It’s well established under state and local laws that housing providers can enter a tenant-occupied unit to effectuate necessary or agreed-upon repairs, so long as this doesn’t strike as harassment.

Normally, landlords can serve a 24-hour written notice before entering the rental unit specifying the date, time, and purpose of the entry. This balances the privacy rights of tenants while allowing landlords reasonable access to their property for legitimate reasons.

More often than not, the tenant is cooperative. Sometimes, however, we encounter tenants who do not want to be bothered or have something to hide and refuse to let the landlord or their agents inside. In this cat-and-mouse game, housing providers should understand that failure to grant access is a theory for eviction.

What if the work is so extensive or hazardous, it renders the unit unsafe or uninhabitable?

The owner can transition tenants out until such time the rental unit is returned to a safe, sanitary, and habitable condition.

What work can and cannot be done with the tenant still residing in the unit is a judgment call that needs to be carefully thought out because there may be repercussions later on.

 

Penny wise and a pound foolish?

Landlords or their agents can be prone to conducting work that should have necessitated the tenant’s relocation, but this never comes to mind, or they simply want to avoid paying relocation payments. So they go ahead with the work anyway and invite liability.

For example, the landlord sets off to remediate mold. In doing so, they have to pull out some drywall. As the drywall is cut out, dust is scattered everywhere and paint is displaced. Fearing for the well-being of a young child, the tenant has the dust tested and detects lead paint. A medical evaluation later reveals that the child had a high presence of lead in her system. The owner now has a lawsuit on their hands.

Think that this liability could be passed onto a property management company that performed the work? Any property management company worth their salt has an agreement that indemnifies them unless there is gross negligence. 

What if the tenant refuses to transition out as the work is underway? 

This is grounds for eviction, but there are defenses the tenant or their counsel can raise in court. For one, the recalcitrant tenant can argue that the scope of work is not large enough to require them to vacate.

They may create the optics that the landlord is acting in bad faith by attempting to drive out the tenant for a short period with the hope that they never return.

 

We haven’t gotten to the hard part yet, and that’s the compensation rules for tenants displaced for less than 20 days. We can find that in Civil Code 1947.9. 

This Code dictates the financial remuneration that landlords must provide to ensure that displaced tenants receive support during their temporary disruption. The amount of these relocation payments, including the maximum relocation expenses per unit, is adjusted for inflation, and isn’t this interesting?

Housing providers have been asked to bear the brunt of rising costs. Effective March 1, 2024, through February 28, 2025, San Francisco rents can be raised a measly 1.7%, a fraction of what the real escalating costs are for operating a rental business.

At any rate, a landlord performing capital improvements or rehabilitation work that will temporarily displace a tenant for less than 20 days, the uprooted renter is entitled to $428 a day, but we are not done yet. If it is necessary to move the tenant’s possessions out of the unit, the landlord has to also dish out actual moving expenses.

 

However, this is a plan B.

Civil Code Section 1947.9 allows landlords the alternative option of escorting the displaced tenant into a comparable rental unit and paying for any moving expenses, instead of paying relocation fees. Clearly, this is not an option for the vast majority of small, mom-and-pop landlords who do not have another place for residents to go.

Note that this temporary displacement – this “hiccup” in the rental relationship, if you will – does not affect the lease terms, ongoing rent payments, or other tenancy conditions.

 

Parting thoughts

When owners in San Francisco are contemplating a capital improvement or rehabilitation work that would require the tenant to be temporarily displaced, there are a myriad of notice requirements best approached with an attorney.

Our strong advice is to work with tenants to arrive at a mutually agreeable time and date for the relocation period. In our latest webinar, we said that one of the critical aspects of landlording and property management is communication.

There is no greater urgency for transparent, honest, and fluid communication than when tenants are asked to endure the hardship of leaving their homes and becoming transient for however long. Keep in mind, if it is necessary to transplant a tenant for longer than 20 days, we’ll have to have an altogether different conversation.

Fortunately, you can rely on the informed advice of Bornstein Law to facilitate this transition and return of the occupants.

Written by Daniel Bornstein, Esq., Bornstein Law

More than a practitioner in landlord-tenant law, Daniel Bornstein is the Broker of Record for Bay Property Group, a property management company that protects and optimizes the investments of landlords. He is also renowned for his educational seminars and is called upon as an expert witness in complex real estate litigation matters. To avoid or resolve friction within rental units and cauterize risk, Daniel is happy to dispense informed advice to owners, property managers, and other real estate professionals looking to survive and thrive in today’s challenging and litigious rental housing market. Call 415-409-7611 or email daniel@bornstein.law.