LA’s New Rent Control Reform: What It Really Means for Housing, Owners, and Tenants
Table of Contents
A Big Change 40 Years in the Making
For the first time in nearly four decades, Los Angeles has rewritten its rent control rules. This milestone sparked headlines, celebrations, and plenty of strong opinions. Many are calling the new policy a major win for tenants, a step toward affordability, and a crucial protection in an increasingly expensive city. And while there’s truth in the desire for greater stability, the real impact of this reform is far more nuanced than the early praise suggests.
Housing policy is rarely simple. It affects tenants, small housing providers, neighborhoods, and cities in layered, interconnected ways. To understand whether a reform truly helps or harms, we need to look beyond headlines and into the deeper data, long-term consequences, and structural realities shaping Los Angeles’ housing crisis.
This article aims to do exactly that, with respect, clarity, and compassion for everyone involved. We’ll explore what the new rent cap actually does, what problems it tries to solve, where the data supports it (and where it doesn’t), and why well-intentioned policies can sometimes create unintended challenges for both tenants and the housing supply. We’ll also consider what this could mean for other cities that often look to LA as a policy role model.
What the New Policy Actually Does
The 4% Annual Rent Increase Cap
At the core of LA’s new reform is a simple rule: rent increases for rent-controlled units are now capped at 4% per year. That number applies regardless of inflation, market shifts, or rising operating costs for property owners.
Previously, allowable increases fluctuated with the Consumer Price Index (CPI), meaning some years saw higher caps and other years lower ones. The old system moved with the economy; the new system replaces that flexibility with a fixed limit.
For many tenants, this feels like something predictable, stable, and easier to plan around. Advocacy groups have been quick to celebrate the cap as a major win for affordability and as a safeguard against unexpected jumps in rent.
Policymakers supporting the reform have echoed that sentiment, highlighting the relief it may provide for households struggling to keep up with LA’s high cost of living. The language surrounding the cap has been largely optimistic and emotionally resonant.
But while the reaction from tenant groups has been enthusiastic, early feedback from small housing providers has been more mixed. Some acknowledge the need for moderation, while others worry that a fixed cap, especially in a high-cost city, may not reflect the realities of maintaining aging buildings or covering rising costs for labor and repair. In other words, the policy has pros and cons on each side.
The Stated Goal: Preventing Homelessness
The heart behind the policy is admirable. City leaders have framed the 4% cap as a way to prevent homelessness by slowing rent increases, giving renters more breathing room and helping families stay housed during a time when affordability continues to deteriorate.
This intention deserves recognition. Everyone (tenants, landlords, and policymakers) shares a common desire for stability, dignity, and affordability in our communities. It makes sense that leaders want to use every tool available to keep people in their homes.
But it’s also important to understand what the policy can and cannot do. While capping rent increases may offer short-term relief, preventing homelessness is a deeply complex challenge tied to mental health services, addiction treatment, economic inequality, and systemic gaps in support. These are issues that rent caps alone cannot address.
Still, the motive behind the reform is rooted in compassion, and that’s worth acknowledging before we explore its larger implications.
The Critical Tension: Rent Caps Don’t Create New Housing
Short-Term Protection vs. Long-Term Supply
Rent caps can feel immediately protective. For tenants already stretched thin by rising costs, knowing their rent can’t jump more than 4% offers real financial relief. It creates stability in the short term.
But here’s the core tension: rent caps don’t create a single new home.
They regulate what already exists, but they don’t increase the supply needed to meet LA’s massive housing demand.
When cities limit rental income without pairing those limits with aggressive housing creation, long-term consequences start to surface:
- New construction slows down. Developers rethink or abandon projects when projected returns no longer pencil out under strict rent limits.
- Small housing providers become more cautious. Many rely on modest annual increases to keep up with taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs, especially in older buildings.
- Existing rentals age faster. When revenue is capped but operating costs aren’t, reinvestment gets delayed. Roofing, plumbing, electrical updates, and capital improvements become harder to finance.
