Culver City rent control 2026 2026 MARI ≈ 3.0% — lesser of 3% or 100% × LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA CPI under CCMC §15.09.

The 2026 MARI, in one paragraph

The CCTPO Maximum Allowable Rent Increase under CCMC Chapter 15.09 for any 12-month period is the lesser of (a) 3.0% or (b) 100% of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area (as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the most recent 12-month period for which data is available at the time of the increase). For 2026, the LA-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA CPI-U is running approximately 3.0% (March-to-March, or the closest available 12-month window). Because CPI approximately equals the 3% ceiling, the formula resolves to approximately 3.0%.

The CCTPO MARI of ~3.0% for 2026 compares across the California overlay catalogue as follows — all figures for 2026:

• Culver City CCMC §15.09 — ~3.0% (lesser of 3% or 100% × LA CPI). This page.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — ~3.0% (lesser of 3% or 100% × LA CPI — structurally identical formula, different coverage cutoff).
• LA City RSO §151 — ~3.0% (CPI-tied with statutory floor and ceiling).
• Pasadena Charter Article XVIII — ~2.25% (75% × LA CPI capped at 5%).
• Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII — ~0.8% (75% × LA CPI capped at 6%, different observation window).
• West Hollywood §17.36 — ~0.75% (75% × LA CPI June-to-June capped at 4%).
• Berkeley §13.76 — ~1.0% (65% × SF CPI capped at 7%).
• San Francisco Chapter 37 — ~1.6% (60% × SF CPI capped at 7%).
• Oakland §8.22 — ~1.7% (100% × SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI capped at 3%).
• Mountain View Charter Article XVII — ~1.7% (100% × SF CPI capped at 5%).
• East Palo Alto Chapter 14 — ~1.4% (80% × SF CPI capped at 10%).
• San Jose §17.23 — ~1.5% (lesser of 5% or 100% × SF CPI).
• Hayward HMC Chapter 12 — 5.0% flat (no CPI multiplier).
• AB 1482 statewide — ~8% for LA MSA (5% + 3% LA CPI, below 10% ceiling).

The Culver City formula of 100% × LA CPI capped at 3% produces a higher effective 2026 cap than Santa Monica's and Pasadena's 75% × LA CPI formulas. In low-CPI years where LA CPI is below 3%, Culver City's cap tracks CPI exactly (e.g., if CPI were 2%, Culver City MARI = 2%, Beverly Hills lesser-of-3%-or-2% = 2%) while Pasadena at 75% × 2% would produce 1.5% and Santa Monica at 75% × 2% would produce 1.5%. In the current ~3% CPI environment, Culver City and Beverly Hills converge at the 3% ceiling while Pasadena discounts to ~2.25%.

Who is covered by the CCTPO?

The CCTPO rent-cap framework under CCMC Chapter 15.09 applies when both prongs are satisfied:

1. Multi-unit residential rental property (2+ units) within Culver City limits. Single-family homes leased separately, owner-occupied duplexes where the owner shares living space with the tenant, and properties with a single residential rental unit are excluded from the rent-cap framework (though they remain subject to just-cause eviction under CCMC Chapter 15.09 and to AB 1482 statewide if not AB-1482-exempt).
2. First certificate of occupancy (CoC) ON OR BEFORE February 1, 1995. The February 1, 1995 cutoff deliberately matches the Costa-Hawkins §1954.52(a)(1) state-preemption anchor, placing the CCTPO in the Costa-Hawkins-aligned cluster alongside Berkeley, Mountain View CSFRA, Pasadena Measure H (2022), and Richmond Measure L (2016). The cutoff date is determined from the Culver City building department's first certificate of occupancy records. A building that received a temporary certificate of occupancy before February 1, 1995 but its final CoC after that date should verify the applicable cutoff with Culver City's Rent Stabilization Division.

Costa-Hawkins (Cal. Civ. Code §§1954.50–1954.535) operates as an independent exemption framework on top of CCMC Chapter 15.09:

• §1954.52(a)(1) post-Feb-1-1995 CoC carve-out — buildings issued first CoC after February 1, 1995 are exempt from the CCTPO rent-cap framework. Because the CCTPO cutoff exactly matches the Costa-Hawkins anchor, buildings beyond CCTPO reach are also beyond Costa-Hawkins's tightened anchor — the two cutoffs are co-extensive.
• §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 exempts a unit from the CCTPO, AB 1482's statewide ~8% cap applies in series. Government- subsidized units (HUD Section 8 Project-Based, LIHTC, RAD, BMR), units in hospitals, dormitories, extended-care facilities, hotels, motels, short-term accommodations under 30 days, and substantially-rehabilitated units are excluded from both the CCTPO rent-cap and just-cause frameworks.

Banking under CCMC Chapter 15.09

The CCTPO does NOT permit banking of unused MARI allowances. The 3% cap (or lower CPI, whichever applies) resets each 12-month cycle. A Culver City landlord who skipped the 2024 increase, took less than the MARI, or deferred an increase for tenant-relation reasons cannot stack the unused portion onto a subsequent year's increase. The annual decision is binary: take the MARI this cycle or forfeit it permanently.

