Free California Notice of Non-Renewal — overview

A California Notice of Non-Renewal is the written notice a landlord uses to end a periodic tenancy or to communicate that a fixed-term lease will not be renewed at expiration. California Civil Code section 1946.1 sets the baseline notice periods — 30 days for tenancies under one year, 60 days for tenancies of one year or longer. AB 1482, codified at Civ Code section 1946.2, layers a just-cause requirement on top of most covered residential tenancies once the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the unit for twelve months or more. Several California cities — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Berkeley, Glendale, and others — add additional just-cause and relocation-assistance requirements through local ordinances. Getting the notice right is high-stakes work: a defective notice cannot support an unlawful detainer action, and the landlord must start over with a corrected notice — pushing recovery of possession back by months. The form on this page handles the mechanics; the rest of this guide walks through the legal analysis.

What a Notice of Non-Renewal does

The California Notice of Non-Renewal is the document that ends a residential tenancy without alleging tenant fault. It is the formal communication that the tenancy will not continue past the date specified in the notice. Two distinct scenarios trigger its use: (1) ending a periodic (month-to-month or week-to-week) tenancy, and (2) declining to renew a fixed-term lease at expiration. Civil Code section 1946.1 sets the baseline notice periods, and AB 1482 (Civil Code section 1946.2) layers a just-cause requirement on top of most covered tenancies.

The notice is procedurally similar to other California eviction-related notices, but substantively different. A 3-day notice to pay rent or quit alleges nonpayment. A notice to cure or quit alleges a curable lease breach. A notice of non-renewal does not necessarily allege any wrongdoing — it simply ends the tenancy at the end of the notice period. For tenancies covered by AB 1482, the notice must also state a qualifying just-cause ground; for non-covered tenancies, no reason is required.

What the notice accomplishes practically: it establishes the date on which the tenant’s legal right to occupy the premises ends. After that date, if the tenant has not vacated, the landlord may file an unlawful detainer action to recover possession. The non-renewal notice is the precondition to the unlawful detainer — without it (or with a defective version), the landlord cannot lawfully recover possession of a tenancy that has not otherwise been forfeited.

The form on this page produces a Notice of Non-Renewal that satisfies Civil Code section 1946.1 for the standard 30-day or 60-day periods, with optional just-cause language for AB 1482 covered tenancies. The mechanical accuracy of the document is critical: a notice that gets the period wrong, omits the just-cause ground for a covered tenancy, or fails to address the relocation-assistance requirement for no-fault terminations is unenforceable, and the landlord must start over.

California legal framework

California has the most layered non-renewal framework in the country. Three sources of law operate together, and a fourth (local ordinances) overlays the state framework in many cities.

1. Civil Code section 1946.1 — the baseline. This statute sets the minimum notice period for terminating a residential periodic tenancy: thirty days written notice for tenancies of less than one year, sixty days for tenancies of one year or longer. The period runs from the date of delivery to the termination date stated in the notice. The 1946.1 framework applies regardless of whether the lease is covered by AB 1482 — it is the floor below which the notice period cannot drop.

2. Civil Code section 1946.2 — the AB 1482 just-cause overlay. Enacted as part of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, this statute requires “just cause” to terminate or non-renew most residential tenancies once the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the unit for twelve months or more. AB 1482 splits just causes into at-fault grounds (lease violations, criminal activity, refusal of entry, etc.) and no-fault grounds (owner move-in, withdrawal from market, substantial remodel, government order). No-fault grounds trigger a relocation-assistance payment equal to one month of rent.

3. Civil Code section 1162 — service of termination notices. This statute sets out the authorized methods for delivering a non-renewal notice: personal delivery; substituted service plus mailing; or posting plus mailing. Mailing alone is generally not sufficient. The Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 mailing extension (which adds days for notices served by mail) does not apply to termination notices under section 1946.1.

4. Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Independent of any specific statute, every California residential lease carries an implied covenant that the tenant will have peaceful, exclusive possession of the premises for the duration of the tenancy. A non-renewal notice that is part of a pattern of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination breaches this covenant and exposes the landlord to claims for damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief independent of any AB 1482 violation.

5. Anti-retaliation protections — Civil Code section 1942.5. California prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant for asserting rights under the implied warranty of habitability, complaining to a code enforcement agency, organizing or joining a tenant union, or other protected conduct. A non-renewal notice issued within 180 days of protected conduct creates a presumption of retaliation that the landlord must overcome with evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. This presumption applies whether or not AB 1482 covers the tenancy.

6. Anti-discrimination protections — FEHA and federal Fair Housing Act. A non-renewal notice that targets a tenant based on a protected class (race, religion, national origin, familial status, disability, source of income including Section 8 vouchers, gender identity, sexual orientation, and others under FEHA) violates fair housing law regardless of whether the technical 1946.1 and 1946.2 requirements are met. Disparate-impact analysis can also reach facially neutral policies that disproportionately affect a protected class.

