Beverly Hills rent stabilization 2026 2026 rent cap = the lesser of 3% absolute or 100% × CPI-U LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA under BHMC Chapter 4 (Articles 5 + 6).

The 2026 cap, in one paragraph

Beverly Hills's rent cap under post-2019 BHMC Chapter 4 (Articles 5 and 6) is set as the LESSER OF (a) 3.0% absolute, or (b) 100% of the percentage change in the BLS CPI-U for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA metropolitan statistical area, all items, not seasonally adjusted, measured on a 12-month rolling basis tied to the lease anniversary. The lesser-of structure resembles San Jose's lesser-of-5%-or-100%-CPI ARO §17.23.190(A) but with the 3% (vs San Jose's 5%) absolute floor — meaning Beverly Hills is structurally tighter than San Jose in high-CPI years (where San Jose's 5% binds and Beverly Hills's 3% binds) and identical to San Jose in low-CPI years (where both regimes default to the CPI multiplier). The 3.0% absolute ceiling is the SECOND-TIGHTEST absolute ceiling in the California catalogue alongside Oakland §8.22.070(A) (3.0%) — only Pasadena Charter Article XVIII (5.0%-with-75%-multiplier, binding at 5.0% only in extreme-CPI years), West Hollywood §17.36.020(c) (4.0%-with-75%-multiplier), and Berkeley's structurally-different 65% × CPI ceiling are tighter in any given year. The two-system bifurcation across Chapter 5 (legacy) and Chapter 6 (newer-tenancy) persisted through the 2017 just-cause amendments and the 2019 formula tightening; both frameworks now share the same formula post-2019 amendments but the dual-Chapter structure remains in the codified Code text. Recent Beverly Hills cap history (illustrative; consult the city's rental housing program for official figures): 2024 cap 3.0% (3% absolute binding, CPI ~3.2%); 2023 cap 3.0% (3% absolute binding, CPI ~5.0%); 2022 cap 3.0% (3% absolute binding, CPI ~5.0%); 2021 cap approximately 1.5% (CPI multiplier binding, CPI ~1.5%). The 3.0% absolute ceiling has bound for three consecutive years 2022-2024 during the post-pandemic CPI surge.

Who is covered?

Beverly Hills's RSO covers a unit when both prongs of BHMC Chapter 4 are satisfied:

1. Building first CoC ON OR BEFORE October 20, 1978. The October 20, 1978 first-CoC cutoff has been Beverly Hills's coverage line since the original 1978-1979 RSO enactment. The cutoff is the SECOND-EARLIEST in the California catalogue, behind only Santa Monica's April 10, 1979 anchor (Santa Monica is earliest by a few months due to a separately-promulgated voter-Charter date). Beverly Hills's October 20, 1978 cutoff predates San Francisco (June 13, 1979), West Hollywood (July 1, 1979), Berkeley (June 3, 1980 voter-Charter, with effective rent-control reach via Costa-Hawkins's February 1, 1995 anchor), Oakland (December 31, 1982), East Palo Alto (January 1, 1988), and the entire Berkeley/Mountain View/Pasadena cluster at February 1, 1995. The cutoff date is determined from the building department's first certificate of occupancy on file with the City of Beverly Hills.
2. Multi-unit rental property. Single-family homes leased separately and duplexes where the owner shares living space with the tenant are excluded. The Chapter 4 reach is multi-unit rental properties — apartment buildings, multi-family residences, and bona fide multi-unit investment rentals.

Costa-Hawkins (Cal. Civ. Code §§1954.50-1954.535) operates as an independent exemption framework on top of BHMC Chapter 4:

• §1954.52(a)(1) post-Feb-1-1995 CoC carve-out — buildings issued first CoC after February 1, 1995 are exempt from the rent-cap framework. Because Beverly Hills's October 20, 1978 cutoff is much older than the Costa-Hawkins anchor, this carve-out is functionally redundant for Beverly Hills RSO purposes.
• §1954.52(a)(2) condominium carve-out — individual condominium units lawfully separable when sold to a bona fide purchaser are exempt from the rent-cap framework.
• §1954.52(a)(3) SFR-with-post-1996-tenancy carve-out — detached single-family homes leased to a tenancy commenced on or after January 1, 1996 are exempt from the rent-cap framework.

Where Costa-Hawkins WOULD exempt a unit, AB 1482's 8.8% LA MSA cap applies in series rather than the RSO's 3%/CPI cap. Government-subsidized units (HUD Section 8 Project-Based, LIHTC, RAD, BMR), units in hospitals/dorms/extended-care facilities, motels and short-term-stay accommodations under 30 days, hotels, and substantially-rehabilitated units approved by the city are excluded entirely from Chapter 4's rent-cap framework. Units that fall outside the rent-cap framework default to AB 1482's just-cause framework at §1946.2 rather than to Chapter 4's just-cause provisions — distinguishing Beverly Hills from Pasadena, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, and the other voter-amended California regimes where just-cause reaches every rental regardless of rent-cap coverage.

