Counties across Southern California are taking an increasingly active role in shaping housing rules. From Los Angeles to Orange County and San Diego, housing providers are facing both new constraints and new opportunities.
County-Level Rules
In Los Angeles County, supervisors recently passed an ordinance requiring indoor temperatures in all rental units in unincorporated areas to remain below eighty-two degrees Fahrenheit. The rule will take effect in September 2025 and will be enforced beginning in 2027. Small providers with ten or fewer units will have additional time to comply, but electrical upgrades and the obligation to allow tenant-installed cooling units will impose significant costs.
The county has also extended wildfire-related rent caps through September 29, 2025. These rules prevent housing providers in affected areas from raising rents more than ten percent above pre-emergency levels, even as recovery and rebuilding expenses mount.
Orange County Housing Update: Policy Moves Shape the Market
Orange County has entered the second half of 2025 with several important policy changes and program rollouts that will influence how housing providers and investors approach the market in the year ahead. From rent increase caps to affordable housing initiatives and long-range planning efforts, the region is navigating a complex mix of regulation and opportunity.
The most immediate update is the confirmation of the allowable rent increase cap under California’s statewide rent control law. For the period beginning August 1, 2025, and running through July 31, 2026, providers in Orange County are permitted to raise rents by up to eight percent. This figure is derived from the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim Consumer Price Index, which came in at three percent this year, combined with the additional five percent permitted by statute. For housing providers, this clarity sets the parameters for revenue planning, while also underscoring the importance of careful tenant communication in a highly competitive market.
Alongside rent policy, the county is making fresh moves to expand affordable housing. The Orange County Housing Finance Trust has updated its development pipeline, which allows projects to secure priority access to state and federal funding streams. At the same time, the Orange County Housing Authority has opened a round of applications for project-based vouchers aimed at supporting individuals experiencing homelessness. Together, these programs represent a coordinated push to add units to the supply pipeline and address one of the region’s most pressing challenges: housing affordability.
Planning for the longer term is also underway. Earlier this year, the county finalized its sixth-cycle Housing Element, a comprehensive blueprint that will guide housing policy through 2029 in unincorporated areas. The plan identifies goals for safe and inclusive housing, with particular attention to affordability and the alignment of new projects with regional growth expectations. As an additional layer of review, county officials in August invited public comment on environmental assessments for upcoming development projects, signaling that land use and environmental considerations will remain tightly linked to the housing agenda.
For housing providers and investors, these developments present both certainty and complexity. The rent cap establishes predictable guardrails, but it also limits flexibility in adjusting to rising operating costs. The expansion of affordable housing programs creates opportunities for partnerships and access to incentives, but it also raises expectations for provider participation in voucher programs and income-restricted projects. And the Housing Element, while offering a roadmap, reminds the market that local government priorities will shape the supply of new housing in ways that require active engagement and advocacy.
San Diego Housing Policy Update: Key Developments in the City and the County
San Diego continues to be at the center of housing policy debates, with both the City of San Diego and San Diego County advancing initiatives that affect how housing providers operate and invest. While the city is driving aggressive tenant protections and adaptive reuse proposals, the county is expanding funding for housing and services across a broader regional landscape. For multifamily property owners, understanding where each policy originates is essential for compliance and long-term planning.
City of San Diego: Adaptive Reuse and Tenant Protections
Within the city, one of the most closely followed proposals involves the future of the troubled 101 Ash Street tower. The City Council is considering a 267 million dollar plan to convert the long-vacant high-rise into 247 affordable housing units. If approved, it would be one of the largest office-to-residential conversions in the region and a signal that city leaders intend to pursue bold adaptive reuse strategies to address the housing shortage.
The City Council has also enacted new rules governing utility billing. These measures target the practice of landlords and third-party billing companies passing inflated utility charges to tenants. Going forward, utility pass-through costs must reflect actual consumption and remain transparent to residents. For housing providers, this policy requires a thorough review of billing practices and likely adjustments to ensure compliance.
In addition, the city has strengthened protections for affordable housing by requiring that deed-restricted properties offered for sale must first be made available to qualified affordable housing developers. This rule is intended to keep long-term affordable units in circulation rather than allowing them to shift to market-rate use. While it provides stability for tenants, it limits flexibility for property owners considering a sale.