7. Local ordinances. Several California cities — Los Angeles (RSO/JCO), San Francisco (Rent Ordinance), Oakland (Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance), Berkeley, San Diego, Glendale, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, and others — layer additional requirements on top of state law. These can include narrower just-cause grounds, higher relocation-assistance amounts, mandatory pre-notice rent registration, prior tenant-buyout filings, and more. The local ordinance always controls when it imposes a requirement stricter than state law.

Notice periods under § 1946.1

California Civil Code section 1946.1 sets a binary notice schedule based on tenancy length. The trigger is the cumulative occupancy of the same unit by the same tenant — not the lease term, not the most recent renewal date, and not the date of any change in rent or terms.

Tenancy length	Required notice	Source
Less than one year	30 days written notice	Civ Code § 1946.1(b)
One year or longer	60 days written notice	Civ Code § 1946.1(b)
Tenant gives notice (any length)	30 days (tenant only)	Civ Code § 1946.1(b)

The clock starts at delivery. The 30-day or 60-day period runs from the date the tenant has actual or presumed notice — typically the date of personal delivery, or the date the substituted service / posting and mailing combination is complete. The notice must specify a termination date that falls at or after the end of the required period. A notice that calculates the date wrong (for example, counting from the date of preparation rather than the date of service) is defective and unenforceable.

Cumulative occupancy controls — not lease term. A tenant who has occupied the same unit for fourteen months under three sequential six-month leases has a tenancy of fourteen months, not six. The 60-day period applies. Resetting the lease clock by signing a new agreement does not reset the 1946.1 period. This catches landlords who assume a fresh fixed-term lease creates a fresh tenancy for notice purposes.

Fixed-term leases — non-renewal vs. termination. A fixed-term lease typically expires by its own terms on the last day of the term. No 1946.1 notice is technically required to end the tenancy at expiration, but two important caveats apply: (1) if the lease itself requires the landlord to give advance notice of non-renewal (commonly 30 or 60 days), failing to give that notice may convert the tenancy to month-to-month on the same terms; and (2) if the tenant has occupied the unit for twelve or more months and AB 1482 covers the tenancy, the just-cause requirement still applies even at expiration of a fixed term — the landlord cannot simply let the lease expire to avoid AB 1482.

The notice cannot be shortened by lease provision. A lease term that purports to authorize less than the statutory notice period is void and unenforceable as to that provision. The tenant can consent to a shorter period at the time the notice is issued (for example, agreeing to vacate within fifteen days of notice in exchange for a deposit return), but cannot prospectively waive the 1946.1 minimum in advance through a lease.

The notice can be lengthened by lease provision. A lease that requires the landlord to give 90 days notice of non-renewal is enforceable — the landlord must give the longer period the lease specifies. Longer-notice lease provisions are common in larger rental developments and corporate-owned properties.

AB 1482 just-cause overlay

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 — referred to throughout this guide as AB 1482 and codified at Civil Code section 1946.2 — fundamentally restructured California non-renewal law. Before AB 1482, a landlord with a periodic tenancy could give a 30-day or 60-day notice without stating any reason. After AB 1482, most residential landlords need a “just cause” to terminate or non-renew once the tenant has been in occupancy for twelve months or more.

Two threshold questions determine whether AB 1482 applies:

1. Is the tenancy covered? AB 1482 covers most multi-family residential rental properties more than fifteen years old. The fifteen-year window rolls forward each year, so a building constructed in 2010 became subject to AB 1482 in 2025. Several categories are explicitly exempt — see Section 9 below for the full list. The most common exemptions are single-family homes and condominiums owned by individual investors (not corporations or REITs) that have provided the tenant with the statutory exemption notice in the lease, and duplexes where the owner lives in one of the two units.

2. Has the tenant occupied the unit for twelve or more months? AB 1482’s just-cause requirement attaches once the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the unit for twelve months or more. For occupancies under twelve months, AB 1482 does not require just cause, although the 1946.1 notice periods still apply. Note: if any one tenant in the household has occupied for twenty-four months or more, the just-cause requirement attaches even if other tenants have been there for less time.

If both threshold questions are yes, the landlord needs a just cause. AB 1482 splits just causes into two categories with very different procedural requirements: at-fault just causes (Section 5 below) and no-fault just causes (Section 6 below). At-fault grounds typically require an opportunity to cure if the violation is curable, do not require relocation assistance, and are based on tenant conduct. No-fault grounds do not require any opportunity to cure, require relocation assistance equal to one month of rent, and are based on landlord-side circumstances.

