NAR Backs Housing Providers in Challenge to Burdensome Rent Control and Eviction Restriction Measures
Issue Date: October 28, 2025
On October 27, 2025, the National Association of REALTORS®, in partnership with the California Association of REALTORS®, Greater Los Angeles REALTORS® Association, Southland Regional Association of REALTORS®, South Bay Association of REALTORS®, American Property Owners Alliance, National Apartment Association (NAA), and the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit supporting housing providers in their challenge to the city of Los Angeles’ burdensome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO).
Plaintiffs Melvia Harris, a retired teacher, and Gloria Knighten, a former municipal director, are small-scale landlords in Los Angeles. Their rental units fall under the RSO, which applies to properties built before October 1, 1978. Citing significant financial hardship, they filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging several provisions of the RSO as unjust and unconstitutional. In July, the federal court dismissed Plaintiffs' case. Harris and Knighten appealed to the Ninth Circuit, seeking reversal of the lower court’s ruling and a full opportunity to be heard, arguing the law was not properly applied.
The plaintiffs argue the RSO deprives property owners of constitutional protections and core property rights without just compensation. They challenge the 4% cap on rent increases as a regulatory taking that fails to account for rising operating costs and an equal protection violation. They object to the relocation fee requirement forcing landlords to pay hefty tenant relocation fees for no-fault evictions. They also claim the mandatory posting of tenant rights notices infringes on their free speech and encourages nonpayment of rent by tenants.
NAR endorses plaintiff’s broader constitutional challenge to the RSO but focuses its arguments on plaintiffs' challenge to the Fair Market Rent (FMR) eviction restriction. This provision prohibits landlords from evicting tenants who owe less than one month's rent; however, the threshold is based on the Fair Market Rent amount published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), not the actual rent allowed under the RSO. Because HUD's Fair Market Rent often exceeds the city's rent cap, landlords are left with inadequate rent payments and no legal means to remove nonpaying tenants. NAR argues that this provision constitutes an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment by compelling landlords to house nonpaying tenants, directly undermining the long-recognized constitutional right to exclude others from one's property.
NAR strongly opposes rent control and eviction restrictions because such measures distort housing markets, discourage investment, and impose undue burdens on property owners, especially small-scale landlords. For Harris and Knighten, and property owners across the country, this case represents a fight for fairness and the right to manage private property without being overwhelmed and financially burdened by policies that are both economically and constitutionally unjust.
NAR will continue to monitor the status of this case and provide updates accordingly.