The Brief

Trying to figure out how much your landlord can legally increase your rent? For tenants in Southern California, it can be confusing.

State law allows annual rent hikes as large as 10% for most apartment dwellers during periods of high inflation. However, different parts of California have different rules on rent increases.

Some cities have local forms of rent control that impose much lower limits. Others have no local limits at all.

Generally, older buildings are more likely to be subject to caps on rent increases. In many newer buildings, the sky's the limit because lawmakers say rent caps on newly built properties would remove the incentive for developers to build new housing.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act limits the kinds of rent control cities can impose on buildings constructed since 1995. Sacramento lawmakers also have agreed to exclude buildings constructed within the past 15 years from statewide rent caps.

The upshot: Finding the answers for your specific home isn’t easy. To sort it all out, we’ve put together a short guide on rent control laws across Los Angeles and Orange counties. Each jurisdiction is presented below, alphabetically.

Of course, we’re not lawyers. We can’t tell you exactly what’s legal and what’s not for your situation. L.A.-area tenants who need further help can reach out to Stay Housed L.A., a collective of legal aid organizations funded by local governments.

Baldwin Park

Baldwin Park city officials do not know what caps their rent control law imposes on annual increases. You read that right — the city’s rent control ordinance is so confusing, even those enforcing it don’t understand what it says about rent hikes.

LAist reported on a similar situation last year. Back then, Baldwin Park had failed to post timely information online about the city’s rent caps. After LAist asked what limits landlords and tenants should adhere to, given the lack of clarity, the city updated the guidance on its website.

One year later, the city is back in the same position, unable to say exactly how much landlords can legally raise rents on tenants covered by local rent control rules. Ryan Mulligan, a housing manager with the city, told LAist that the Baldwin Park City Council would have an updated rent control ordinance to consider later this month.

“The city of Baldwin Park is in the process of updating its rent stabilization ordinance to ensure it aligns with recent changes in state housing laws and reflects current community needs,” Mulligan wrote in an email. “The city’s goal is to provide a fair, balanced and legally sound framework that protects tenants while offering clarity for property owners.”

In past years, the city had limited annual rent increases to 3.8%. That limit took effect Aug. 1, 2023, and it remained in place until a new 3.9% limit replaced it Aug. 1, 2024. Now, in November 2025, city housing staffers say landlords and tenants should continue to follow the 3.9% limit, though they acknowledge that cap is out of date.

The city's rent control rules state that annual rent hikes will be 5% or lower, depending on recent inflation statistics. But the local ordinance fails to point out which month of inflation data would determine the upcoming year’s rent hike limit.

The city’s rent caps — assuming they are clarified at some point — generally apply to multi-family housing built before Jan. 1, 1995, with exceptions for single-family homes, condos and owner-occupied duplexes.

Bell Gardens

The city calculates allowable rent increases based on 50% of the local consumer price index, or 4%, whichever is lower. The current limit is 1.5%. That cap will remain in effect until a new limit is announced. The new cap would take effect Nov. 1, 2026.

Landlords who charge less than 80% of the area’s Fair Market Rent, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, can apply to the city for permission to raise rents by an additional 3% per year.

City councilmembers in Bell Gardens voted to implement local rent control in August 2022. The city’s rent control law generally applies to apartments built before Feb. 1, 1995. Single-family homes, condos and townhomes are generally excluded.

Beverly Hills

The city of Beverly Hills allows annual rent increases of up to 3% in most rent-controlled housing. The city is scheduled to update this limit in June 2026.

However, as of Sept. 11, 2025, landlords are allowed to raise the rent 3.14% for tenants who originally moved into their housing units at rents of $600 or less and who live in buildings built before Sept. 20, 1978.

Details on how these complex rent increase rules work can be found on the city’s website. Beverly Hills’ rent control law generally applies to rental housing constructed before Feb. 1, 1995.

Cudahy

Under Cudahy’s rent control law, landlords cannot raise rents by more than 3% per year. In years when the local consumer price index is running lower than 3%, landlords must base annual rent hikes on the lower inflation figure.

The city’s maximum allowable rent increase between July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, is 3%.