The notice must state the just-cause ground. AB 1482 requires the non-renewal notice to specifically identify the just-cause ground being used. Generic “we are terminating your tenancy” language is insufficient for a covered tenancy. The notice should cite the specific subdivision of Civ Code section 1946.2 (e.g., “section 1946.2(b)(2)(A) — owner or family member move-in”) and provide the supporting facts. A notice that fails to identify a qualifying ground, or identifies a ground that does not exist on the facts, cannot support an unlawful detainer action.

The just cause must be the actual reason. A landlord who lists “owner move-in” as the just cause but in fact wants to flip the unit at higher rent has committed misuse of AB 1482, exposing the landlord to claims for damages and attorney’s fees under section 1946.2(g). Several California cities require post-non-renewal accountability — for example, Los Angeles requires the unit to actually be occupied by the qualifying family member for a minimum period after the no-fault termination. Don’t cite a just-cause ground that doesn’t match the actual plan.

At-fault just-cause grounds

Civil Code section 1946.2(b)(1) lists the at-fault just causes — grounds based on tenant conduct that supports a non-renewal. The full list is exhaustive; a landlord may not invent additional at-fault grounds.

At-fault ground	Cure required?	Statute
Default in payment of rent	Yes — 3-day notice to pay or quit must be served first	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(A)
Breach of a material term of the lease	Yes if curable — opportunity to cure required	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(B)
Maintaining a nuisance	Generally no — nuisance is not curable	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(C)
Committing waste	Generally no — waste is not curable	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(D)
Refusing to sign a new lease on similar terms	No — but the new terms must be similar	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(E)
Criminal activity on the premises	No — generally not curable	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(F)
Assigning or subletting in violation of the lease	Yes if curable	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(G)
Refusing to allow lawful entry	Yes if curable — landlord must follow Civ Code § 1954	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(H)
Using the premises for an unlawful purpose	No — generally not curable	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(I)
Employee, agent, or licensee terminated for cause and refusing to vacate	No	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(J)
Failure to vacate after giving notice of intent to terminate	No	§ 1946.2(b)(1)(K)

The cure requirement is the most-litigated AB 1482 issue. If the violation is curable — most lease breaches and assignment/subletting violations are — the landlord must give the tenant a notice and an opportunity to cure before the at-fault termination notice is valid. Failure to give a cure opportunity for a curable violation defeats the at-fault termination, even if the tenant’s conduct was clearly improper.

Documentation matters more for at-fault grounds. The landlord must be able to prove the underlying tenant conduct in any later unlawful detainer proceeding. Photographs, written communications, neighbor or staff statements, and police reports all support an at-fault termination. Bare allegations that the tenant committed waste or maintained a nuisance, without contemporaneous documentation, often fail in court.

Refusing a similar lease on similar terms (§ 1946.2(b)(1)(E)) is a narrow ground often misunderstood. It applies when a fixed-term lease expires and the landlord offers the tenant a new lease on substantially similar terms (rent within AB 1482 caps, similar rules, similar duration). If the tenant refuses to sign, the landlord can use this ground to non-renew. If the landlord offers a lease with materially different terms (substantial rent increase beyond the AB 1482 cap, new restrictive rules), the tenant’s refusal does not create an at-fault ground. This is a frequent source of litigation.

No-fault just-cause grounds

Civil Code section 1946.2(b)(2) lists the no-fault just causes — grounds where the landlord is ending the tenancy for reasons unrelated to tenant conduct. Each no-fault ground requires a relocation-assistance payment to the tenant equal to one month of rent.

No-fault ground	Key requirement	Statute
Owner or qualifying family member move-in	Owner or specified family relationship; must occupy as primary residence	§ 1946.2(b)(2)(A)
Withdrawal from rental market (Ellis Act)	Permanent removal of all units in property from rental use	§ 1946.2(b)(2)(B); Gov Code § 7060
Compliance with government order	Order from government agency requiring vacancy	§ 1946.2(b)(2)(C)
Substantial remodel	Permits required; cannot be reasonably accomplished while occupied	§ 1946.2(b)(2)(D)

Owner or family-member move-in (§ 1946.2(b)(2)(A)) is the most-used no-fault ground and the most-litigated. The qualifying family relationships are narrow: owner, owner’s spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, or grandparent. Siblings, cousins, in-laws, and friends do not qualify. The owner or family member must intend to occupy the unit as their primary residence within ninety days of the tenant’s vacancy and live there for at least twelve continuous months. A sham owner-move-in — where the owner has no actual intent to occupy — exposes the landlord to AB 1482 misuse damages, plus possible criminal liability under some local ordinances.