San Diego County: Regional Funding and Homelessness Programs
At the county level, officials are directing significant resources toward homelessness and affordable housing. The San Diego Housing Commission, which works countywide, has announced a funding increase of more than fifty percent, bringing the annual total to over 316 million dollars. These funds will support shelters, rental assistance, and permanent supportive housing programs, with an emphasis on serving vulnerable populations in both city and unincorporated communities.
The County Board of Supervisors has also prioritized the preservation and expansion of interim housing. Despite the progress, a shortage persists. County data show that there are only about 8,100 temporary housing beds available for more than 10,600 individuals experiencing homelessness. This shortfall underscores the need for continued expansion of affordable housing options across the region.
Further, the city and county are aligned in leveraging federal support. San Diego approved its 2026 Annual Action Plan, which allocates 43.5 million dollars in federal funds through programs such as Community Development Block Grants and HOME Investment Partnerships. While the City Council formally adopted the plan, its funding streams are expected to support projects across both city and county jurisdictions.
Implications for Housing Providers
For housing providers and investors, the distinction between city and county actions matters. City ordinances directly regulate property operations within city boundaries, from how rents are billed to how affordable units are preserved. County policies and funding programs, on the other hand, shape the broader environment, influencing where housing resources are directed and how homelessness and affordability challenges are addressed on a regional scale.
Taken together, these developments show a dual-track strategy: the City of San Diego is tightening regulatory oversight, while San Diego County is attempting to expand resources. For multifamily property owners, success in this environment will depend on maintaining compliance with city rules while also exploring opportunities created by county-level funding and program support.
City-Level Housing Policies to Watch
City Ordinances Drive New Challenges for Housing Providers
Long Beach Just Cause Proposal Threatens Housing Providers and Local Investment
Across California, housing providers are already navigating a web of local and statewide regulations that increase costs and limit the ability to responsibly manage rental properties. Now, the City of Long Beach is considering a dramatic expansion of its Just Cause Ordinance that would further restrict housing providers and create new financial burdens. If adopted, these changes would undermine property rights, discourage reinvestment, and reduce the quality of housing stock in the city.
What the Proposal Includes
Under the current ordinance, tenants are covered by Just Cause protections if they have occupied a rental property for at least twelve months, with certain exceptions for owner-occupied homes and deed-restricted affordable housing. Housing providers may proceed with “at-fault” evictions in cases of non-payment of rent, serious lease violations, or refusal to sign a lawful lease extension. “No-fault” evictions are permitted in limited circumstances, such as when the owner intends to occupy the unit, withdraws it from the rental market, or undertakes a substantial remodel or demolition.
The proposed changes in Long Beach would go significantly further. Tenant advocacy groups are pushing to:
- Eliminate the twelve-month waiting period before Just Cause protections apply, effectively extending coverage from the moment a tenant moves in.
- Increase relocation assistance requirements to the equivalent of up to six months of rent, with a minimum of six thousand dollars, regardless of unit type.
- Require that half of the relocation payment be made immediately upon issuing the termination notice.
- Impose new compliance obligations that would make even legitimate property improvements or owner move-ins far more costly.
If adopted, these measures would create one of the most restrictive regulatory environments in Southern California.
The Impact on Housing Providers
The proposed ordinance would raise termination costs dramatically, leaving housing providers unable to responsibly adjust their portfolios, invest in property upgrades, or transition units back into owner occupancy. Higher relocation payments, combined with immediate payout requirements, would tie up significant capital at the exact time providers are expected to fund remodels or comply with additional local mandates.
These rules would also make routine investment and maintenance projects more difficult. For example, providers who wish to remodel older housing stock—a major issue in Long Beach, where more than 70 percent of units are over fifty years old—would be forced to pay excessive relocation fees before work could even begin. Instead of encouraging reinvestment, the ordinance penalizes it.
Ultimately, the added burdens would not only hurt property owners but also reduce housing availability. Increased compliance costs tend to discourage new investment, which can worsen housing shortages and increase long-term rental prices.
How Housing Providers Can Respond
The push for these changes is being led by special interest organizations and tenant advocacy groups that have not adequately considered the perspective of housing providers. Unless stakeholders speak out, the City Council may adopt these measures with little resistance.
AACSC is urging its members and the wider housing provider community to make their voices heard. Housing providers can:
- Contact the Long Beach City Council directly and explain how these changes would affect your ability to provide and maintain housing.
- Join the AACSC movement to oppose this ordinance by adding your voice through our member portal: Click Here to Join the Campaign.
- Stay informed by attending council meetings, submitting written testimony, and monitoring AACSC updates on this and other local policy proposals.