So while rent caps may offer short-term protection for current tenants, they can create long-term structural strain that affects the entire housing ecosystem for new tenants or people looking for homes in the future.
Who Ultimately Gets Hurt
It’s easy to frame rent caps as a win for tenants and a loss for landlords, but the reality is far more interconnected. When the housing supply stagnates or declines, everyone feels the impact.
Tenants
- Fewer rental homes are built
- Existing units become older and less maintained
- Scarcity drives up market rents in non–rent-controlled buildings
- Moving becomes harder and more expensive
In other words, protections for tenants today can unintentionally create shortages that hurt tenants tomorrow.
Owners (Especially Small Housing Providers)
- Revenue stays capped while expenses continue rising
- Maintenance and capital projects become harder to fund
- Financial pressure increases, especially for mom-and-pop landlords
- Some choose to exit the rental market entirely
This is crucial because small housing providers own a significant share of LA’s rental stock. When they feel squeezed out, the supply shrinks even further.
Cities
- Housing production slows
- Aging buildings strain neighborhood infrastructure
- Shortages worsen affordability problems across all income levels
- Rent caps end up treating symptoms, not causes, of the crisis
Cities ultimately face the same problem they started with: too few homes for too many people. And without meaning to, policies designed to offer relief end up increasing long-term pressure.
What Would Make This Policy Work Better?
Pairing Rent Caps With Aggressive Housing Creation
Rent caps can be part of a healthy housing strategy, but only if they’re paired with bold, coordinated efforts to build more homes. If LA had unveiled the 4% cap alongside a clear plan to approve, fund, and construct tens of thousands of new units, the policy would look very different.
Here’s what a balanced approach could include:
- Fast-tracking approvals for multifamily and mixed-use developments
- Reducing regulatory bottlenecks that delay construction for years
- Incentivizing new rental units, especially middle-income and workforce housing
- Providing tax credits or financing support for small housing providers who upgrade aging buildings
- Unlocking underutilized land near transit corridors, job centers, and commercial zones
When rent caps exist within a larger housing creation strategy, they can offer immediate relief without starving future supply. The benefits become compounding:
- Tenants gain stability
- Owners retain the ability to reinvest
- Cities grow their housing stock
- Pressure on rents decreases naturally through increased availability
Cities around the world have shown that rent stabilization works best when construction is booming, not stagnating. A coordinated effort to stabilize today, build for tomorrow would make LA’s policy far more sustainable and fair.
The Problem Right Now: No Building Plan
The challenge with LA’s current reform is that it wasn’t paired with any meaningful plan to increase housing supply. There’s relief, yes, but no long-term solution. And in a city already short hundreds of thousands of homes, that’s a problem.
Without aggressive construction:
- Rent caps become permanent pressure points, not temporary stabilizers
- Maintenance gets deferred as revenue falls behind rising costs
- New rental projects stop penciling out
- Scarcity intensifies, driving up rents in the rest of the market
This is how a policy that feels compassionate can unintentionally harm the very people it hopes to protect.
The 4% figure was chosen because it sounded safe and reasonable. In other words, it’s a “feel-good” number backed by good intentions. But without a parallel commitment to building more housing, numbers like this don’t solve the underlying crisis. They simply delay it, while quietly eroding the ecosystem that keeps rental housing economically feasible.
Compassion is essential. But compassion paired with real math, real construction, and real long-term planning is what will truly move LA (and cities like it) toward a healthier, more accessible housing future.
Rent Caps Reduce Property Value
When discussing rent caps, it’s important to approach the topic with honesty, humility, and respect for everyone involved. Even if the intention behind the policy is good, we have to acknowledge a simple truth: rent caps do reduce property value, particularly for small housing providers who don’t have large portfolios to absorb the impact.
These owners often rely on modest annual increases to cover the basics, such as rising insurance premiums, property taxes, utilities, and the ongoing maintenance older buildings require. When revenue is capped but expenses aren’t, the math gets tight quickly. And that pressure ripples outward into the entire housing ecosystem.
Here’s why it matters:
- Less incentive to maintain older buildings: When income is limited, major repairs and upgrades become financially harder. Deferred maintenance increases, and buildings age faster.