The Cudahy City Council first passed a local rent control ordinance in June 2023. The rules generally apply to rental housing built before Feb. 1, 1995. The limits don’t apply to renters in single-family houses, condos or townhomes.

Culver City

Tenants covered by the city’s rent control rules can receive annual rent hikes of up to 3.25% for increases that take effect between Nov. 1, 2025, and Nov. 30, 2025. The city frequently updates these limits. The latest figures can be found on this website.

Culver City’s rent control ordinance allows annual increases ranging from a minimum of 2% to a maximum of 5%, depending on recent consumer price index figures.

The city’s rent control law generally applies to rental housing units built before Feb. 1, 1995. The law generally exempts single-family homes, condos and townhomes.

Inglewood

Inglewood’s highly complicated housing protection ordinance, which originally took effect in 2019, currently allows annual rent hikes of up to 10%. But the city’s rent caps can be much lower, depending on how cheap your current rent is and the size of your apartment building.

If you live in a building with five or more apartments, your landlord can raise your rent up to 3% between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026. That limit is based on the local consumer price index from April 2025. The city updates its allowable rent increases every May based on those figures.

However, Inglewood allows landlords with smaller buildings to impose higher rent increases. If you live in a rent-controlled apartment building with four units or fewer, your landlord can raise your rent by 8% starting July 1, 2025.

Additionally, Inglewood allows landlords to raise rents even more on tenants who pay 80% or less of the area’s “fair market rent.” Essentially, this means landlords can impose larger annual increases on those with cheaper rents.

Details on what qualifies as below "fair market rent” can be found on the city’s website. Tenants below those limits can receive rent hikes of up to 8% in buildings with five units or more — or up to 10% in buildings with four units or fewer.

The city’s limits on annual rent increases generally exempt single-family home and condo rentals (unless they’re owned by a corporate landlord), as well as any rental housing built within the past 15 years.

City of L.A.

Los Angeles landlords are currently allowed to raise rents by 3% on tenants covered by the city’s rent stabilization ordinance. The city also allows landlords to increase rents by another 1% if they pay for tenants' gas, plus another 1% if they pay for tenants' electricity. Along with the 3% baseline increase, that adds up to a total allowable rent hike of 5% if landlords cover both utilities.

This limit took effect July 1, 2025, and had been scheduled to remain in place until June 30, 2026 — unless the L.A. City Council voted to change the rules (which they have done).

It's important to note that depending on recent consumer price index figures, allowable rent increases in the city of L.A. can range from a minimum of 3% to a maximum of 8% — or up to 10% in cases where landlords cover their tenants' utility costs.

All of that is likely to change soon. On Nov.12, the City Council voted to significantly lower annual rent increases in most of the city’s apartments. Before any new rules take effect, they still need to be drafted by the City Attorney’s Office and returned to the council for a final vote.

Here's are the proposed changes:

• Rent increases would be capped at 4% annually
• An additional 2% increase for landlords who cover utilities would be eliminated.
• The exact rate each year would be equal to 90% of the change in the region’s consumer price index, a government measure of economic inflation.

Tenant advocates and some council members had pushed to lower the caps to 3%.

The current rules around rent increases follow a prolonged period of flat rents in L.A. The city banned rent hikes in rent-controlled housing during the COVID-19 pandemic. That prohibition expired Feb. 1, 2024, after remaining in place for nearly four years.

During the rent freeze, L.A. tenants filed a record number of complaints about illegal rent hikes. If you believe you received an unlawful rent hike in a city of L.A. rent-controlled apartment between April 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2024, you can file a complaint with the city’s housing department here.

The city’s limits generally apply to rental housing built before Oct. 1, 1978. Single-family home rentals are generally exempt. You can search for your address on the city’s ZIMAS website and click the “housing” tab on the left to find out if your home is subject to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance, or RSO.

Maywood

The city’s current limit on annual rent increases is 3%. This cap took effect on July 1, 2025, and will remain in place through June 30, 2026. The number is based on the April 2025 consumer price index.

Maywood’s City Council voted in August 2023 to implement the new rent control policy.

The southeastern L.A. city’s rules limit annual increases to 4% or the local consumer price index, whichever is lower.

