November 29, 2007

SF: Subject to Tenants’ Rights

hammery2 SF: Subject to Tenants RightsSF is a city of renters. Most of our laws, unsurprisingly, work to protect renters, most often at the expense of owners. I myself am a renter, and though I know in theory that some of the laws that serve me actually drive rents up, I have to admit I’m glad for the protection.

But when the show switches to the other foot, and I think about buying a home, those comforting laws become a morass of red tape. Anyone considering buying a home in SF needs to be fully versed on tenants’ rights because if you try to buy (or sell) a home that is tenant occupied, I assure you it is not as easy as delivering 30 days notice and an apologetic fruit basket.

Should it be easier? I don’t know. When houses are worth more to sell than rent, you can see why an owner might want to dump a tenant to realize a profit. When condo conversion makes a renter-occupied unit worth several times more than it was purchased for, you can see the incentive for an owner to ask a tenant to clear out. In fact, the number of evictions related to condo conversion and OMI (owner move-in evictions) has skyrocketed right along with the price of housing in this city. So the fact that concerned agencies like the Rent Board and Tenants’ Union have stepped in to create and enforce legislation that makes eviction harder is a logical (and compassionate) response.

Thus, standing on the border between renter-land and buyer-land, I see both sides, clearly. And such vision is very important for would-be buyers (as well as current renters). For instance, tenants’ rights are complicating this sale at 2104 24th St. The 3 bed single-family Victorian home has been reduced 20.5% since it hit the market, and now stands at $899,000. The agent’s remarks on Redfin’s site do not reveal why the proerty’s price has been cut so drastically, but a conversation on Socketsite does. One commenter points out “Folks, you gotta start reading the Agent Remarks in the MLS: ‘Property is tenant occupied, so need 24 hours to show. Main house rent $2,350-Inlaw $625. Inlaw tenants claim protected status- quality people.’ So you have protected tenants in an unwarranted (illegal) unit.”

Another listing with that problem is surely 262 Henry St., SF. This 2 bed condo is a reasonable $660,000, and sits in a fantastic Corona Heights location. Yet it has been doing that sitting, on the market, for over 100 days (as posted in my recent Homes Sold and Dreaming to Be blog).  The written description of the unit reveals nothing as to why, yet scroll down to the financing notes to read “Possession: Subject to Tenant Rights.” What are those rights? Are the tenants protected? Good luck then. You better buy the property for rental income. And even if they are not protected, evicting them is, again, not simple.  You need to get the facts.

Other properties that will cause you trouble:

2104 Bryant St., SF: “Rented on a month-to-month basis. Shown by Appmt. ONLY! Please DO NOT DISTURB Tenant.”

1520 Florida St., SF: The language that should give you pause here is this part: “unwarranted 1 bed/1 bath apartment. Property is being sold with existing leases in place.” And: “Possession: Subject to Tenant Rights.”

Do yourself a favor. As a buyer, seller, or renter, know your rights.



  • If the time limit for your written notice to quit is up and your tenant is still defiant, then you can head to your local authorities to take legal action against him. This is the second step on how to evict a tenant. The courts will issue your tenant with a summon giving him a date and time to turn up for a court hearing so that they can hear his side of the story.

  • Marie

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have question. Three tenants are equally and separately named on a single, one-year rental lease and they each pay a portion of the security deposit. If one of the tenants moved out without 30 days notice, and a second may give notice and leave, and the third stays, when and to whom, does the landlord give the security deposit back? No inspection has been requested by the tenant that left, or the remaining tenants, and each tenant paid a portion of the security deposit individually.

  • anna

    Maureen, I see why you are frusterated and am sure many landlords would have similar stories. That's definitely why I created this post: after all, people need to know what they are getting into if they decide to rent property in SF. Know the facts going in, and you won't be surprised later.

    You might have eviction for cause rights with your bad tenant. Are you keeping a file on the complaints against him? Look into that angle... see the link I gave to Tom above for more info

  • Maureen

    My husband & I bought a house in September. It came with a backyard cottage apartment that is occupied by a tenant. Firstly, he's awful, and several of my neighbors have complained to us about him and his yelling at them about their barking dogs (which, by the way, I've never heard or been bothered by). Secondly, my younger brother wanted to move into that back cottage when he transferred up here to go to college. We were all set to let him live there and do an OMI eviction,when we learned the because it is detached from the house where we live, an OMI is not possible. The SF rent ordinances and the SFTU that protects leaching tenants needs an immediate overhaul. I think it is entirely unfair that I cannot have my younger brother move into my house because of some stupid law that protects renters over homeowners. An Ellis act is not a possibility either because there is a second tenant occupied unit attached to the house, and I would hate to have to evict a good tenant.

  • anna

    Hi Tom,
    Because you will be renting a part of your house, I don't think the single-family home laws apply to you (now it will be 2 units). The only way you will get out of rent control is if your home was built after 1979. You can find a lot of very clear language on tenant/landlord rent laws for the city here:
    http://www.sftu.org/rentcontro...