- Less incentive to stay in the rental market: Some small providers choose to leave their property vacant. That removes units from the rental pool permanently.
- Reduced likelihood of new rentals on the market: Potential investors, especially local mom-and-pop owners, may decide the numbers no longer make sense.
This isn’t to say rent caps should never exist. There are moments when short-term stabilization is necessary and humane. But it’s equally important to recognize that these policies have trade-offs. Being fair means acknowledging both the benefits and the costs so we can build smarter, more balanced solutions that support tenants and the long-term health of the housing supply.
Our Core Concern is the Compassionate Intent but Harmful Outcomes
The driving force behind rent caps is compassion. Cities want to help tenants stay housed, reduce displacement, and ease financial strain. Those are noble goals that deserve support.
But we also have to be honest about the unintended consequences: when rent caps are not paired with serious housing production, they can shrink supply over time. And when supply shrinks, the harm doesn’t fall on landlords alone, it affects everyone.
- Tenants suffer as available rentals decline, competition rises, and older units fall into disrepair.
- Owners suffer as maintenance becomes harder to fund and operational stress increases.
- Cities suffer as affordability worsens and economic mobility declines.
This isn’t a question of choosing compassion or economics. Good housing policy requires both compassion and math. In other words, care for people’s immediate needs and clarity about long-term impacts.
It’s easy to react to the pain of today by passing policies that feel protective. What’s harder, but far more effective, is thinking long-term. We urge policy makers to ask:
Will this policy still help the city 5, 10, or 20 years from now?
The goal isn’t to dismiss rent caps. It’s to design them wisely, temporarily, and alongside real solutions that expand the number of homes available. That’s the only path that ultimately helps everyone in the housing ecosystem.
Why San Diego Should Pay Attention
San Diego has a long history of watching and eventually adopting policies that start in Los Angeles. It’s one of the reasons this reform matters beyond LA’s borders.
Right now, San Diego’s rent cap under California’s statewide law (AB 1482) sits around 5%, depending on inflation. But with LA taking a firmer stance at 4%, it’s not hard to imagine pressure building for San Diego to follow suit, especially as affordability continues to dominate local politics.
Here’s what San Diego landlords and tenants should expect in the coming years:
- Increased momentum for tighter caps, especially during election cycles
- More conversations around rent stabilization, housing equity, and affordability
- Potential downward pressure on allowable rent increases if LA’s policy gains traction
- Growing tension between the need for short-term tenant protections and long-term housing supply
San Diego has the opportunity to learn from LA’s move, not by rejecting or copying it outright, but by thinking critically about what truly solves the housing crisis.
If the region wants stability and sustainability, the lesson is clear:
Policies must support tenants today while also protecting and expanding the housing supply that tenants will depend on in the future.
Stay Updated
If conversations like this matter to you, I’d love for you to stay connected. Housing is complex, and the only way we move toward solutions that work for everyone is by engaging with nuance, empathy, and a willingness to look beyond the headlines.
I regularly share:
- Honest, respectful housing conversations that don’t villainize tenants or owners
- Balanced insights grounded in data and empathy, not fear or partisanship
- Clear updates on policy, rent control, and market trends that help you stay informed and prepared
If that’s the kind of dialogue you want more of, I invite you to follow along.
If you want truth-driven, compassionate housing commentary, then please subscribe to our newsletter.
Steve Welty
Subscribe to Our Orange County Landlord Newsletter
Orange County Property Management Blogs
Should Your Accessory Dwelling Unit Be a Short-Term or Long-Term Rental?
We review the differences between renting your accessory dwelling unit long-term and short-term.
How to Turn Vacant Rental Properties into Tax Deductions
Learn how to turn your rental property’s vacancy into potential tax deductions. Discover the rules, strategies, and tips landlords need to know.
Who’s Still Offering Home Insurance in California?
Struggling to find home insurance in California? Discover which companies are still writing policies, how to navigate the market, and alternative options.
Linkedin
YouTube
Instagram
TikTok
X (Twitter)
Facebook