The Slowdown of the Eviction Process Caused by AB 2347 and How to Best Manage It

For decades, property owners in California have provided housing with the assurance that if their renters failed or refused to pay rent on time, they would have an expedited means of recovering possession of their property. While that generally remains true for 2025, the State Legislature has slowed the eviction process considerably. Combined with other recent changes in law, this could create a particularly challenging predicament for housing providers who don’t act quickly to protect their rights.

How to Manage the Eviction Process

To begin the process of terminating a tenancy, a property owner must first serve a written notice, either demanding rent, a correction of some lease violation, or stating some other legally recognized basis for doing so. The owner must then wait for the required notice period (3, 30, 60, etc.). After that, the owner can file a complaint for ‘unlawful detainer’ (the legal name for an action seeking to recover possession of a rental unit). In years past, the owner then had to generally wait another 5 days before the unlawful detainer process could proceed.

With AB 2347 taking effect on January 1, 2025, however, an owner must now generally wait 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays) before the unlawful detainer process can proceed. While that 5 to 10 day change may not seem like a big difference, it amounts to a more than 100% increase, and property owners must continue to shoulder the carrying costs of the property during that time.

The double-whammy for property owners here is their typical protection against a non-paying renter is to look to that tenant’s security deposit later on for at least partial repayment. But with the amendment to Civil Code section 1950.5 in 2024, a property owner may now generally collect only one month’s rent as a security deposit. By extending the time the unlawful detainer process takes, and reducing the amount a property owner can collect initially as a security deposit, the State Legislature has undermined the basic bargain between a housing provider and a renter. While it remains to be seen how much of an effect AB 2347 will have on the landlord-tenant relationship moving forward, it is unquestionably true that housing providers must be more diligent in addressing lease violations to protect themselves. In particular, property owners will be well-served to immediately address situations involving non-payment of rent, to avoid depleting all available security deposit funds before it is too late.

Contact A San Francisco Real Estate Lawyer Today

For assistance with landlord-tenant matters regarding the eviction process, you may contact Scott A. Freedman at Zacks & Freedman, PC for guidance. Contact us at your convenience to request a consultation.

Neither this website nor this post are intended to create an attorney-client relationship.