Which Mountain View Rentals Does the CSFRA Actually Cover?
The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) caps rent increases and requires just cause for eviction on many older apartment buildings in Mountain View, but it does not reach every rental in the city.
Coverage turns on when a building was built, how many units sit on the lot, and whether the owner lives there, and getting that wrong can mean a rent increase that doesn’t hold up or a termination notice a tenant can successfully challenge.
Mountain View voters approved the CSFRA as Measure V in November 2016, and the law took effect December 23, 2016, layering local rent control and eviction protection on top of the statewide Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482).
The ordinance created its own enforcement body, the Rental Housing Committee, its own annual rent-cap calculation, and its own relocation-payment schedule.
Below is what the CSFRA covers, what it exempts, how the rent cap and relocation rules work, and where a straight cash sale fits for an owner who would rather not manage any of it.
Which Rentals Count as a “Covered Rental Unit”
The CSFRA sorts rental housing into three tiers, and the dividing line is the building’s certificate-of-occupancy date, not its current condition. A unit is fully covered, meaning it gets both the annual rent cap and just-cause eviction protection, when it sits in a structure with three or more rental units that received its certificate of occupancy before February 1, 1995.
Multifamily buildings of three or more units built on or after February 1, 1995 but before the CSFRA’s December 23, 2016 effective date are only partially covered. Tenants there still have just-cause eviction protection, but the owner is not bound by the Annual General Adjustment rent cap described further down.
Anything built after the CSFRA took effect sits outside the ordinance entirely, consistent with the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which generally bars local governments from capping rent on newer construction.
None of this depends on whether the building looks old or has been renovated. A 1980s fourplex that’s been fully remodeled is still fully covered, and a 2015 apartment building is still exempt from the rent cap even if it looks dated.
The City’s Rent Stabilization Division maintains a parcel-level map so an owner or tenant can look up a specific address rather than guess from the building’s appearance.
A “partially covered” building still needs a valid just-cause reason for any termination, even though its rent isn’t capped by the AGA.
Buildings and Units the CSFRA Leaves Out
Three categories sit outside CSFRA coverage regardless of the building’s age. First, the ordinance defines a “duplex” as a structure with fewer than three rental units, and those smaller properties, including most single-family homes, true duplexes, and many triplex-adjacent configurations, are not covered rental units under the CSFRA’s own exemption rules.
Second, a unit is exempt when the owner, or the owner’s spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, or grandparent, occupies it as a primary residence. This is the owner-occupied exemption, and it’s why a house with an in-law unit the owner lives next to generally falls outside the rent cap and just-cause rules, even if the building technically has multiple units on the lot.
Third, government-provided or government-subsidized rental units are exempt, since those are already governed by their own federal, state, or local affordability and eviction rules.
It’s worth noting that an exemption from the CSFRA doesn’t mean a property has no tenant protections at all.
Many smaller rentals and newer buildings that sit outside CSFRA coverage still fall under AB 1482’s statewide rent cap and just-cause requirements once a tenancy has run twelve months, unless that specific property also qualifies for one of AB 1482’s own carve-outs (for example, certain individually owned single-family homes and condos, with the required lease notice).
An owner should confirm both layers before assuming a property is unregulated, since the exemption filing itself has to be renewed with the City every year to keep a qualifying unit off the registration and fee rolls.
How Much Rent Can Go Up: The Annual General Adjustment
For fully covered units, the Rental Housing Committee sets a new Annual General Adjustment (AGA) every year, and that percentage is the maximum a landlord can add to an existing tenant’s rent during the twelve months that follow, with only one increase allowed per tenancy in any 12-month period.
The AGA has moved around from year to year: 3.4% for 2017, 3.6% for 2018, 3.5% for 2019, 2.9% for 2020, 2.0% for 2021, 5.0% for 2022, 5.0% for 2023, and 2.4% for the period running September 1, 2024 through August 31, 2025, according to the City’s own published rent-increase history.
Because the Rental Housing Committee resets this figure every September, anyone relying on a specific percentage should confirm the current year’s AGA with the Rent Stabilization Division before sending a notice, rather than assuming last year’s number still applies.
Applying the AGA isn’t automatic even on a covered unit.
The property has to be currently registered with the City, the owner has to be paid up on the annual Rental Housing Fee, there can’t be outstanding, unresolved code violations tied to the unit, and the tenant has to receive a written notice that satisfies the state’s 30-day minimum for rent increases.