The California overlay-banking spectrum for context:

• Berkeley §13.76.110(C) — rent-ceiling-accumulation with unlimited banking; no balance cap, no expiration, no per-notice ceiling. The most permissive banking model in the California catalogue.
• 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.
• 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.
• Culver City CCMC §15.09 — NO banking. This page.
• Santa Monica Charter §1805(d) — NO banking. Skipped General Adjustments forfeited permanently by explicit Charter text.
• LA City RSO §151.06.A — NO banking. Explicit forfeiture matching Santa Monica.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — generally NO banking under either Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 frameworks.
• AB 1482 statewide — no statutory banking provision.

Beyond banking, Culver City landlords may petition the Rent Stabilization Division for a Capital Improvement Passthrough or a fair-return petition under CCMC Chapter 15.09. Capital improvement passthroughs are calculated separately from the annual MARI (qualified expenditure ÷ useful life ÷ number of affected units), served as a separate rent component. The MNOI (Maintenance of Net Operating Income) standard governs fair-return petitions under Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 and Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129.

Notice requirements

California Civil Code §827(b) governs the FORM and TIMING of every Culver City rent-increase notice; CCMC Chapter 15.09 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 CCTPO's 3% MARI cap means every CCTPO notice falls well below the §827(b)(3) 10% threshold 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 the CCTPO's 3% cap, unless a separately-approved Capital Improvement Passthrough stacked with the MARI pushes the combined increase past 10%.
• §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 Culver City rent-increase notice is 35 days (30 + 5).
• CCTPO citation requirement — the notice must cite CCMC Chapter 15.09 authority and the MARI calculation. A notice that omits the CCTPO citation or that overstates the MARI above the applicable cap is unenforceable for the over-cap portion regardless of §827(b) compliance.
• Registration prerequisite — a landlord whose unit is not current with Culver City's Rent Stabilization Division registration cannot lawfully serve a rent increase under CCMC Chapter 15.09.
• Tenant-rights advisory — the notice must inform the tenant of the right to petition the Rent Stabilization Division.
• 12-month frequency rule — a second rent increase within 12 months of the prior increase is barred under the CCTPO's annual-cap structure regardless of magnitude.

Just-cause eviction under CCMC Chapter 15.09

The CCTPO's just-cause eviction provisions reach broadly — covering CCTPO rent-cap units (pre-Feb-1-1995-CoC multi-unit buildings) AND Culver City rental units outside the CCTPO rent-cap framework (e.g., post-1995-CoC buildings, SFRs with covered tenancies). This universal just-cause structure aligns Culver City with Mountain View CSFRA §1709, East Palo Alto Chapter 14, Hayward HMC Chapter 12, and Pasadena Charter Article XVIII — all of which extend just-cause protection beyond the rent-cap-covered unit universe. Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4, by contrast, limits just-cause to RSO-covered units only.

Just causes under CCMC Chapter 15.09 substantially mirror AB 1482 §1946.2's enumerated grounds plus CCTPO-specific provisions:

1. Non-payment of rent
2. Material breach of a 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 substantially similar terms
7. Owner move-in for the owner or a qualified family member with CCTPO minimum-residency requirement and relocation assistance
8. Ellis Act withdrawal of all rental units (Cal. Gov. Code §§7060–7060.7) with re-rental restrictions under Cal. Civ. Code §1954.535
9. Substantial rehabilitation under permit approved by Culver City building department
10. Demolition with permit
11. Condominium conversion with relocation assistance
12. Compliance with a governmental order to vacate

Owner-move-in evictions require: good-faith intent to occupy as primary residence for the CCTPO minimum period; relocation assistance set by CCMC Chapter 15.09 rule (commonly one to three months’ rent depending on tenancy duration and whether the tenant is senior, disabled, or has minor dependents); written notice with statutory disclosures; and filing with the Rent Stabilization Division. Senior tenants (62+), disabled tenants, and households with minor children receive heightened protections against owner-move-in evictions. Ellis Act withdrawals require 120-day minimum notice to the city and to all tenants (extended to one year for senior and disabled tenants under Cal. Gov. Code §7060.4) and trigger §1954.535 right-of-first-refusal restrictions if any unit in the building is re-offered for rent within five years.

Critical trap: a defective rent-increase notice — over-cap, missing CCTPO citation, non-registration, or violating the 12-month frequency rule — voids the landlord’s just-cause eviction posture for non-payment of the over-cap portion for that lease period. The unlawful-detainer action fails because the over-cap rent demand is unlawful, and the tenant may raise the overcharge as an affirmative defense under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161.