Maywood’s rent control limits generally apply to rental housing built before Feb. 1, 1995. Single-family homes, condos and townhomes are generally not covered by the city’s rules.

Pasadena

The city’s current annual rent increase limit is 2.25%. This figure took effect Oct. 1, 2025, and will remain in place through Sept. 30, 2026.

Allowable increases under the city’s rent stabilization rules are equal to 75% of the region’s most recent consumer price index figures. Landlords can raise rents once per year, only after giving tenants a 30-day notice.

Rent control took root in Pasadena after voters there passed Measure H in November 2022. The city’s rules generally apply to rental properties built before Feb. 1, 1995. Condos and single-family homes are generally exempt.

Pomona

The city’s current limit on annual rent hikes is 4%.

That cap took effect Aug. 1, 2022 after the Pomona City Council passed an urgency ordinance in preparation for the passage of a permanent rent control law. The city’s website said a vote on that final ordinance was expected in October 2025.

The city’s rent hike limits generally apply to rental housing built before Feb. 1, 1995. Single-family homes, condos and townhomes are generally exempt.

Santa Ana

The city currently caps annual rent increases in rent-controlled housing at 2.42%. That limit took effect Sept. 1, 2025, and is set to remain in place through Aug. 31, 2026.

The city’s rules limit rent hikes to 80% of the local consumer price index or 3%, whichever is lower. The law, adopted in late 2021, generally applies to apartments built before Feb. 1, 1995.

Santa Monica

Currently, the city generally limits annual rent increases to 2.3% for covered units, with a maximum increase of $60 per month. That cap is set to continue until Sept. 1, 2026, when a new limit will be announced.

Voters in Santa Monica approved a ballot measure in November 2022 lowering allowable annual rent hikes to 3%, or a maximum of $70 per month. Just before that vote, in September 2022, Santa Monica’s rent control board had approved a 6% increase, with a cap of $140 per month. The ballot measure invalidated those higher increases.

Rent control in Santa Monica generally applies to apartments built before April 10, 1979.

West Hollywood

The city currently allows annual rent increases of up to 2.25% in rent-controlled housing. The limit took effect Sept. 1, 2025, and will remain in place through Aug. 31, 2026.

The city’s rent control rules generally apply to rental properties with two or more units that were first occupied before July 1, 1979.

The city calculates allowable increases using a formula based on 75% of the local consumer price index.

Unincorporated L.A. County

Annual rent hikes of up to 1.93% are now allowed in many rent-controlled housing units located in unincorporated areas of L.A. County. That limit took effect on July 1, 2025, and is scheduled to last through June 30, 2026.

But there are exceptions that allow for higher increases. Small landlords who testify to the county that they own no more than 10 rental housing units can raise rents up to 2.93% during this period. Mobile home tenants can receive an increase of up to 3%. And if your apartment is considered a “luxury unit” under the county’s rules, your landlord can raise your rent by 3.93%

The county’s rules generally limit rent hikes to no more than 3% — or less, based on a 60% of consumer price index formula. However, small landlords and luxury-unit owners can further increase rents by another 1% or 2%, respectively.

Confused about what an “unincorporated area” is exactly? Let’s break it down.

There are 88 incorporated cities across L.A. County. But many areas are not incorporated and are instead subject to rules passed by the county’s elected leaders. One in 10 county residents lives in an unincorporated area, including places like East Los Angeles, Florence-Graham and Altadena.

Many renters in these areas live in properties subject to the county’s rent stabilization ordinance. Those rules generally apply to rental housing in unincorporated areas built before Feb. 1, 1995.

Other cities

Many incorporated cities in L.A. do not have local forms of rent control. For a 2022 story about inflation and rising rents, we interviewed tenants in Burbank facing rent hikes of 10%. Those tenants were receiving such large increases in part because they lived in a city that does not impose local limits on annual rent hikes.

Even if your city lacks rent control, you may still be covered by a 2019 state law called the California Tenant Protection Act (also known as AB 1482). That law is meant to stop landlords from passing on very large rent increases to tenants across the state who live in areas without local rent control.

There are some exceptions. Newly constructed housing is not covered by this law. That means if you live in an apartment built within the past 15 years, these limits do not apply to your situation. But if your building is older than that, your unit is likely subject to the Tenant Protection Act’s limits on annual rent hikes.