Substantial remodel (§ 1946.2(b)(2)(D)) requires permits and cannot be reasonably accomplished while the unit is occupied. Cosmetic upgrades — paint, flooring, appliance replacements — do not qualify. The remodel must involve substantial structural, electrical, or plumbing work. The landlord must give the tenant the option of returning to the unit at the same rent after the remodel is complete (with adjustments for AB 1482-compliant rent increases).

Ellis Act withdrawal (§ 1946.2(b)(2)(B)) requires the landlord to permanently remove all units in the property from the rental market. It is a wholesale exit from the rental business as to that property. The landlord must follow Government Code section 7060 procedures (varies by jurisdiction; San Francisco and Los Angeles have detailed local Ellis Act rules) and is generally barred from re-renting the same units for a defined period — five years in some jurisdictions, longer in others. The Ellis Act is a powerful but consequential tool; consult counsel before using it.

Government order (§ 1946.2(b)(2)(C)) applies when a government agency has ordered the unit vacated for habitability, code, or safety reasons. The order itself is the authority for the termination. The notice must reference the specific order and attach a copy. Even where this ground is available, the landlord may be obligated to find replacement housing or pay relocation assistance under local code-compliance programs that go beyond the AB 1482 minimum.

The notice must clearly state the no-fault ground. A non-renewal notice citing a no-fault ground must specifically identify the subsection of section 1946.2(b)(2) and provide enough factual detail for the tenant to evaluate the claim. “Owner is terminating for personal reasons” is insufficient. “Owner’s daughter, [name], will occupy the unit as her primary residence beginning [date], pursuant to Civ Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(A)” is the level of specificity required.

Relocation assistance for no-fault terminations

Civil Code section 1946.2(d) requires a landlord using a no-fault just-cause ground to provide the tenant with relocation assistance equal to one month of the tenant’s rent. The relocation requirement is mandatory; failure to provide it renders the termination notice void.

Two methods to satisfy the requirement:

Method 1: Direct payment. The landlord pays the tenant an amount equal to one month of rent within fifteen calendar days of serving the no-fault termination notice. The notice must state that direct payment is being used and that the payment will be made within fifteen days.

Method 2: Rent waiver. The landlord waives the final month of rent that would otherwise be due. The notice must state that rent is being waived for the final month and identify which month is being waived. The waiver applies even if the tenant vacates before the termination date — the landlord cannot recover the waived month after the fact.

The notice must clearly identify which method is being used. Ambiguous language — “the tenant is entitled to relocation assistance under California law” without identifying direct payment or rent waiver — is insufficient. Courts have held this kind of generic language insufficient and have voided no-fault terminations on this ground alone. The form on this page generates clear method-specific language.

Local ordinances may require more. Several California cities require relocation payments in excess of the AB 1482 minimum. Los Angeles’s tenant relocation assistance scales by tenancy length, household composition, and protected-class status — payments can substantially exceed one month of rent for long-term tenants. San Francisco’s relocation assistance has its own scale tied to tenant age and disability status. Always check the local ordinance before assuming the AB 1482 one-month minimum is sufficient.

The relocation payment is not subject to security-deposit setoff. If the landlord is owed back rent, damages, or other amounts at the end of the tenancy, those amounts can be deducted from the security deposit under Civ Code section 1950.5. They cannot be deducted from the relocation-assistance payment. The relocation payment is a separate obligation that must be paid (or waived) regardless of any tenant-side obligations.

The relocation requirement is a strict liability requirement. Good-faith mistakes do not excuse it. A landlord who serves a no-fault notice without addressing relocation assistance, or who pays late, or who attempts to claw back the payment after the fact, has rendered the termination void. The unlawful detainer cannot proceed; the landlord must serve a corrected notice and start the period over.

Authorized delivery methods

California Civil Code section 1162 sets out the authorized methods for serving a notice of non-renewal. Mailing alone is generally not sufficient — the notice must be served by personal delivery, by substituted service plus mailing, or by posting plus mailing. The chosen method affects when the notice period begins.

Method	Procedure	Effective date
Personal delivery	Hand the notice directly to the tenant.	Date of personal delivery — clock starts immediately
Substituted service plus mailing	Leave the notice with a person of suitable age and discretion at the tenant’s residence (an adult occupant or guest) AND mail a copy to the tenant at the residence.	Date of substituted service — but the tenant must have actual receipt or a reasonable opportunity for receipt
Posting plus mailing	Affix the notice in a conspicuous place at the residence (front door is standard) AND mail a copy to the tenant at the residence.	Date of posting and mailing — both must be complete
Mailing alone	Generally NOT sufficient for residential termination notices. Mailing is the supplement to substituted service or posting, not a standalone method.	—
Email or text alone	NOT an authorized method under California law, even if the lease purports to authorize electronic service. Courts have held electronic-only service insufficient for termination notices.	—

Personal delivery is the cleanest and most defensible. Whenever practical, deliver the notice personally to the tenant. Document the date, time, and circumstances of delivery — ideally with a witness or photo. Personal delivery starts the notice clock immediately, eliminating any dispute about when the period began.

