California voters defeated Proposition 10 in November 2018, with roughly 59.5 percent voting No and 40.5 percent voting Yes. The California Proposition 10 results preserved the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, the 1995 state law that limits what cities and counties can do with rent control. The margin wasn’t close.
The Vote and the Money Behind It
Prop 10 asked voters to repeal Costa-Hawkins outright, which would have cleared the way for local governments to apply rent control to any kind of housing, including single-family homes, condos, and new construction.1California Secretary of State. Proposition 10 Official Title and Summary The campaign became one of the most expensive ballot fights in California history, drawing more than $100 million in combined spending.
Opposition groups, led primarily by real estate industry organizations, outspent supporters by a significant margin. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation funded most of the Yes campaign. The No side’s central argument, that removing rent control restrictions would discourage housing construction and worsen the state’s shortage, carried the day.
What the No Vote Preserved
Because Prop 10 failed, Costa-Hawkins still defines the outer limits of local rent control in California. The 1995 law restricts cities and counties in three specific ways.2California Legislative Information. California Code CIV 1954.50
New Construction Stays Exempt
Any rental unit that received its certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995, is completely exempt from local rent control. The landlord can set the initial rent and raise it by any amount.3California Legislative Information. California Code CIV 1954.52 This is the piece rent control advocates most wanted changed. It leaves the vast majority of housing built in the last three decades outside local price regulation. The exemption was designed to keep developers building without worrying about future caps.
Single-Family Homes and Condos Stay Exempt
Properties that can be sold independently from other units, including single-family homes, condominiums, and townhouses, cannot be subjected to local rent control.3California Legislative Information. California Code CIV 1954.52 This carve-out effectively limits local rent stabilization ordinances to older multi-unit apartment buildings.
Vacancy Decontrol Continues
Even for units that are subject to local rent control, landlords can reset the rent to market rate when a tenant moves out voluntarily or is evicted for a legally valid reason.4San Francisco Rent Board. California Civil Code 1954.50 – The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act Cities cannot impose “vacancy control” that would cap what the landlord charges the next tenant. That’s why rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco and Los Angeles can still jump sharply in price between tenancies.
Together, these three rules mean local rent control in California can only regulate rent increases for current tenants in older multi-unit apartment buildings. Prop 10 would have swept all three away. The No vote kept all three in place.
Two More Ballot Attempts Failed After Prop 10
Prop 10’s backers tried again in 2020 with Proposition 21. Rather than fully repealing Costa-Hawkins, Prop 21 took a more targeted approach: cities could have adopted rent control on units more than 15 years old, the single-family home exemption would have narrowed to cover only individuals owning two or fewer properties, and limited rent increases of up to 15 percent over three years would have been allowed after a vacancy. The sponsors said openly that they had learned from Prop 10 and tried surgical reform instead of wholesale repeal.
It didn’t change the outcome. Prop 21 failed by roughly 60 percent to 40 percent, nearly the same margin as Prop 10.
A third attempt came in 2024 with Proposition 33, which returned to full repeal. Voters rejected it by an even wider margin. Three defeats in six years.
What Changed in Sacramento After Prop 10
The legislature took a different route. In 2019, Governor Newsom signed the Tenant Protection Act, known as AB 1482, creating California’s first statewide rent cap and just-cause eviction requirement.5California Legislative Information. AB-1482 Tenant Protection Act of 2019 AB 1482 works alongside Costa-Hawkins rather than replacing it, acting as a floor of protection for tenants in properties local rent control doesn’t reach.
The Statewide Rent Cap
AB 1482 limits annual rent increases to 5 percent plus the local Consumer Price Index change, with an absolute ceiling of 10 percent, whichever is lower. The cap is measured against the lowest rent charged in the preceding 12 months.5California Legislative Information. AB-1482 Tenant Protection Act of 2019
Just-Cause Eviction
Once a tenant has lived in a unit for 12 months, the landlord needs a specific reason to end the tenancy.5California Legislative Information. AB-1482 Tenant Protection Act of 2019 At-fault reasons include not paying rent or violating lease terms. No-fault reasons include the owner moving in or pulling the property off the rental market. For no-fault terminations, the landlord must either pay the tenant one month’s rent in relocation assistance or waive the final month’s rent.
Who AB 1482 Does Not Cover
The exemptions are substantial:
- Units built within the last 15 years, exempt on a rolling basis.
- Single-family homes and condos, if owned by a natural person rather than a corporation, REIT, or LLC with a corporate member. The landlord must give the tenant written notice of the exemption; without that notice, the exemption doesn’t apply.
- Owner-occupied duplexes, where the landlord lives in one of the two units.
- Affordable housing already restricted to low- or moderate-income tenants.
Cities that already had stricter rent control or just-cause ordinances before September 1, 2019, keep those stronger local rules.5California Legislative Information. AB-1482 Tenant Protection Act of 2019 AB 1482 is scheduled to expire on January 1, 2030.
Security Deposits
Starting July 1, 2024, AB 12 capped security deposits at one month’s rent for most landlords.6California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill 12 Small landlords who are natural persons owning no more than two rental properties with four or fewer total units can still charge up to two months’ rent.
Figuring Out What Applies to Your Rental
The interaction between Costa-Hawkins, AB 1482, and local ordinances confuses a lot of people. Think of the system in layers. Costa-Hawkins sets the ceiling on what local governments can regulate. AB 1482 sets the statewide floor. Local rules fill the space in between, in the roughly three dozen California cities that have them, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Mountain View.
A tenant in a pre-1995 apartment building in Los Angeles gets the strongest protections: the city’s rent stabilization ordinance limits annual increases, often more tightly than AB 1482, and just-cause eviction rules apply. A tenant in a 2005-built apartment in a city without local rent control gets AB 1482’s protections once the 15-year rolling window has passed. A tenant renting a single-family home from an individual owner generally gets neither local rent control (blocked by Costa-Hawkins) nor AB 1482 coverage (the single-family exemption), unless the landlord failed to provide the required written notice of exemption. That last point is worth knowing: if your landlord never gave you written notice that the property is exempt from AB 1482, the exemption doesn’t kick in and the rent cap and just-cause rules apply by default.
The practical questions to answer about your own unit: Was the building constructed before 1995? Does your city have a local rent control ordinance? Is the property a multi-unit building rather than a single-family home or condo? Yes to all three generally means local protections apply on top of AB 1482. Otherwise, AB 1482 is the backstop, assuming your unit isn’t exempt from that law too.