The state law's rent increase limit is currently 8% for L.A. and Orange counties. That went into effect Aug. 1, 2025, and is based on more recent consumer price index figures. It's slightly down from last year's 8.9% maximum.

The law establishes a new annual baseline in August of each year. The rate is determined by the local consumer price index from April. State law sets the maximum allowed rent increase at 5% plus the local consumer price index (which was 3% in L.A. and Orange counties in April 2024) — or 10%, whichever is lower.

Typically, local rules take precedence over the state law. So if you live somewhere with stricter rent control, your landlord will have to comply with the lower local caps on rent increases.

On a tour of Orange County’s voting headquarters on Wednesday, Registrar Bob Page demonstrated the careful, multi-step process through which voters’ ballots are validated and counted.

As the federal government raises the specter of unsubstantiated voter fraud, Page’s message was clear: “ I want voters to know that we're doing everything we can to make sure they can vote safely and securely."

More than 380,000 Orange County ballots have been returned as of Oct. 27, Page said. That’s about 80,000 more ballots than was received around the same time in 2022, the last mid-term elections.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page addresses the media and other members of the public in attendance as part of a tour of the voting operations on Wednesday, less than one week before Election Day.

(

Kavish Harjai

/

LAist.com

)

The journey of a ballot in Orange County

Collecting, and counting, all those ballots takes time. Page explained that two-person teams are dispatched to collect dropped-off ballots every day during election season.

The ballot drop-off boxes in Orange County are made of steel, weigh more than 1,000 pounds and are bolted to the concrete, Page said.

The ballot retrieval duos are required to follow a strict process to ensure the chain of custody remains secure, including taking photos showing they’ve picked up the ballots, properly locked the retrieval door and that the internal fire suppression canister is intact.

The locations of the two-person teams are GPS-tracked by separate teams, which also review the photo evidence before giving the ballot retrieval duos the green light to go to their next stops.

An overhead camera shows the process that occurs after the signatures on a ballot have been verified and the ballot is then ready to be counted.

(

Kavish Harjai

/

LAist.com

)

Signature verification

Once a ballot reaches the Registrar of Voters’ office, the next step is ensuring the signature on the envelope matches the voter's signatures in their registration file.

“If we do challenge [a signature], we’re required under state law to send a first-class letter notice to that voter,” Page said, adding that state statute affords voters until the day before Thanksgiving this year to correct errant signatures.

Page said three election workers must agree that enough of a discrepancy exists before the decision to challenge a signature is made.

Around 1.9% of the nearly 718,000 vote-by-mail ballots returned in the June primary election in Orange County were rejected, largely due to signature mismatch or because they weren’t received in time, according to the California Secretary of State.

Verified ballots are then separated from their envelopes and sorted before they’re prepared to be scanned and, finally, counted. The equipment used to tally votes isn’t connected to the internet, and access to the room the equipment is housed in is limited, according to Page.

Threats from the federal government

On Wednesday evening, a federal judge denied an emergency request from the Department of Justice to segregate 20,000 ballots across California that the federal government said were sent to “likely” noncitizens.

More than 1,750 of those people identified were in Orange County, according to a letter Bill Essayli, top federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, delivered to the county registrar’s office Monday.

The Department of Justice said it will appeal the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, who, in his decision, said the federal government’s attempted move could “wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway.”

California Attorney Gen. Rob Bonta called the ruling an “important victory,” but warned “the fight is not over.”

On Wednesday, before the ruling came down, Bonta released resources about election integrity in the state, including guidance for local election officials if law enforcement attempts to “access election sites where ballots are cast, processed, or counted.”

Page said he’s fielded more questions from the public this year about the potential for law enforcement to interfere in the election. He said he will have open lines of communication with partners with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and  Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center should the threat arise.

What’s on your ballot?

Our LAist Voter Game Plan is here to help guide you through the Nov. 3 election with guides to races across Los Angeles and Orange counties — and that long list of state propositions — to help you cast a ballot that’s in line with your own personal beliefs and values.

But the one thing we don’t do? We don’t tell you how to vote. That part is left up to you.