Substituted service requires both steps. A landlord who leaves the notice with the tenant’s adult son but does not also mail a copy has not perfected service. Both steps must be completed for substituted service to be effective. The mailing must be by ordinary first-class mail to the tenant at the rental address.

Posting plus mailing is the fallback when personal contact is not possible. If the tenant is not home and no adult occupant is present, the landlord may post the notice in a conspicuous place at the residence and mail a copy. Photograph the posting in place for the file. The notice must be in a location where the tenant would reasonably discover it — the front door of the unit is standard.

The Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 mailing extension does NOT apply. CCP § 1013 generally adds days to a notice period when the notice is served by mail (five days for in-state mail, ten for out-of-state). This extension does not apply to termination notices under section 1946.1. The 30-day or 60-day period runs from the date of service as defined by section 1162, regardless of mailing time. This catches landlords who add extra days “just to be safe” and end up with a notice that gives the tenant more time than required (which is fine) or who shorten the period thinking CCP § 1013 will fill the gap (which is not fine).

Document delivery rigorously. Whatever method is used, the landlord should document the date, time, method, and circumstances of delivery. The landlord’s defense in any later challenge to the notice — including in an unlawful detainer — depends almost entirely on this documentation. Keep delivery documentation in the property file for the duration of the tenancy plus the applicable statute of limitations.

Tenancies exempt from AB 1482

Civil Code section 1946.2(e) lists the categories of tenancies exempt from the AB 1482 just-cause requirement. For these tenancies, the 30/60-day notice periods under § 1946.1 still apply — but the just-cause requirement does not. The exemptions are narrow and fact-specific; do not rely on an exemption without verifying it carefully.

Most-common exemptions:

Single-family homes and condominiums (with proper notice). Single-family residences and condominiums are exempt from AB 1482 only if (1) the property is owned by a “natural person” (an individual, not a corporation, REIT, or LLC with corporate interests), and (2) the tenant has been given written notice of the exemption. The required exemption notice has specific statutory wording — Civil Code section 1946.2(e)(8)(B)(i) sets out the language. A natural-person owner who fails to give the required exemption notice loses the exemption and is subject to AB 1482 just-cause requirements regardless of property type.

Duplexes where the owner lives in one unit. A duplex is exempt only if the owner has occupied one of the two units as the owner’s principal place of residence at the start of the tenancy and continues to do so throughout. If the owner moves out, the exemption ends and AB 1482 attaches.

Buildings less than fifteen years old. Properties with a certificate of occupancy issued less than fifteen years before the date of the non-renewal notice are exempt. The fifteen-year window rolls forward, so a property exempt today may not be exempt next year. Check the certificate-of-occupancy date carefully — substantial reconstruction does not reset the clock for AB 1482 purposes.

Deed-restricted affordable housing. Housing subject to a recorded affordable-housing covenant or comparable restriction that limits rent to be affordable to households of moderate, low, very-low, or extremely-low income is exempt from AB 1482. The exemption applies only as long as the affordability restriction is in effect.

Dorms and certain transient occupancies. Residential units in dorms operated by an institution of higher education for its students, transient or tourist hotel occupancies (under thirty days), and certain other short-term arrangements are exempt.

Commercial property. AB 1482 applies only to residential rental units. Commercial leases — office, retail, industrial — are not subject to the just-cause requirement. Mixed-use properties may be partially covered.

Exemption notice requirements are strict. The natural-person single-family home / condo exemption requires the landlord to give the tenant written notice of the exemption either in the lease (for new tenancies) or by separate written notice (for tenancies in place when AB 1482 took effect or when ownership changed). The required language is set out in section 1946.2(e)(8)(B)(i). Landlords who have not given the notice — or who used non-conforming language — do not have the exemption, even if the property otherwise qualifies.

Local ordinances often have stricter rules. Even where AB 1482 exempts a property, local just-cause ordinances may not. Los Angeles’s Just Cause Ordinance has different exemption categories and applies to many properties that are AB 1482-exempt. San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance has its own exemption framework. Always verify both state and local applicability before relying on an exemption.

Local ordinances overlay

AB 1482 sets a statewide floor; many California cities layer additional just-cause and relocation-assistance requirements on top. The local ordinance always controls when it imposes a stricter requirement than state law.

Los Angeles — RSO and Just Cause Ordinance. The City of Los Angeles has the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) for properties built before October 1, 1978, and the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (JCO) for non-RSO units after the AB 1482 framework took effect. Both ordinances have their own enumerated just-cause grounds, mandatory rent registration, tenant relocation-assistance schedules that scale by tenancy length and protected-class status, and tenant anti-harassment protections. Relocation amounts under the LA RSO can substantially exceed the AB 1482 one-month minimum, particularly for long-term tenants and tenants with elderly or disabled household members.