Skip any of those steps and the increase can be challenged even if the percentage itself was within the legal cap.
The Rental Housing Committee doesn’t pick the AGA by vote alone; the figure tracks the change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers measured from one February to the next, then gets applied as a floor-and-ceiling band so it can’t fall below 2% or rise above 5% in a single year, regardless of how far the index moves.
That formula is why the AGA has stayed within a fairly narrow range even in years when regional inflation spiked well outside it.
Banking a Missed Increase and Petitioning for More
If a landlord doesn’t use the full AGA in a given year, the unused portion doesn’t just disappear.
The CSFRA lets an owner “bank” that unused amount and apply it later, combined with a subsequent year’s AGA, which is one reason a tenant might see a rent increase that looks larger than the current year’s published percentage.
Any notice that uses a banked amount has to include specific mandatory language set by the Rental Housing Committee, and a copy has to be filed with the City, generally within about a week of being served.
A landlord who believes the AGA alone doesn’t cover a legitimate cost increase can also file an individual petition with the Rental Housing Committee asking for an adjustment above the cap, and a joint landlord-tenant petition covers situations like new housing services or an additional occupant.
Tenants have their own side of this process: they can file an Undue Hardship Petition to challenge a banked increase if they meet an income or household-circumstance threshold, and separately they can petition for a rent decrease on grounds that include rent charged above the lawful amount, unresolved health or building-code violations, a reduction in services, or documented hardship.
Most of these petitions are resolved through a hearing before an officer the Rental Housing Committee appoints, not a courtroom.
The Nine Reasons a Covered Tenancy Can Be Ended
Just-cause protection is the part of the CSFRA that applies most broadly, reaching both fully and partially covered units.
A landlord can’t end a covered tenancy at will, and that includes simply declining to renew at the end of a fixed-term lease; once the term expires, the tenancy continues month to month unless one of the enumerated causes applies. The City’s own guidance lists nine permitted grounds for ending a tenancy:
- Failure to pay rent
- Breach of a material lease term
- Maintaining a nuisance
- Using the unit for criminal activity
- Refusing the landlord reasonable access
- Owner or qualifying relative move-in
- Withdrawal of the unit from the rental market
- Demolition of the building
- Temporary vacancy needed for necessary or substantial repairs
The first five are generally treated as “at-fault” causes tied to the tenant’s own conduct. The last four are “no-fault” causes, meaning the tenant did nothing wrong, and it’s that distinction that triggers the relocation assistance described next.
For most of the at-fault causes other than nonpayment, the landlord also has to first serve a Notice to Cease giving the tenant a chance to fix the problem before a termination notice can follow, and that cure notice has to list the Rental Housing Committee’s phone number so the tenant can ask questions before the situation escalates.
What Relocation Assistance a Displaced Tenant Is Owed
When a landlord ends a tenancy for one of the no-fault reasons, owner move-in, withdrawal of units from the market, demolition, or a temporary vacancy for substantial repairs, the City’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) requires payment to income-eligible households, generally those at or below 120% of area median income plus a small buffer the ordinance builds in. The benefit package currently published on the City’s own relocation-assistance page includes:
- A full refund of the security deposit
- A subscription to a rental-listing service to help the household search for a new unit
- A cash payment equal to three months of the median asking rent for a comparable unit in Mountain View, based on the City’s own periodic rent survey
- An additional Special Circumstances Payment, currently an extra $8,000, for a household that includes someone 62 or older, someone with a disability, or a dependent child 19 or younger
In December 2025, the City Council voted to expand the relocation ordinance further, adding capped reimbursement for a tenant’s actual moving costs and aligning parts of the program with the state’s SB 330 displacement protections; because that update is recent and the relocation figures are adjusted periodically, an owner facing an actual no-fault termination should get the current numbers directly from the Rent Stabilization Division rather than relying on a figure that may already be a year or two old.
Timing matters as much as the dollar amount.
For larger buildings, the ordinance generally requires half of the relocation payment within about 15 days of an eligibility determination, with the balance due once the household confirms it has secured new housing or has actually vacated; smaller terminations are typically paid in full on a similar short timeline.
A landlord who serves a no-fault termination notice without having that payment ready is creating a problem that a later petition or a habitability dispute can make considerably more expensive to unwind.