You can find it all at LAist.com/Vote.

The U.S. Justice Department has issued subpoenas to California officials in an escalation of its scrutiny of local election administration.

The Associated Press obtained copies of three subpoenas sent Oct. 21 to employees of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, ordering them to appear in court on Nov. 4, the day after the election. The documents request any records, documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining allegations of noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. The subpoenas also seek information relating to the office’s “methods for screening for unlawful voting by aliens” and anything about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted.

The subpoenas were being issued by all four U.S. attorneys in California, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar, said, “threats and intimidated have no place in elections.”

Subpoenas come amid ongoing court battle

The Trump administration has sued to force California to set aside up to 20,000 ballots it suspects went to noncitizens and not count them until citizenship can be verified. A district court judge on Tuesday rejected that request, then on Thursday appointed a special master to evaluate the administration’s claims.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter did not specify the exact scope of special master Daniel B. Garrie’s responsibilities, but said he would be tasked with “developing the factual record” for the court.

In a Tuesday court hearing, Carter said he wanted to vet the federal government’s list of over 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters since there has been extensive debate over its reliability and both sides have agreed that it includes an unspecified number of citizens.

null

Carter also said at the hearing that a special master could investigate California’s claims that it cannot logistically separate the ballots in time for the county election certification deadline on Dec. 3. The federal government has contested that assertion.

It is not clear what would happen if a special master did find a substantial number of noncitizen voters on the federal government’s list or whether it would affect the certification of California’s election results. The 20,000 people on the DOJ’s list constitute only a small fraction of California’s 23 million voters.

Trump administration appeals to higher court

Meanwhile, the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to quickly weigh in.

The Justice Department said in a late Wednesday filing that it’s essential the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issue a ruling as soon as possible due to “irreversible ballot processing occurring on an ongoing basis.”

Carter’s decision was the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump in his efforts to expand federal control over state-run elections in the midterms that will decide control of Congress for the rest of his term. The Justice Department has made similar demands in other states, including Washington. Noncitizen voting has been a central focus of Trump’s political messaging for years, although available data indicates it is exceedingly rare.

Trump blasted Carter’s ruling against the federal government on Thursday morning before heading to a campaign rally in South Carolina.

“California is very corrupt. The elections are extremely corrupt. The judge should not have done that but we’ll appeal that, of course,” he told reporters. Trump added without evidence that there are “hundreds of thousands” and then amended it to “millions, in my opinion” of “bad ballots” in California.

Carter, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, argued that the Justice Department’s demands were a clear violation of the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits changes to voter rolls or election procedure within 90 days of an election.

A number of US citizens were included in the Justice Department’s list of names

Both sides agree that an unspecified number of citizens were inadvertently included. Carter argued that separating the ballots at this point would risk disenfranchising citizens and “wreak havoc” on the election certification process.

Over 500,000 votes have already been processed in Los Angeles County alone, according to court filings. The system also protects voter privacy: Once a vote is processed, it cannot be traced back to the person who cast it.

Carter is to rule on the government’s renewed request for a preliminary injunction, which would bar the state from counting the ballots until the litigation is resolved. He said he will do so after a Nov. 13 evidentiary hearing with input from the special master.

He said that if the federal government suspected noncitizens were voting, it could continue to prosecute those cases criminally. Federal authorities have charged over two dozen foreign nationals in California as part of a statewide sweep targeting people officials allege have illegally registered or voted in U.S. elections.

Appeals panel judges have said they wouldn’t support setting aside ballots this close to midterms

The appeal will be the second time that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the case.

The first time was just last week when the Justice Department argued before an appeals court panel that a fast ruling on its request was needed to stop any counting of the ballots.

Although the panel ruled it was premature for an appeals court to get involved before a lower-court ruling, two of the three judges wrote separate concurrences making it clear they wouldn’t support setting aside ballots at this late date. They questioned the accuracy of the federal government’s list of alleged noncitizen voters and argued that to set aside votes risks disenfranchising citizens.

One judge dissented, arguing that federal law bars noncitizens from voting and requires California to vet the potentially illegal ballots before counting them. The failure to do so, he wrote, would cause irreparable harm to the election.