Length of lease (Oakland: apartment complexes, renters, condos)

[jupiler]

In apartment listings, I often see that a lease is for 1 year, then month to month. This is different from Indiana where it's always a 1 year lease; if the lease is up, you renew for another year.

I'm wondering why SF favors month to month lease after 1 year? Is this a good or bad thing for tenants?

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by jupiler

In apartment listings, I often see that a lease is for 1 year, then month to month. This is different from Indiana where it's always a 1 year lease; if the lease is up, you renew for another year.

I'm wondering why SF favors month to month lease after 1 year? Is this a good or bad thing for tenants?

if it's month to month then they can raise the rent easier.

[California Vagabond]

I think that's just how it's done in California. And yes, as the others point out, going to month to month after the one year lease has expired undoubtedly makes it easier to boost rents.

[beb0p]

It's a combination of things - landlords are not as worried about not being able to rent out units, CA is a very transient place and some renters cannot commit to staying for a full year after the first year, and yes it also gives landlord more opportunity to raise rent; month to month just allows for more flexibility for both sides.

Now, if you're in SF, Oakland, or parts of LA then you're protected by rent control (for certain units).
.

[fashionguy]

Besides what others pointed out that the landlord can increase rent more easily for month to month, for most apartment complexes the month to month rent is already way higher than a normal one year lease. Some tenants don't even check that rate specifically and think they are covered when the lease is up, until they receive the bill that is more than 500$ higher than their normal rent.

Originally Posted by jupiler

In apartment listings, I often see that a lease is for 1 year, then month to month. This is different from Indiana where it's always a 1 year lease; if the lease is up, you renew for another year.

I'm wondering why SF favors month to month lease after 1 year? Is this a good or bad thing for tenants?

[DMenscha]

Leases are by definition in CA for a period of 1 year or more. Without an extension of a lease for another one year period, every lease reverts to a month-to-month tenancy, even longer term commercial ones.

A new lease can be written at any time during a month-to-month tenancy on agreement of both landlord and tenant.

[Ultrarunner]

One complex always does 1 year lease to start...

Before the lease is up, management will offer to renew the lease, often on the original terms or convert to a month to month with an increase in rent.

[jupiler]

I'm a little confused. Some of you mention landlords can raise rent easier with month to month, but do I understand correctly that SF has rent control for all buildings built before something like 1979 - which is every apartment listing I've seen so far. So, with a month to month lease, the landlord nevertheless can't raise rent by the limit of the rent control, which I understand to be very low, like 1-2%?

[beb0p]

Not all buildings, single family homes and condos (even if they're built before 1979) do not have rent control. Only non-condo units in multiple unit building has it.

For units protected by rent control, it makes no difference if the tenant is on a month to month or yearly lease, since landlord cannot kick them out and cannot raise rent more than allowed. So most landlords don't even bother renewing the lease.
.