A Santa Monica landlord paid $685,000. The rule behind it covers every tenant in the city.

Published July 25, 2026

Santa Monica's tenant harassment law applies to every rental in the city, not just rent controlled ones, and a recent settlement put the number at $685,000.

In May 2025 the Santa Monica City Attorney settled a set of tenant cases against a local landlord for $685,000. The claims were harassment, discrimination, and failing to tell tenants they had rent control and just cause protections. The reason it matters to you is simple: the city's harassment law covers every tenant in Santa Monica, not only the rent controlled ones.

I am writing this one as a caution, not a lecture. Most owners I meet in this city are careful people who would never do what this case describes. The value here is not the story. It is the rule the story reveals, because it is broader than almost anyone assumes.

What the case actually involved

The City Attorney's office laid it out plainly. The city said a landlord who owned a triplex intentionally failed to register the tenancies with the Rent Control Board and never disclosed to his tenants that they had just cause eviction and rent control protections. Then, according to the city, the conduct escalated. He entered units unlawfully. He yelled at tenants in front of their children. He kept it up even after the city sent him multiple letters.

There is more, and each piece is its own lesson. The city says he told one household he planned to move into their apartment himself, then nearly at the same time bought a $1.4 million home for his family and put the triplex up for sale. When a tenant asked for repairs and a roommate replacement, the response was a push for lease changes and higher rent. And when a tenant needed mold remediation as a disability accommodation, the city says he refused and told them the building was not a wise choice for someone with respiratory issues.

Read as a whole, that is not a paperwork slip. It is a course of conduct. But notice how it started: with a failure to register and a failure to disclose. The quiet administrative miss is what opened the door to everything that followed.

The part most owners miss

Here is the piece that should make every Santa Monica owner sit up, whether or not you have ever had a complaint in your life. Santa Monica's tenant harassment ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 4.56, applies to all tenants in the city. It is not limited to rent controlled units. If you own newer construction, a single condo, an ADU, a home you rent out, the law reaches your tenancy the same way it reaches a legacy rent controlled apartment.

The teeth are real. Under the ordinance a tenant can bring a civil claim and recover statutory damages of the greater of their actual damages or up to $10,000 for each violation, plus attorney fees and, in the right case, punitive damages. That money is a remedy paid to the tenant, not a fine paid to the city. The city can also pursue the conduct as a criminal misdemeanor. Each separate act can count as its own violation, which is how a course of conduct adds up to a number like the one in this settlement rather than a single modest amount.

I want to be careful with the word harassment, because it is broader in this ordinance than the everyday meaning. It is not only shouting or threats. It can include things a well meaning owner might do without a second thought if they are trying to end a tenancy: entering a unit without proper notice, cutting off a service or an amenity, refusing a repair, or pressuring a tenant with an eviction that is not grounded in a real and lawful reason. The intent that matters is whether the conduct is meant to get a tenant to leave or to give up a right they hold. Please confirm the specifics of Chapter 4.56 with a licensed professional before you rely on any of this, because the exact definitions carry real weight.

The registration and disclosure piece

The two failures at the root of this case are the two that are easiest to get right, and the easiest to forget. Register the tenancy with the city as required, and disclose to your tenants the protections they actually have.

Disclosure feels counterintuitive to some owners, because it means handing your tenant the rulebook that limits you. I understand the instinct. But the alternative, as this case shows, is that the omission itself becomes evidence against you, and it frames everything you do afterward as an attempt to take advantage of a tenant who did not know their rights. Telling a tenant up front that they have just cause and rent control protections is not a weakness. It is the cheapest insurance you will ever buy, and it sets an honest tone for the whole tenancy.

If you have owned in Santa Monica for a while and you are not certain your registrations and disclosures are current, that is worth a quiet afternoon with a licensed professional to check. It is the boring work, and it is exactly the work that was missing here.

What this means for your building

Here is the plain readout for an owner.

First, do not assume you are outside this law because your building is not rent controlled. Chapter 4.56 covers every tenant in the city. The single most common mistake is an owner of newer property who believes the harassment rules are somebody else's problem. They are not. They are yours the moment you have a Santa Monica tenant.

Second, treat the two administrative basics as non negotiable. Register the tenancy. Disclose the protections. Neither costs you anything but a little time, and both were the missing first dominoes in a $685,000 outcome.

Third, run any move that ends or pressures a tenancy through a real process, not a gut call. If you want to move into a unit, do it for real and document it. If you want to raise rent, know your lawful ceiling and serve it correctly. If a tenant asks for a repair or a disability accommodation, treat the request as the legal event it is, not an inconvenience. Every one of the acts the city listed in this case was an owner trying to shortcut a process that has a lawful version. The lawful version is slower. It is also the one that does not end in a settlement.

And fourth, if you already do all of this, breathe. You made a good decision owning here. Santa Monica is one of the most durable rental markets in the country precisely because it is a place people fight to stay in. The rules are the price of that demand. Knowing them cold is simply part of owning a strong asset in a strong city.

Common questions

Does the harassment ordinance apply to me if my units are not rent controlled?

Yes. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.56 applies to all tenants in the city, not only tenants in rent controlled units. Newer buildings, single condos, ADUs, and rented homes are covered. Confirm how it applies to your specific property with a licensed professional.

What can a violation actually cost?

The ordinance lets a tenant recover statutory damages of the greater of their actual damages or up to $10,000 per violation, plus attorney fees and possible punitive damages, and this money is a remedy paid to the tenant rather than a fine paid to the city. The city can also pursue the conduct as a criminal misdemeanor. Because separate acts can each count as a violation, a pattern of conduct is how a case reaches a number like the $685,000 in the recent settlement.

What is the simplest thing I can do to stay clear of this?

Register your tenancies as required and disclose to your tenants that they have just cause and rent control protections. Those two omissions were at the root of the case the city brought, and both are quick to fix. When in doubt about any of it, confirm with a licensed professional.

Last verified: July 25, 2026. Figures reflect the Santa Monica City Attorney's May 2025 settlement announcement and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.56 as of that date. This is general information for property owners, not legal advice. Confirm the tenant harassment ordinance, its scope, the current statutory damages amounts, and your registration and disclosure obligations with a licensed professional before acting.

Kellie

Schofield Properties

323 Richmond Street, El Segundo, CA 90245

Topics: market, santa-monica, westside, regulation, compliance

Back to the Schofield Properties blog

Schofield Properties is a family run property management company at 323 Richmond St, El Segundo, CA 90245. We have managed the South Bay since 1972 and personally oversee about 186 doors today. Book a call to talk about your property.