SB 567 — Homelessness Prevention Act

SB 567, the Homelessness Prevention Act, took effect April 1, 2024 and amended California's AB 1482 Tenant Protection Act. It mainly tightened the no-fault eviction grounds in Civil Code § 1946.2 — owner move-in and substantial remodel — and added documentation requirements, penalties, and new enforcement powers.

The law makes the two most-used no-fault reasons harder to invoke and easier to challenge, while leaving the underlying rent cap at § 1947.12 in place. Because compliance now hinges on specific facts and paperwork, GoCodebook helps confirm whether a notice meets the new standard before it is served.

Under SB 567, a landlord using owner move-in as a no-fault ground must show the owner or a qualifying family member (spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent or grandparent) will actually occupy the unit. The person must move in within 90 days of the tenancy ending and live there for at least 12 months, and cannot already occupy the property or have a comparable vacant unit available.

The eviction notice must name the person moving in and their relationship to the owner. If they fail to move in or do not stay the required period, the tenant generally must be offered the unit back at the prior rent — or the landlord faces liability. This narrows a ground that was previously easy to assert under AB 1482.

SB 567 redefined substantial remodel so it can no longer be used for cosmetic work. The project must involve structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical work (or hazardous-material abatement) that requires the unit to be vacant for at least 30 days, and the landlord must have the necessary permits in hand before serving notice.

The notice must describe the work, why it requires vacancy, and how long it will take, and include a copy of the permits or a description of the scope. As with owner move-in, no-fault terminations still require relocation assistance equal to one month's rent. See the broader just-cause rules for how at-fault and no-fault grounds differ.

SB 567 added real teeth. A landlord who recovers possession in material violation of the no-fault rules is liable to the tenant for up to three times actual damages, plus possible punitive damages, and a willful rent overcharge above the § 1947.12 cap can likewise trigger up to three times the excess.

Critically, enforcement is no longer left to tenants alone: the California Attorney General, plus city attorneys and county counsel, may bring actions for injunctive relief. That broader enforcement is why precise compliance matters — GoCodebook can check a planned notice against the current rule and citation.