Alhambra’s Three-Month Relocation Rule Takes Effect for Qualifying No-Fault Evictions

Alhambra’s expanded relocation-assistance requirement for certain no-fault evictions took effect Sunday, September 6, raising the local payment or rent-waiver amount to three months of rent when California law already requires a landlord to provide relocation help. The measure does not create new grounds for eviction. Instead, it changes the financial obligation attached to covered no-fault terminations in the city.

The rule gives the property owner the choice between making a direct relocation payment equal to three months’ rent or waiving rent for the final three months of the tenancy. That is a material increase from the statewide baseline of one month’s rent under California’s Tenant Protection Act. The local requirement is therefore most consequential for renters facing a qualifying move and for owners of covered properties who must budget for a larger displacement cost.

Coverage is not universal. Alhambra tied its ordinance to the state’s existing no-fault just-cause framework, and it added a local carveout for many properties with four or fewer units. The city also makes clear that the measure does not alter California’s rent caps, does not change at-fault eviction rules, and does not determine whether a particular tenancy qualifies under state law.

Alhambra triples the state baseline

The City of Alhambra’s official tenant-protection guidance says Ordinance No. O2M26-4861 was adopted on July 27 and became effective September 6. It adds Chapter 6.29 to the municipal code and increases the relocation amount only in situations where relocation assistance or a final-month rent waiver is already required under California Civil Code section 1946.2.

Under the state statute, a covered no-fault termination normally requires either a direct payment equal to one month of the tenant’s rent or a written waiver of the final month’s rent, at the owner’s option. State law also says a direct relocation payment must be provided within 15 calendar days after service of the termination notice. Alhambra’s ordinance raises the amount to three months’ rent or extends the waiver to the final three months while leaving the underlying state framework in place.

The difference can be substantial in dollar terms. For a tenant paying $2,500 a month, a covered cash payment rises from a $2,500 state baseline to $7,500 under the Alhambra rule. The same economics apply if the owner chooses the rent-waiver route, because the local measure substitutes three months of waived rent for the state’s one-month waiver. The example illustrates the scale of the change, but it does not determine whether any particular property or tenancy is covered.

City Council findings in the ordinance connect the policy to housing affordability and displacement risk in Alhambra. The council said it was concerned that renters forced to move without stronger local relocation support could face homelessness, and it cited state law allowing local governments to adopt more protective just-cause rules, including higher relocation-assistance amounts. The council had directed staff in April to prepare a measure increasing the amount from one month to three.

Coverage depends on the state no-fault rules

California Civil Code section 1946.2 defines the no-fault reasons that can trigger relocation assistance for covered tenancies. They include an owner or qualifying family member moving into the property, withdrawal of the rental property from the market, certain government or court orders requiring the unit to be vacated, and an owner’s intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property.

Those categories come with detailed conditions. For an owner move-in, current state law generally requires the intended occupant to move in within 90 days after the tenant leaves and use the unit as a primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months. For a substantial remodel, the statute requires work involving specified building systems or hazardous-material abatement that cannot reasonably be done safely while the tenant remains and that requires the tenant to vacate for at least 30 consecutive days. Cosmetic work such as painting, decorating or minor repairs does not qualify on its own.

The state just-cause framework also contains threshold and property exemptions. In general, the protections apply after the required period of continuous lawful occupancy, and the statute excludes categories such as certain newer housing, some owner-occupied properties and some separately transferable residential property when statutory conditions are met. Because Alhambra’s ordinance builds on section 1946.2 rather than replacing it, those state-law eligibility questions remain important.

Alhambra adds one particularly important local limitation. Except when the no-fault termination involves demolition or substantial remodel, the city’s increased three-month relocation requirement does not apply to a property containing four or fewer units. That means a small rental property should not be assumed to owe the local three-month amount merely because a no-fault termination is being considered. Whether the state’s one-month requirement or another rule still applies depends on the underlying state-law coverage and any other applicable exemption.

Noncompliance can invalidate the termination notice

The enforcement provision gives the higher payment requirement practical weight. Alhambra’s ordinance says failure to strictly comply with the local relocation-assistance requirement renders the notice of termination void. A tenant may raise the ordinance as a defense in an action by an owner to recover possession of a rental unit, in addition to other remedies that may be available under California law.

That approach tracks the state statute’s own emphasis on strict compliance. Section 1946.2 provides that an owner’s failure to comply with its requirements can render a written termination notice void, and it sets additional potential remedies for material violations. Alhambra’s measure does not rewrite those state remedies; it adds the larger local relocation amount where the ordinance applies.

For landlords, the immediate financial consequence is a higher required outlay or a longer period of forgone rent in covered cases. For tenants, the change provides a larger cushion for moving costs, deposits and the gap between leaving one home and securing another, but only when the eviction falls within the qualifying no-fault framework. The city expressly says it cannot determine individual coverage or provide legal advice, so disputed cases will still turn on the facts and the governing state and local rules.

As of September 6, Alhambra lists the three-month requirement as effective. The practical dividing line is therefore not simply whether an eviction is described as “no fault,” but whether the tenancy is covered by California Civil Code section 1946.2 and whether Alhambra’s additional small-property exception applies to the reason for termination.