and added by Stats. 2023, Ch. 290, Sec. 4. (SB 567) Effective January 1, 2024. Operative April 1, 2024, by its own provisions. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Civil Code § 1946.2 — just cause for termination, and the two provisions naming ADUs , Retrieved 2026-09-05. Subdivision (a): “after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall not terminate a tenancy without just cause”. Subdivision (e)(5)(A): “Single-family owner-occupied residences, including both of the following: (A) A residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.” Subdivision (e)(6): the owner-occupied two-unit exemption applies “so long as the owner continues in occupancy, and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.” Enactment line: “Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 203, Sec. 1. (AB 1529) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2030, by its own provisions.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66314 — an ADU may be rented but not sold separately , The provision underlying the separate-alienability analysis on this page. Retrieved language includes the requirement that the unit be rental only and not sold separately from the primary residence, alongside the objective standards a local ADU ordinance must impose. Enactment line: “Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 67, Sec. 109. (AB 1170) Effective January 1, 2026.” Retrieved 2026-09-05.
- California Government Code § 66313 — definitions of accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit , Retrieved for the definitions the tenancy statutes assume but do not supply. Subdivision (a) defines an ADU as “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence”; subdivision (d) defines a JADU as “a unit that is no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence.” Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, Sec. 2 (SB 543), effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-05.
Write down the certificate of occupancy date, then the year plus fifteen
The occupancy date and the year plus fifteen decide most of this, and almost nobody records the second one.
The rent estimator will not tell you your legal position — but it will tell you what the unit plausibly earns, which is the other half of a decision that too often gets made on one half.
HyreADU does not design, permit or build accessory dwelling units and does not practice law. This page is informational and is not legal advice, tax advice or investment advice.
It describes California statutory text as retrieved on 5 September 2026 and cannot tell you whether any exemption applies to any particular unit or tenancy.
One passage — the reading that an accessory dwelling unit cannot satisfy the separate-alienability test because Government Code section 66314 forbids separate conveyance — is HyreADU analysis rather than settled law, is labeled as such wherever it appears, and should be checked by a lawyer before anyone relies on it.
Local rent stabilisation ordinances are not covered in this edition. Both Tenant Protection Act sections discussed here are repealed as of 1 January 2030 by their own provisions.
Acting on a mistaken exemption exposes a landlord to damages and a tenant to a displacement that should not have happened; the useful next step is a California landlord-tenant attorney.