The dual-Chapter inheritance

Beverly Hills's bifurcated Chapter 5 / Chapter 6 structure is unique within the California rent-control catalogue and reflects the original 1978-1979 legislative compromise. Chapter 5 (the legacy framework) covers tenancies that originated under the original 1978-1979 RSO. Chapter 6 (the newer-tenancy framework) was added by subsequent amendment and covers tenancies that began after a transition date. The two systems share the same coverage line (October 20, 1978 first-CoC) and now share the same formula post-2019 amendments (lesser-of-3%-or-CPI), but they remain separately codified in the Code text and operate under separate administrative-procedural frameworks.

Every other California overlay operates as a single integrated framework — Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII, Berkeley Charter Article XVII, SF Chapter 37, Oakland Chapter 8.22, San Jose Chapter 17.23, Mountain View Charter Article XVII, West Hollywood Chapter 17.36, East Palo Alto Chapter 14, Pasadena Charter Article XVIII, LA City RSO Chapter 151. Beverly Hills's dual-Chapter inheritance has not been consolidated despite multiple amendment cycles because the original 1978-1979 enactment was structured around two stakeholder coalitions with different bargaining positions, and consolidation has been politically untouchable through every Council-composition change. For RentCeiling's calculator purposes the two Chapters are functionally equivalent post-2019; the bifurcation matters chiefly for historical lease-grandfathering questions and for administrative-procedural variations between the two Chapters' petition frameworks.

Banking under BHMC Chapter 4

Beverly Hills generally does NOT permit banking under either the Chapter 5 legacy framework or the Chapter 6 newer-tenancy framework. The lesser-of-3%-or-CPI formula resets each 12-month cycle: a landlord who skipped the 2024 increase or who took a smaller increase than the maximum cannot stack the unused portion onto a subsequent year's increase. This places Beverly Hills's banking treatment alongside Santa Monica Charter §1805(d), LA RSO §151.06.A, and AB 1482's no-statutory-banking-provision treatment.

The California overlay-banking spectrum:

• Berkeley §13.76.110(B) — ceiling-rise accumulation; no balance cap, no expiration, no per-notice ceiling. The most permissive model.
• San Francisco Rent Board Rules §4.12 — full automatic banking with 7%/calendar-year ceiling + 10%/single-notice ceiling.
• Mountain View Charter §1707(c) — banking permitted with 10.0% per-notice ceiling.
• East Palo Alto Chapter 14 — limited banking with 10.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Pasadena Charter Article XVIII — limited banking with per-notice ceiling set by Rental Housing Board rule.
• San Jose §17.23.190(B) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• West Hollywood §17.36.030(c) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Oakland §8.22.070(B) — petition-gated banking. A notice that exceeds the current year's CPI Rent Adjustment requires a Rent Adjustment Petition before service.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — generally NO banking under either Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 frameworks. This page.
• Santa Monica Charter §1805(d) — NO banking. Skipped General Adjustments forfeited permanently.
• LA RSO §151.06.A — NO banking. Explicit forfeiture matching Santa Monica.
• AB 1482 statewide — no statutory banking provision.

Beyond the no-banking baseline, Beverly Hills landlords may petition the city for a Capital Improvement Adjustment under BHMC Chapter 4. Capital-improvement pass-throughs are calculated as the qualified expenditure divided by the useful-life period divided by the number of affected units, served as a separate line-item rent component rather than as part of the annual cap. A fair-return-petition mechanism exists under Chapter 4 implementing the constitutional floor under Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 and Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, but Beverly Hills's fair-return mechanism has been historically less actively used than Berkeley's, Mountain View's, or Oakland's MNOI petition frameworks.

Notice requirements

California Civil Code §827(b) governs the FORM and TIMING of every Beverly Hills rent-increase notice; BHMC Chapter 4 layers CONTENT requirements on top:

• 30-day rule under §827(b)(2)(A) — increases of less than 10% take effect 30 calendar days after service. The 3%-absolute cap means every Beverly Hills notice falls well under 10% and qualifies for the 30-day rule.
• 90-day rule under §827(b)(3) — increases of 10% or more require 90 calendar days. Effectively unreachable under Beverly Hills's 3%-absolute cap (without an approved Capital Improvement Adjustment stacked with the annual cap).
• §1013 mailing-add presumption — when served by U.S. Mail, the notice period is extended by 5 days under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1013. Effective notice period for a mailed Beverly Hills rent-increase notice is 35 days.
• RSO citation requirement — the notice must cite the BHMC Chapter 4 authority and the calculation, including which prong of the lesser-of formula (the 3% absolute or the CPI multiplier) is the operative cap.
• Registration-good-standing prerequisite — a landlord whose unit is not currently registered with the city's rental housing program cannot lawfully serve a rent increase under Chapter 4.
• 12-month frequency rule — a second rent increase within 12 months of the prior increase is barred regardless of magnitude.
• Tenant-rights advisory — the notice must inform the tenant of the right to challenge the calculation.

A notice that omits the RSO citation or that overstates the cap against the lesser-of formula is unenforceable for the over-cap portion regardless of statutory compliance with §827(b).

