For most of 2024, few topics worried California apartment owners more than the “Justice for Renters Act.” If you own rental property in Los Angeles, you probably heard it described as an existential threat — a measure that could rewrite the rules of rent control across the state and reset what your building is worth. It reached voters as Proposition 33 on the November 2024 ballot.
Here’s the short version of how it ended: voters rejected it, and not narrowly. But the longer story — what the measure actually would have done, why it failed for the third time in six years, and what’s protected today — is worth understanding, because the underlying fight over rent control in California is far from over.
Let me walk through it the way I’d explain it to an owner sitting across the table in Culver City or Inglewood: what was on the table, what survived, and what it all means for your property now.
What the Justice for Renters Act Would Have Done
The measure had one central target: the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1995 state law that sets the outer limits of how far local rent control can go in California. Proposition 33 would have repealed Costa-Hawkins outright and added language barring the state from limiting local rent control in the future. In practice, that would have cleared the way for cities and counties to:
- Apply rent control to single-family homes and condominiums, which are currently exempt.
- Apply rent control to apartments built after February 1995, which are also currently exempt.
- Impose vacancy control — limiting what you can charge a new tenant when a unit turns over — which has been banned statewide for roughly three decades.
Stripped to its core, the measure was about handing local governments the power to regulate rents on far more of the housing stock than they can touch today — including brand-new buildings and single-family rentals.
Why Costa-Hawkins Matters So Much to LA Owners
To understand why this measure rattled owners, you have to understand what Costa-Hawkins actually does. Since 1995, it has quietly underpinned the value of most Los Angeles apartment buildings in two ways.
First, it exempts certain housing — single-family homes, condos, and anything built after February 1995 — from local rent control. Second, and more important for most apartment owners, it preserves vacancy decontrol: the right to reset rent to market when a unit becomes vacant, even in a rent-controlled building.
That second piece is the engine of value in a lot of older LA multifamily. Buildings in West Adams, South LA, East LA, and Highland Park are rarely priced on today’s rent roll alone — they’re priced on the realistic path to market rents over time as units turn over. Take away vacancy decontrol, and you don’t just cap a year of income; you remove the upside that buyers underwrite and lenders count on.
Picture a 1960s building in South LA where several long-term tenants pay well below market. On paper, the current income looks modest — but a buyer is really paying for what those units could earn as they turn over and reset to market. That gap between in-place rent and market rent is exactly the upside vacancy decontrol unlocks, and it’s why a repeal would have hit older, rent-controlled buildings the hardest.
Vacancy control is the provision experienced owners worry about most. Opponents point to markets like New York, where they argue strict vacancy rules discouraged reinvestment and pushed values down. It’s the same concern that surfaced when AB 246’s emergency rent-freeze proposal floated vacancy control after the January 2025 wildfires.
What Actually Happened at the Ballot Box
On November 5, 2024, California voters defeated Proposition 33 by a wide margin — roughly 62% voted no. That wasn’t a fluke. It was the third time in six years voters had been asked to repeal Costa-Hawkins, and the third time they declined. A nearly identical measure failed in 2018 as Proposition 10, and another failed in 2020 as Proposition 21, both by sizable margins.
A few things drove the outcome. The opposition campaign — funded by landlords, real estate groups, and even some pro-housing “YIMBY” organizations — substantially outspent the supporters. And the argument that resonated with voters wasn’t really about protecting landlords; it was about housing supply. Opponents warned that letting cities cap rents on new construction would discourage the building California desperately needs, and that some cities might set caps low enough to effectively block development.
Supporters, led by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, framed the measure as relief for rent-burdened tenants and a tool for cities to fight displacement — an argument that carries real weight with many voters. But for the third straight cycle, it wasn’t enough to overcome concerns about the measure’s effect on housing supply and investment.
Three times on the ballot, three defeats — and by a wider margin in 2024 than before. For owners, the takeaway isn’t that rent control is unpopular; it’s that voters keep balking specifically at repealing Costa-Hawkins.