Conclusion
Long Beach already faces a vacancy rate of just six percent, and most of its housing stock is more than forty years old. The city needs policies that encourage reinvestment, modernization, and responsible growth. Instead, this proposal risks creating higher costs, discouraging investment, and undermining property rights.
AACSC will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of housing providers and investors. With your support, we can stop harmful policies from advancing in Long Beach and protect the future of housing in our region.
Beverly Hills: Mandatory 12-Month Leases
Effective September 5, 2025, Beverly Hills will require all leases to be at least twelve months in duration. Month-to-month and short-term leases will no longer be permitted.
Los Angeles: Rent Stabilization Formula Under Debate
The City of Los Angeles is considering major changes to the rent stabilization formula. Proposals would eliminate the three percent floor, lower the maximum allowable increase to three to four percent, and remove surcharges for gas and electricity in master-metered buildings. These changes, if adopted, would make it difficult for providers to cover routine operating expenses.
Oxnard: Harassment Ordinance Adopted
The City of Oxnard has now adopted one of the most punitive anti-harassment ordinances in the state, applying to all housing providers. The ordinance imposes penalties of ten thousand dollars per violation, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs, with broad definitions that can turn ordinary management issues into legal disputes.
Other Cities to Watch
Glendale is considering limits on gas appliances, Santa Monica will soon vote on electrification requirements for large buildings, Port Hueneme is weighing a ban on smoking in all multifamily properties, and Pomona is advancing a rent stabilization ordinance that would create costly registries and relocation fees.
Salinas Referendum Revives Rent Control Debate and Highlights Unstable Local Policy Environment
A significant development is unfolding in Salinas that illustrates how quickly local housing policy can shift and how important it is for housing providers to remain involved. Earlier this summer, tenant advocacy groups gathered more than ten thousand signatures to trigger a referendum that would restore four rent-related ordinances. These measures include rent stabilization, just cause eviction protections, tenant anti-harassment provisions, and a rental registry. Although the Salinas City Council voted to repeal these ordinances in June, the referendum effort has placed them back into effect until the matter is resolved.
The Monterey County Registrar of Voters confirmed the validity of the signatures in mid-August. As a result, the Salinas City Council must now either reinstate the ordinances permanently or allow the question to go before the voters in a future election. The council is expected to address the issue during its August 26 meeting, with a final determination anticipated by September 9. Until that decision is made, the ordinances remain active, creating an environment of uncertainty for both housing providers and investors.
The immediate reinstatement of these measures, despite their recent repeal, illustrates the risks of a volatile policy environment. For multifamily housing providers, this regulatory instability complicates financial planning, renter communications, and long-term investment strategies. Developers and property owners require predictability in order to assess acquisitions, plan renovations, and secure financing. When local ordinances can be repealed one week and reinstated the next, the ability to project profitability becomes unreliable.
This development is also part of a broader statewide trend. California voters rejected Proposition 33 in November 2024, which would have expanded rent control, and they previously turned down similar initiatives such as Proposition 21. Nevertheless, local campaigns remain influential. The Salinas referendum demonstrates that tenant advocacy groups can mobilize quickly and use referendum procedures to reverse local government decisions, effectively reinstating complex regulatory frameworks in a matter of weeks.
For housing providers, the lesson is clear. Local housing policies cannot be assumed to remain stable even after repeal. Providers must remain vigilant, participate in local government processes, and prepare for sudden shifts that can affect property operations and long-term investment returns.
Looking Ahead
The regulatory landscape for housing providers is evolving rapidly. While some reforms, such as CEQA streamlining, may create new development opportunities, most new laws and ordinances are increasing costs, reducing flexibility, and shifting risks onto property owners.
With the 2026 elections on the horizon, housing policy will remain a high-stakes issue. Several council seats in Los Angeles and surrounding cities will be pivotal, and housing providers must engage in the process. The AACSC Political Action Committee is preparing to support candidates who understand the importance of encouraging investment and protecting property rights.
Conclusion
Housing providers must remain engaged at every level of government. Federal rulings on arbitration and eviction compensation, state-level reforms and restrictions, county mandates such as indoor temperature rules, and local ordinances like the Long Beach Just Cause proposal all have immediate consequences for how providers operate their businesses.
The AACSC will continue to lead in advocacy, but it is member participation that makes the difference. By staying informed, complying with new requirements, and adding your voice to policy debates, housing providers can help ensure that California’s housing future is not defined by policies that discourage investment and reduce housing quality.