Just-cause eviction under BHMC Chapter 4

Beverly Hills added just-cause-eviction provisions in 2017 (initial enactment) under BHMC Chapter 4, with expansion in the 2019 amendment cycle. Beverly Hills's just-cause provisions apply to RSO-covered units (pre-October-20-1978-CoC multi-unit rentals); they do NOT extend to non-RSO Beverly Hills rentals, which fall to AB 1482's §1946.2 just-cause framework instead. This is structurally distinct from Pasadena, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, and the other voter-amended California regimes where just-cause reaches EVERY rental regardless of rent-cap coverage.

The just causes for eviction substantially mirror AB 1482's §1946.2 eight just causes plus Beverly-Hills-specific provisions:

1. Non-payment of rent
2. Substantial breach of a material lease term not cured after written notice
3. Substantial damage to the unit
4. Creation of a substantial nuisance
5. Refusal to permit lawful access
6. Refusal to renew a written lease at expiration on similar terms
7. Owner move-in for the owner or specified family members with a minimum residency requirement
8. Withdrawal of all rental units under the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§7060-7060.7)
9. Substantial rehabilitation under permit
10. Condominium conversion with relocation
11. Compliance with a governmental order to vacate
12. Demolition with permit

A landlord who serves a defective rent-increase notice (over-cap, missing RSO citation, or out of compliance with the 12-month frequency rule) loses the just-cause-eviction posture for that lease term: a subsequent unlawful detainer for non-payment of the over-cap portion fails because the over-cap demand is unlawful. The defective-rent-notice / just-cause-loss linkage is the most consequential procedural trap for Beverly Hills landlords self-managing without an attorney.

Owner-move-in evictions require: good-faith intent to occupy as primary residence for a Chapter 4 minimum period; relocation assistance set by Code rule (commonly $10,000-$25,000 per displaced household depending on tenancy duration and tenant qualifications); written notice with statutory disclosures; and city filing within a Chapter-4-specified period of the notice. Senior tenants (62+), disabled tenants, and tenants of 5+ years receive heightened protections. Ellis Act withdrawals require notice to the city, notice to all tenants, 120-day minimum notice period (extended to one year for senior and disabled tenants under §7060.4), and trigger §1954.535 re-rental restrictions: if the landlord returns any unit in the building to the rental market within 5 years, the prior tenants have a right of first refusal at the prior rent.

Penalty cascade under BHMC Chapter 4

A rent collected above the lawful Beverly Hills cap (the lesser of 3% or 100% × CPI under post-2019 BHMC Chapter 4) is unlawful. The tenant may file a complaint with the City of Beverly Hills's rental housing program within three years of the over-cap collection (matching California's general three-year limitation period under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338). The remedies include a five-prong cascade:

1. Reduction of rent to lawful rate going forward. The over-cap collection stops with the next rent period; the tenant's lawful obligation is recalculated to the lesser-of-3%-or-CPI rate.
2. Refund of unlawfully-collected portion with statutory interest at 10% under Cal. Civ. Code §3289(b). The remedy typically credits against future rent until the unlawful portion is recouped.
3. Civil penalties under BHMC Chapter 4 enforcement provisions.
4. Treble damages where willful or in bad faith — three times the unlawfully-collected portion. The willfulness standard mirrors AB 1482 §1947.12(h)(3) and the analogous local provisions under Oakland §8.22.150(B), SF Admin. Code §37.10B(c), and Pasadena Charter Article XVIII.
5. Attorney fees to prevailing tenants. BHMC Chapter 4 authorizes attorney fees, aligning Beverly Hills with Oakland, Berkeley, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, San Jose, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, and Pasadena.

Tenants may also raise the overcharge as an affirmative defense to an unlawful-detainer (eviction) action for non-payment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161, voiding the eviction predicate. Beverly Hills's enforcement framework historically has been less aggressive than Oakland or Berkeley's penalty cascades but the post-2019 amendments tightened the framework toward the LA-RSO and Santa Monica baselines.

How RentCeiling enforces Beverly Hills's RSO for you

The free California calculator takes (current rent, building first-CoC era, last-increase date, ordinance overlay) and routes Beverly Hills RSO units to the lesser-of-3%-or-100%-CPI formula with the BHMC Chapter 4 citation, the categorical and Costa-Hawkins exemption checks, the no-banking enforcement, the registration-good-standing and just-cause checks, and the 12-month frequency verification. The California notice generator consumes the same inputs and emits a printable §827(b)-compliant notice with the cap citation, the §1013 mailing-add applied, the lesser-of formula prong identified, and the tenant-rights advisory included. The California rent increase 2026 page places Beverly Hills's lesser-of-3%-or-CPI cap in the eleven-jurisdiction California catalogue. The Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII page walks Beverly Hills's 1978-1979-vintage sister regime — the only other LA-county-adjacent RSO with a comparable enactment date. The LA City RSO §151 page walks the 1978 LA City RSO sister regime that Beverly Hills was enacted contemporaneously with. The Costa-Hawkins explainer walks the §1954.52(a) exemption framework. Open rule-set at /rules/index.json.

Run the California 2026 cap calculator (free)

Common questions