What This Means for Los Angeles Landlords Today
The practical bottom line: nothing changed. Costa-Hawkins is still the law. For Los Angeles apartment owners, that means:
- Single-family homes, condos, and post-1995 apartments remain exempt from local rent control.
- Vacancy decontrol stands — you can still reset to market when a unit turns over, subject to your local rules.
- Vacancy control remains banned statewide.
For owners who held off on a decision in 2024 because they feared a Costa-Hawkins repeal, that specific threat is off the table for now, and the value mechanism that older LA buildings depend on is intact.
But “for now” is doing real work in that sentence. The same backers have brought this fight to the ballot three times and have signaled they’re not done. Rent-regulation pressure also shows up between elections — through expansions of local rent stabilization ordinances, and through emergency measures like the AB 246 rent-freeze proposal that appeared after the January 2025 wildfires. The ballot route failed, but the broader push continues in other forms.
What Still Governs Your Rent Increases
With Costa-Hawkins intact, it’s worth being clear about the rules that do apply to your building, because owners sometimes blur them together. In Los Angeles, three layers generally stack on top of one another:
- Costa-Hawkins (state): sets what local rent control can and can’t reach — exempting single-family homes, condos, and post-1995 apartments, and preserving vacancy decontrol on turnover.
- AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act (state): caps annual rent increases at 5% plus local inflation, up to a 10% maximum, on many units that aren’t already under stricter local control.
- Local rent stabilization (city): LA’s RSO covers most apartments built on or before October 1, 1978, with its own annual cap and just-cause eviction rules. Nearby cities like Culver City and Inglewood have their own ordinances too.
The defeat of Proposition 33 didn’t change any of these. It simply kept cities from going further than Costa-Hawkins currently allows — it did not roll anything back, either. Knowing which of these layers applies to your specific building is the starting point for any rent or sale decision.
Final Thoughts
If there’s a theme across LA’s rent-regulation battles, it’s this: the most dramatic proposals tend to fail or get watered down, but the pressure never fully disappears. The Justice for Renters Act is now a three-time loser at the ballot box, and Costa-Hawkins — the backbone of how most LA apartment buildings are valued — remains standing. That’s genuinely good news if you own multifamily from the San Fernando Valley to the South Bay.
The smart posture isn’t to panic with every new headline, and it isn’t to assume the issue is settled forever. It’s to understand exactly how the current rules protect your building’s value, keep an eye on what’s coming next, and make ownership decisions based on where the law actually stands — not where an advocacy campaign hopes it will go.
If you’d like a clear read on what your apartment building is worth under today’s rules — and a straightforward conversation about how California’s rent-control landscape affects your particular property — I’m glad to help. You can request a free property valuation or just reach out to talk it through. No pressure, just information you can actually use.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Justice for Renters Act pass?
No. It appeared as Proposition 33 on the November 2024 ballot and was defeated, with about 62% of voters opposed. It was the third failed attempt to repeal Costa-Hawkins, following similar measures in 2018 and 2020.
What is Costa-Hawkins, in plain terms?
It’s a 1995 California law that limits how far local rent control can reach. It exempts single-family homes, condos, and apartments built after February 1995 from local rent control, and it preserves vacancy decontrol — your right to reset rent to market when a unit turns over.
What is vacancy control, and is it legal in California?
Vacancy control limits what a landlord can charge a new tenant after a unit becomes vacant, keeping rent restrictions in place through turnover. It has been banned statewide under Costa-Hawkins since the 1990s, and the defeat of Prop 33 means that ban stays in place.
Could a measure like this come back?
Yes. The same sponsors have pursued a Costa-Hawkins repeal three times, and rent-regulation pressure also appears through local ordinance changes and emergency legislation. It’s reasonable to expect the issue to return in some form.
How does this affect my building’s value or decision to sell?
Because Costa-Hawkins survived, the vacancy-decontrol upside that older LA buildings are valued on stays intact, which supports values. It’s still worth getting a current valuation and understanding your local rent rules before making any hold-or-sell decision.
— Evelyn Baez Nguyen is a multifamily investment specialist at Lyon Stahl Investment Real Estate, serving apartment owners and investors across Los Angeles County.