Penalty cascade under CCMC Chapter 15.09

A rent collected above the lawful CCTPO MARI is unlawful. The tenant may file a Petition with Culver City's Rent Stabilization Division within three years of the over-cap collection (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338). The five-prong CCTPO remedy cascade:

1. Reduction of rent to the lawful MARI going forward. The over-cap collection stops; the tenant’s lawful obligation is recalculated to the applicable MARI rate.
2. Refund of the unlawfully-collected amount with statutory interest at 10% under Cal. Civ. Code §3289(b). The Hearing Officer typically orders a credit against future rent until the unlawful amount is recouped.
3. Civil penalties under CCMC Chapter 15.09 enforcement provisions, per violation per tenant.
4. Treble damages where willful or in bad faith — three times the unlawfully-collected portion. Mirrors AB 1482 §1947.12(h)(3), Oakland §8.22.150(B), and SF Admin. Code §37.10B(c).
5. Attorney fees to prevailing tenants. CCMC Chapter 15.09 authorizes attorney fees, aligning Culver City with Oakland (§8.22.150(C)), Berkeley (§13.76.150), Santa Monica (§1809), West Hollywood (§17.36.110(c)), San Jose (§17.23.230(C)), Mountain View (§1715(c)), East Palo Alto, Pasadena, and Hayward.

Tenants may also raise the overcharge as an affirmative defense to an unlawful-detainer action for non-payment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161. Appeals from Hearing Officer decisions proceed through the Rent Stabilization Division and ultimately to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Culver City vs. other LA County overlays

Six LA County rent-control overlays share geography with Culver City. The structural comparison for 2026:

• LA City RSO (§151 LAMC) — ~3.0% for 2026. CPI-tied with 3% effective ceiling for most units. Enacted 1978 by city council. First-CoC cutoff: October 1, 1978. Covers units in LA city limits (not Culver City, which is a separate incorporated city). No banking. Just-cause for RSO-covered units.
• Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII — ~0.8% for 2026. 75% × LA CPI capped at 6%, using the March fiscal-year observation window that produced a lower underlying CPI for Santa Monica than Culver City’s March-to-March window. Voter-Charter since April 10, 1979 — the earliest first-CoC cutoff in the California catalogue. No banking (§1805(d) forfeit). ~$234/year per-unit registration fee (highest in California). Just-cause with $25K–$35K OMI relocation.
• West Hollywood §17.36 — ~0.75% for 2026. 75% × LA CPI June-to-June capped at 4%. Council-passed since 1985. Banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling. Universal just-cause.
• Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 — ~3.0% for 2026. Lesser of 3.0% or 100% × LA CPI — structurally identical formula to Culver City. October 20, 1978 first-CoC cutoff (second-earliest in California catalogue, behind only Santa Monica’s April 10, 1979). Dual-Chapter inheritance (Chapter 5 legacy + Chapter 6 newer-tenancy) structurally unique in the California catalogue. Generally no banking. Just-cause for RSO-covered units only (not universal).
• Pasadena Charter Article XVIII (Measure H 2022) — ~2.25% for 2026. 75% × LA CPI capped at 5%. Voter-approved November 2022. February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff (matching Culver City and Costa-Hawkins exactly). Banking permitted with per-notice ceiling set by Rental Housing Board rule. Universal just-cause.
• Culver City CCMC §15.09 (CCTPO 2020) — ~3.0% for 2026. Lesser of 3% or 100% × LA CPI. February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff. Council-enacted January 2020. No banking. Universal just-cause. This page.

Culver City's position in the LA County rent-control landscape: the newest major LA County overlay (2020, tied with Beverly Hills’s 2019 amendments and post-dating every other LA County overlay) with the most permissive 2026 cap among the newer-formula group, matching Beverly Hills at 3% for 2026 and well above West Hollywood and Santa Monica. The February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff (instead of a 1978–1985 cutoff like LA RSO, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills) means fewer Culver City buildings are eligible for CCTPO rent-cap coverage compared to the older-regime cities.

How RentCeiling handles Culver City CCTPO compliance

The free California calculator takes (current rent, building first-CoC era, last-increase date, ordinance overlay) and routes Culver City CCTPO units to the lesser-of-3%-or-LA-CPI formula with the CCMC §15.09 citation, the categorical and Costa-Hawkins exemption checks, the no-banking enforcement, the registration prerequisite check, and the 12-month frequency verification. The California notice generator emits a printable §827(b)-compliant notice with the CCTPO citation, the §1013 mailing-add applied, and the tenant-rights advisory included. The California rent increase 2026 page places Culver City in the full multi-jurisdiction California overlay catalogue. The LA City RSO page walks the adjacent LA city overlay (distinct from Culver City’s incorporated jurisdiction). The Beverly Hills BHMC Chapter 4 page walks the structurally nearest LA County overlay (same lesser-of-3%-or-CPI formula, older first-CoC cutoff, dual-Chapter structure). The Santa Monica Charter Article XVIII page and the West Hollywood §17.36 page walk the lower-cap LA County overlays. The Costa-Hawkins explainer walks the §1954.52(a) exemption framework that the CCTPO aligns with. Open rule-set at /rules/index.json.

Run the California 2026 cap calculator (free)

Common questions