By Danielle M. Leidner-Peretz, Founder of DLP Government Relations, LLC

At what point do private lease terms become public policy decisions? If you are a rental housing provider in California, the immediate question is likely the reverse: which lease terms are not subject to public policy intervention.

The line between private lease terms and public policy involvement has been increasingly blurred within the rental housing sector. In practice, issues once treated as matters of owner discretion are now frequently the subject of legislative proposals and related studies.

One such issue is pet housing policies. Discussions surrounding pet housing are often viewed through the lens of housing affordability, stability, and shelter capacity. Within that framework, expanded property owner obligations and additional restrictions are presented as justifiable policy responses. The debate is not about pets being allowed in rental housing as much as it is about blanket mandates that eliminate property owner discretion based on the individual property circumstances and fail to acknowledge the related owner costs and liability concerns.

Policies once primarily limited to publicly financed housing are increasingly being contemplated for private rental housing. In 2024, the issue gained traction in the California State Legislature, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles City Council. AB 2216 sought to mandate acceptance of common household pets absent “reasonable justification” while prohibiting pet rent. Amendments were made and the bill failed. Nevertheless, many of the same concepts continue to be deliberated at the local level and through subsequent legislative proposals.

In Los Angeles, the County conducted a feasibility study that resulted in four policy options for the Board’s consideration. Each of the options would require rental property owners of rent stabilized properties within the unincorporated areas to allow at least one pet per rental unit, potentially prohibiting or capping pet rent and establishing limitations or eliminating owner-imposed weight restrictions. At the City level, proposals have ranged from prohibitions on pet rent to more recent direction to evaluate and recommend reducing or eliminating breed, weight, and size restrictions in rental housing.

What makes pet housing policies more complex is that the issue extends beyond a single tenancy, raising obligations and risks that may affect the entire property. Excessive barking, inadequate pet waste removal, allergy concerns, property damage, and potential for physical harm have direct implications for other residents and property operations. The ability to recoup costs for pet related damage, the rationale for pet rent and deposits, is increasingly being scrutinized. A state law change capping security deposits to one month’s rent already limits an owner’s financial recourse for pet related damages.

Government interest in establishing what has been characterized as “pet equity” housing policies remains active. Recent state legislative efforts have shifted to narrower proposals such as pet rent caps and pet policy disclosure and advertising requirements. The County’s feasibility report, coupled with the recent City Council motion, signals that broader local policy changes may be on the horizon. While a County draft ordinance has yet to be presented, it is anticipated for this year. In my experience lobbying on Southern California rental housing policy, I observed that the City and County often follow each other’s lead and replicate each other’s housing policies.

The issue of pet housing policies raises a broader question: as government involvement in the landlord-tenant contractual relationship continues to expand, how much discretion over lease terms will remain within the authority of rental property owners?

Danielle M. Leidner-Peretz is the Founder of DLP Government Relations LLC, specializing in expert advocacy and ethical insight. She offers strategic counsel across a range of policy issues, delivering tailored, results-driven solutions for navigating complex government and regulatory challenges. She previously served as the Director of Government Relations for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. For more information, go to www.dlpgovernmentrelations.com.