  • TomK

    Hello, this is a great site. I have a house under contract in SF right now. It is a single story stand alone home with a basement/ground level in-law (separate entrance) unwarranted unit. Both units are vacant. I intend to rent the in law unit out. Do SF rent control laws apply to me, since I am living in the house before I rent it out? Can I require a new lease, with a market (my choice) rent increase after the 1st lease expires? What are the big pitfalls that I am looking at here? Thanks!!

  • anna

    I like it too!
    : )

  • RaivicillaNef

    Hello!
    Nice site ;)
    Bye

  • anna

    Thanks, Alex. I will even go so far as to update the blog entry and include a link to your site, because in this case, there is no "too much information." Appreciate your contribution!
    -A

  • Don't want to be spamming your site, but you need to read one of our readers stories on tenants and you'll see just what you could be up against. http://thefrontsteps.com/2007/...

  • anna

    No problem- this is the kind of discussion I want! The link I am showing here is that when housing markets are hot, condo conversion is also hot. The fixed rate on conversion is a direct response to the peak I was talking about. All such legislation, whether 10 years old or more recent (such as the newer laws for OMI and protected tenants) are responses to evictions. Otherwise why put those laws on the ballot? My post was in no means meant to perpetuate a myth of willy nilly eviction by evil landlords! In fact, if you read it, the tenor is more that eviction is very difficult indeed, and new buyers should get to know the laws on evictions before buying into properties where a tenant is housed.

  • John

    Don't want to beat a dead horse here but evictions (OMI, Ellis, and for all reasons combined) have been on a downward trend since 1999/2000 [see the Rent Board's statistics].

    By most measures (number of units sold and average selling price) in the San Francisco housing market was on an upward trajectory until at least 2003/2004. Since that time the number of sales has been on a mostly downward trend while average selling prices continue upward.

    The number of condo conversions in San Francisco is essentially fixed at 200 units per year with a multi-year backlog.

    If I'm missing something, please enlighten me since evictions apparently peaked eight years ago -- I don't see where you're making the connection between number of evictions and the price of housing. And, in the process you seem to be perpetuating an "urban myth" that tenants are being evicted left and right in order to accommodate home buyers.

  • anna

    not in the sense I meant it, which is historically with the skyrocket in the market in general. Since the condo conversion craze maxed out (currently is cooling some), so did OMIs which spurred multiple legislation measures as protection. The evictions seem to follow the market pretty closely, logically, so right now they are not as bad as they were when everyone was trying to go condo.

  • John

    My understanding is that evictions for all reasons including OMI and Ellis had been trending down over the past few years with a small uptick in the last reporting period. If so, "the number of evictions related to condo conversion and OMI (owner move-in evictions) has skyrocketed" is something of an overstatement.

  • anna

    Yes, good points all around, Miles, thanks. Single family home evictions are far stickier than condo/apartments and in fact, I was living in a house. I know I could sue the ex-landlord, for a lot, but I'm just not litigiuos. I am probably stupid too: I didn't even get the relocation $$. I'm weak! I know it!

  • Miles

    The only case where an OMI eviction is allowed for a protected tenant is in a single family home or condo (but the $4,500 relocation payment is still required). The problem with the building with the in-law unit is that even though the in-law is not permitted, it constitutes a legal rental unit according to the rent board. As such, you can only evict one of the two tenants legally using an OMI in this case and are stuck with the other one. There are ways around it even after that, but the two occupied units definitely creates a major eviction hassle. In the other case, you're right, the seller can't evict the tenants before putting it on the market - they have to live in the unit for several years after the OMI eviction. If this happened to you, you have an easy case against the illegal eviction and can probably win a large legal judgement - get a lawyer and you may get rich because a seller didn't follow the law. One of the things that puts a fly in the ointment of OMI evictions on houses and condos recently (again, single family houses and individual condo units are treated VERY differently for evictions than apartment units) is the relocation payment. It's $4,500 per person up to several people, so at the very least it's going to cost to several thousand dollars and probably two months where you can't occupy the property. Not fun, but not the end of the world either.

  • anna

    Scott: I think you're right that those laws are pretty much symbolic in same cases. I was evicted (OMI) in Aug 06 and the owner put the house on the market in Oct 06. It didn't sell and he ended up renting the house again, for 700 bucks more per month, to someone richer than I. Nothing happened to him, legally.

    David: I do see your point, but certainly in a city where so few people can afford to buy, political and municipal interests lie in making sure that the majority of the work force and voting public can at least afford to rent. (?)

  • David Trill

    One thing I know: tenants get away with murder in this city. In fact, I think if a tenant of mine murdered me, that would finally be grounds to evict him. Too bad I'd be dead.

    Tenant laws need major overhaul. If you are wondering why rents are so high in the city, look no further than those laws!

  • scott

    good to know. According to the link to the Rent Board, ctually even with non-protected tenants, if you are an owner you can't enact an OMI and then sell your home - you have to wait years before you can sell. Of course, one wonders who enforces this. Once the tenant is gone, who monitors what happens with a property?

blog comments powered by Disqus
close