San Francisco — Rent Ordinance. San Francisco’s Rent Ordinance has comprehensive just-cause requirements applicable to most rental units constructed before June 13, 1979, plus some post-1979 units under specific conditions. Just-cause grounds are enumerated and narrowly construed. Relocation-assistance amounts are scheduled by tenant age, disability status, and tenancy length and are typically much higher than AB 1482’s one-month minimum. SF also requires the landlord to file specific forms with the SF Rent Board for owner-move-in and Ellis Act terminations before serving the tenant.

Oakland — Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. Oakland’s ordinance covers most residential rental units in the city. Just-cause grounds are enumerated. Relocation-assistance payments under the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance scale by household size and protected-class status. The Rent Adjustment Program enforces the just-cause requirements alongside rent-stabilization rules.

Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Inglewood, San Diego, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and others. Each of these cities has its own just-cause ordinance, often with distinct enumerated grounds, distinct relocation-assistance scales, and distinct procedural requirements. San Diego’s Tenant Protection Ordinance (effective 2023) extended just-cause to many properties not covered by AB 1482 alone. Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance has stricter just-cause grounds than state law.

Compliance approach: layered analysis. Before serving a non-renewal notice in a city with a local ordinance, the landlord should: (1) confirm whether AB 1482 covers the tenancy; (2) confirm whether the local ordinance covers the tenancy (often broader coverage than AB 1482); (3) identify the just-cause ground that satisfies BOTH frameworks (the local ordinance grounds may be narrower than AB 1482); (4) calculate the relocation assistance under the local schedule (typically higher than AB 1482); (5) follow any local pre-notice filing or registration requirements; (6) serve the notice with content satisfying both frameworks.

Where local and state requirements conflict, the stricter governs. If AB 1482 allows a particular at-fault ground but the local ordinance does not, the local ordinance controls — the landlord cannot use that ground. If the local ordinance requires sixty days’ relocation assistance but AB 1482 requires thirty, the sixty-day requirement applies. The notice must satisfy whichever framework imposes the higher bar.

This page does not attempt to enumerate every local ordinance in every city. Before serving a non-renewal in a covered city, landlords should consult the specific local ordinance and, where the stakes warrant it, local counsel.

Required information for the notice

Civil Code section 1946.1 does not specify a precise content requirement for non-renewal notices, but settled California practice and case law establish a minimum set of elements the notice must contain. AB 1482 (Civ Code § 1946.2) adds further required content for covered tenancies.

Element	Why it’s required
Date of the notice	Establishes the timeline; required for proof of service
Names of all tenants	The notice must run against every adult tenant on the lease (or all named occupants if no formal lease)
Property address	Identifies the specific premises being terminated
Termination date	Must be at least the required period (30 or 60 days) after delivery; specific calendar date
Statutory authority	Reference to Civ Code § 1946.1 establishes the legal basis
Just-cause ground (AB 1482 covered)	If AB 1482 applies, the specific § 1946.2(b)(1) at-fault ground or § 1946.2(b)(2) no-fault ground
Supporting facts (just-cause)	Enough factual detail for the tenant to evaluate the claim
Cure opportunity (curable at-fault)	If the at-fault ground is curable, the cure deadline and what the tenant must do
Relocation-assistance statement (no-fault)	For no-fault terminations under AB 1482, statement of direct payment OR rent waiver
Landlord name and contact	Required for any tenant response or cure
Signature	Must be signed by the landlord or authorized agent
Method of service	Notice itself doesn’t require this, but proof of service should be prepared and retained

Termination date must be calculated correctly. The date stated in the notice as the termination date must be at least 30 or 60 days after the date of delivery. A notice that says “tenancy terminates 30 days from the date of this notice” without identifying a specific calendar date creates ambiguity and is on weaker enforcement ground. Pick a specific calendar date and verify the math.

Supporting facts for at-fault grounds. The notice should state, with specificity, what the tenant did, when, and how it satisfies the at-fault ground. “Tenant has breached a material term of the lease” is insufficient. “Tenant has maintained a non-permitted dog at the unit since at least March 1, 2026, in violation of paragraph 14 of the lease, despite written notice to remove the animal dated March 15, 2026” is the level of detail required.

Supporting facts for no-fault grounds. Owner-move-in notices should identify the qualifying family member, the relationship, and the intended occupancy date. Substantial-remodel notices should describe the planned work and reference the permits. Ellis Act notices should reference the underlying market-withdrawal action. The form on this page provides structured fields for this information.

Relocation-assistance statement is required content for no-fault. The notice cannot simply reference “California law” — it must specifically state whether the landlord is paying directly or waiving the final month’s rent, and identify the amount/month. Generic language has been held insufficient by California courts.