Notices Landlords Can’t Skip
Paperwork is not optional under the CSFRA, and missing a step is one of the more common ways an otherwise valid rent increase or termination gets unwound. At minimum, a covered-unit landlord needs to:
- Give every incoming tenant a CSFRA Information Sheet at move-in, and again with any rent increase notice
- Provide at least 30 days’ written notice before any rent increase takes effect
- Include the Rental Housing Committee’s contact information on any Notice to Cease before terminating for breach, nuisance, criminal activity, or denied access
- State the specific just cause and inform the tenant of relocation rights on any termination notice
- File a copy of termination notices, unlawful detainer filings, and vacate notices with the Rental Housing Committee, typically within about seven days
- Register the property and pay the annual Rental Housing Fee by February 1 each year
A technically correct rent amount or eviction reason doesn’t protect a landlord who skipped the filing and notice steps that go with it.
Who Runs the Program: the Rental Housing Committee
The Rental Housing Committee is a five-member body, with one alternate, appointed by the Mountain View City Council to administer the CSFRA day to day.
Its job includes setting the AGA each year, appointing hearing officers to decide individual rent petitions, writing the program’s implementing regulations, overseeing the process for withdrawing units from the rental market, and reporting back to the City Council.
Questions about a specific property’s coverage, a pending petition, or current relocation figures generally route through the Committee’s Rent Stabilization Division rather than through the courts.
When Selling for Cash Isn’t the Right Call
A cash sale isn’t the better option in every situation, and it’s worth saying plainly where it falls short.
If a rental is already performing well, the tenant pays reliably, the building is fully covered and the owner is comfortable with the CSFRA’s rules, a refinance or a conventional listing to an owner-occupant buyer may net more over time than a quick cash transaction, especially in a market where Mountain View homes have continued to draw strong buyer interest.
An owner who only needs short-term cash flow, rather than an exit, is usually better served by a traditional loan than by selling the asset outright.
And if a no-fault termination is already underway and the required relocation assistance has been budgeted for, finishing that process before selling can sometimes produce a cleaner, higher closing price than selling with the tenancy still in place.
A cash sale also isn’t the right tool for fixing a rent-petition dispute on its own.
If a tenant has an active Undue Hardship Petition or a rent-decrease claim pending before the Rental Housing Committee, that proceeding generally continues regardless of who owns the building, so selling doesn’t make the underlying disagreement disappear; it just hands it to the next owner.
An owner in that position is often better off resolving or at least fully documenting the petition before marketing the property, so a buyer isn’t walking in blind.
What a Buyer Takes On When a Covered Rental Changes Hands
The CSFRA attaches to the building, not to the person who owns it, so a sale doesn’t reset the clock.
A new owner of a fully covered unit still has to honor the existing lease, apply only the current year’s AGA (plus any banked amount the prior owner properly noticed and filed), and rely on the same nine just causes before ending the tenancy.
Any pending rent petition, undue-hardship claim, or relocation obligation the previous owner started also transfers along with the property, which is why buyers in this category typically ask for the rent-increase history, the registration status, and copies of any filings with the Rental Housing Committee before they’ll commit to a price.
Selling a Mountain View Rental, Covered or Not
Whether a property is fully covered, partially covered, or exempt from the CSFRA, that status follows the building when it changes hands, so a buyer needs accurate answers about coverage, the AGA history applied to the unit, and any pending petitions before closing.
Owners who want out of that administrative load, rather than working through a rent petition or a no-fault termination and its relocation bill, sometimes find it simpler to sell a house with tenants in Mountain View and let a new owner inherit the lease along with the property.
For context on how a similar situation plays out elsewhere in the state, see how cash-for-keys negotiations work in California or what’s involved when selling a rental property in Los Angeles with a tenant in place.
A separate look at how landlord retaliation claims can affect a sale in California is also worth reading if a tenant dispute has already turned adversarial.
If you’d rather not manage a petition, a rent calculation, or a relocation payment yourself, cashhomebuyersca.com will look at the property as-is and make a no-obligation cash offer; we buy directly or bring a vetted cash buyer from our network, and when you sell to us, we pay the standard closing costs, including the county and city transfer taxes, escrow and title.
You can also see our Google Business Profile before you decide whether a cash sale fits your situation.