SF is a city of renters. Most of our laws, unsurprisingly, work to protect renters, most often at the expense of owners. I myself am a renter, and though I know in theory that some of the laws that serve me actually drive rents up, I have to admit I’m glad for the protection.
But when the show switches to the other foot, and I think about buying a home, those comforting laws become a morass of red tape. Anyone considering buying a home in SF needs to be fully versed on tenants’ rights because if you try to buy (or sell) a home that is tenant occupied, I assure you it is not as easy as delivering 30 days notice and an apologetic fruit basket.
Should it be easier? I don’t know. When houses are worth more to sell than rent, you can see why an owner might want to dump a tenant to realize a profit. When condo conversion makes a renter-occupied unit worth several times more than it was purchased for, you can see the incentive for an owner to ask a tenant to clear out. In fact, the number of evictions related to condo conversion and OMI (owner move-in evictions) has skyrocketed right along with the price of housing in this city. So the fact that concerned agencies like the Rent Board and Tenants’ Union have stepped in to create and enforce legislation that makes eviction harder is a logical (and compassionate) response.
Thus, standing on the border between renter-land and buyer-land, I see both sides, clearly. And such vision is very important for would-be buyers (as well as current renters). For instance, tenants’ rights are complicating this sale at 2104 24th St. The 3 bed single-family Victorian home has been reduced 20.5% since it hit the market, and now stands at $899,000. The agent’s remarks on Redfin’s site do not reveal why the proerty’s price has been cut so drastically, but a conversation on Socketsite does. One commenter points out “Folks, you gotta start reading the Agent Remarks in the MLS: ‘Property is tenant occupied, so need 24 hours to show. Main house rent $2,350-Inlaw $625. Inlaw tenants claim protected status- quality people.’ So you have protected tenants in an unwarranted (illegal) unit.”
Another listing with that problem is surely 262 Henry St., SF. This 2 bed condo is a reasonable $660,000, and sits in a fantastic Corona Heights location. Yet it has been doing that sitting, on the market, for over 100 days (as posted in my recent Homes Sold and Dreaming to Be blog). The written description of the unit reveals nothing as to why, yet scroll down to the financing notes to read “Possession: Subject to Tenant Rights.” What are those rights? Are the tenants protected? Good luck then. You better buy the property for rental income. And even if they are not protected, evicting them is, again, not simple. You need to get the facts.
Other properties that will cause you trouble:
2104 Bryant St., SF: “Rented on a month-to-month basis. Shown by Appmt. ONLY! Please DO NOT DISTURB Tenant.”
1520 Florida St., SF: The language that should give you pause here is this part: “unwarranted 1 bed/1 bath apartment. Property is being sold with existing leases in place.” And: “Possession: Subject to Tenant Rights.”
Do yourself a favor. As a buyer, seller, or renter, know your rights.
United States
Canada