Common mistakes that void the notice

Calculating the notice period from the wrong date

The 30 or 60 days runs from the date of delivery, not from the date the notice was prepared, signed, or dated. A notice signed on March 1, served on March 15, with a termination date of March 31 is a 16-day notice — not a 30-day notice. The miscalculation is one of the most common reasons notices fail in unlawful detainer.

Counting cumulative occupancy wrong

The 60-day period applies to tenancies of one year or longer measured by cumulative occupancy. A landlord who measures from the most recent lease renewal — rather than from the original start of the tenancy — applies the wrong period. A tenant who has been in the unit for fourteen months under three sequential six-month leases gets a 60-day notice, not a 30-day notice.

Using a generic just-cause statement on a covered tenancy

“This is a notice of non-renewal pursuant to California law” is not a valid AB 1482 notice. The notice must identify the specific Civ Code § 1946.2(b)(1) at-fault ground or § 1946.2(b)(2) no-fault ground and provide supporting facts. Generic statements are insufficient and the resulting unlawful detainer will fail.

Failing to give a cure opportunity for a curable at-fault ground

If the at-fault ground is curable — most lease breaches and assignment/subletting violations are — the landlord must give the tenant a notice and a chance to cure before serving the at-fault termination notice. Skipping the cure step on a curable ground voids the at-fault termination, even if the underlying conduct was clearly improper.

Omitting the relocation-assistance statement on no-fault

A no-fault termination notice that fails to specifically state how relocation assistance will be provided — direct payment or rent waiver — is void. “The tenant is entitled to relocation assistance under AB 1482” is generic and insufficient. The notice must identify the method, the amount, and (for direct payment) the deadline, or (for rent waiver) the specific month being waived.

Using owner-move-in for a non-qualifying family member

The qualifying family relationships under § 1946.2(b)(2)(A) are narrow: owner, owner’s spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, or grandparent. Siblings, cousins, in-laws, friends, and “family members” outside the enumerated relationships do not qualify. A landlord who serves an owner-move-in notice for a non-qualifying relative has issued an invalid notice and exposed the property to AB 1482 misuse damages.

Sham owner-move-in or substantial remodel

Civil Code § 1946.2(g) provides remedies — including attorney’s fees — for a tenant whose landlord misuses AB 1482 by citing a no-fault ground that does not match the actual plan. A landlord who terminates “for owner-move-in” but in fact intends to flip the unit at a higher rent commits a misuse subject to damages. Several local ordinances impose additional penalties and require post-termination accountability (e.g., the family member must actually occupy for a minimum period).

Mailing-only service

Civil Code § 1162 requires personal delivery, substituted service plus mailing, or posting plus mailing. Mailing alone is generally not sufficient. Landlords who mail the notice and assume the CCP § 1013 mailing extension applies are wrong twice: § 1013 doesn’t apply, and mailing alone isn’t valid service.

Ignoring local ordinance requirements

A notice that satisfies AB 1482 but fails to satisfy the local ordinance (LA RSO/JCO, SF Rent Ordinance, Oakland JCO, etc.) is unenforceable in those jurisdictions. Local just-cause grounds are often narrower than AB 1482; local relocation amounts are often higher; local pre-notice filing requirements are often mandatory.

Issuing a non-renewal during a protected period

Civ Code § 1942.5 creates a 180-day presumption of retaliation when a landlord serves a non-renewal after the tenant has exercised protected rights (complaining about habitability, contacting code enforcement, organizing a tenant association, etc.). The presumption can be overcome with evidence of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason, but the burden shifts to the landlord. Issuing a non-renewal within the protected period without a documented legitimate reason invites a § 1942.5 claim.

Targeting a tenant in a protected class

Even where the technical 1946.1 and 1946.2 requirements are met, a non-renewal that targets a tenant based on race, religion, national origin, familial status (including pregnancy or having children), disability, source of income (including Section 8), gender identity, sexual orientation, or other FEHA-protected characteristics is illegal. Disparate-impact analysis can also reach facially neutral patterns. A pattern of non-renewals concentrated in one demographic exposes the landlord to FEHA, federal Fair Housing Act, and source-of-income discrimination claims.

Tenant remedies for defective notice

A California tenant who receives a defective non-renewal notice — wrong period, missing just-cause grounds where required, missing relocation-assistance statement, or improper service — has multiple potential remedies. Understanding these helps landlords appreciate why getting the notice right matters.

Affirmative defense in unlawful detainer

The most common scenario: the landlord serves a defective notice, the tenant does not vacate by the termination date, the landlord files an unlawful detainer (UD), and the tenant raises the defective notice as an affirmative defense. If the defense succeeds, the UD is dismissed and the landlord must serve a corrected notice and start over. The tenant typically remains in possession during the do-over and may be entitled to attorney’s fees if the lease has a fees clause.

