Bill to extend late notices from 3 days to 14 days derailed in committee

The California Apartment Association has helped derail a bill that would have extended California’s notice period for nonpayment of rent from three days to 14.

On Tuesday, June 24, SB 436 by state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, failed to garner enough votes to pass out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Following the failed vote, Wahab asked for reconsideration — a procedural move that allows the committee to potentially vote on the bill again at a future hearing — though the measure is stalled, at least for the time being.

CAA and a broad coalition of business, real estate, and rental housing organizations had urged lawmakers to reject the bill, warning it would severely disrupt rental housing operations and force landlords to operate as involuntary creditors.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Debra Carlton, executive vice president of state government affairs for CAA, told lawmakers that the bill would effectively allow all tenants to delay rent payments until the middle of the month, regardless of financial hardship.

“This bill will allow for all tenants to pay on the 14th, despite their financial need,” she said. “Owners will have to serve all of these tenants with a 14-day notice. Chronic nonpayment is not addressed, despite the supporters’ comments.”

Carlton also challenged comparisons to other states that provide longer notice periods before an eviction can proceed.

“Those other states have very strong disincentives to paying late. Some are a 5% per week, some are 20% of the rent. This bill does not,” she said.

She added that while California does not have a statute regulating late fees, landlords are still restricted in practice.

SB 436 would require landlords to serve a 14-day notice — excluding weekends and judicial holidays — before beginning an eviction for nonpayment of rent. Current law requires a three-day notice under the same conditions.

Carlton urged lawmakers to consider a more constructive approach if their goal is to keep tenants housed.

“If the state does care, as the good senator has said, then we have suggested that they provide a loan program through the iBank. That’s what the state should do,” she said.

She also warned that SB 436, combined with grace periods already built into many leases and other pending proposals, could result in significant delays.

“We’re going to end up with 22 days, not 14 days,” she said.

In a June 17 opposition letter, the coalition said the measure would upend rental operations throughout the state.

“This proposal is not narrowly targeted; rather, it imposes a universal mandate that undermines existing lease agreements and the principle of timely rent collection that underpins housing operations across California,” the letter says.

The coalition warned that the bill would force landlords to provide housing without payment for extended periods — even when tenants can pay on time.

“This measure effectively recasts rental housing providers as involuntary creditors, forcing them to provide housing without receiving payment on time, even when tenants are not facing financial hardship,” the letter states.

CAA argued that SB 436 would particularly harm small, mom-and-pop landlords who rely on timely rent payments to meet financial obligations, including mortgages, insurance, maintenance, and taxes.