AB 1482 misuse damages — Civ Code § 1946.2(g)

For misuse of AB 1482 — most commonly sham owner-move-in or sham substantial-remodel — the tenant can recover damages including up to three times the actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The remedy applies in addition to any unlawful-detainer defense. A tenant who has already vacated under a sham no-fault notice can sue for damages even after vacating.

Anti-retaliation damages — Civ Code § 1942.5

If the non-renewal was retaliatory (issued within 180 days of tenant’s protected conduct, such as complaining about habitability or contacting code enforcement), the tenant can recover actual damages, attorney’s fees, and statutory penalties. The 180-day presumption shifts the burden to the landlord to prove a non-retaliatory reason.

Fair housing claims — FEHA, federal FHA, source-of-income

A non-renewal that targets a tenant based on a protected class violates state and federal fair housing law independent of any AB 1482 issue. Remedies include actual damages, statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now Civil Rights Department) and HUD both accept complaints; private actions are also available.

Local ordinance remedies

Cities with their own just-cause ordinances typically provide their own remedies for defective notices: rent-board complaints, treble damages provisions, attorney’s fees, and city-prosecutor enforcement. LA, SF, and Oakland all have well-developed local enforcement infrastructures. A defective notice in a covered city may face simultaneous AB 1482 and local-ordinance challenges.

Constructive eviction and quiet-enjoyment claims

A non-renewal that is part of a pattern of harassment — repeated baseless notices, threats, illegal entry, utility shutoffs — supports a constructive-eviction claim and a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. These claims provide damages independent of the notice itself and can be raised in any UD or in a separate civil action.

Bottom line for landlords: the cost of getting a non-renewal notice right is small; the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial. A defective notice typically delays recovery of possession by several months (during the redo plus any UD), exposes the landlord to attorney’s fees, and may trigger AB 1482 misuse damages or fair-housing claims if the defects suggest bad faith. The form on this page handles the mechanics; the analysis above is the legal context.

California statute reference table

Statute	Subject	Key requirement
Civ Code § 1946.1	Termination notice periods	30 days (tenancy <1 year); 60 days (tenancy ≥1 year)
Civ Code § 1946.2	AB 1482 just-cause requirement	Just cause required for covered tenancies after 12 months of occupancy; at-fault and no-fault categories
Civ Code § 1946.2(b)(1)	At-fault just-cause grounds	11 enumerated grounds; cure required if curable
Civ Code § 1946.2(b)(2)	No-fault just-cause grounds	Owner move-in, Ellis withdrawal, government order, substantial remodel
Civ Code § 1946.2(d)	Relocation assistance	One month of rent for no-fault terminations; direct payment or rent waiver
Civ Code § 1946.2(e)	Exemptions from AB 1482	Single-family / condo (with notice), duplex with owner occupant, <15 years old, deed-restricted affordable, dorms
Civ Code § 1946.2(g)	Misuse damages	Treble damages plus attorney’s fees for landlord misuse
Civ Code § 1162	Service of termination notices	Personal delivery; substituted service + mailing; posting + mailing
Civ Code § 1942.5	Anti-retaliation	180-day presumption of retaliation; attorney’s fees and statutory penalties
FEHA / Gov Code § 12955	Fair housing — state	Prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, source of income, familial status, etc.
42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.	Fair Housing Act — federal	Federal-level fair housing protections; HUD enforcement
Gov Code § 7060 et seq.	Ellis Act	Withdrawal-from-market procedure for no-fault termination
LA RSO/JCO; SF Rent Ord.; Oakland JCO; etc.	Local ordinances	Layered just-cause and relocation requirements; consult specific local code

All statute citations are to California Civil Code unless otherwise noted. Local ordinances in LA, SF, Oakland, San Diego, Berkeley, Glendale, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and other cities layer additional requirements on top of state law and should be consulted independently.

Frequently asked questions

This form and the accompanying guidance are provided for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. California landlord-tenant law has technical requirements that can change with legislation and case law. Civil Code § 1946.1 (notice periods), § 1946.2 (AB 1482 just-cause framework), and local ordinances (LA RSO/JCO, SF Rent Ordinance, Oakland JCO, San Diego TPO, and others) vary in interpretation by jurisdiction and over time. Specific situations — AB 1482 coverage and exemption analysis, just-cause ground selection, relocation-assistance calculation, retaliation and fair-housing defenses — depend on facts that this general guidance cannot fully address. Always verify current requirements with the California Civil Code, applicable local ordinances, or a qualified California landlord-tenant attorney before relying on this notice in any contested or sensitive situation. Review California eviction notice laws.