My first apartment experience in SF. Questions. (sale, real estate)

[Raynepain]

Just moved to the bay area a week ago. All the apartments I have ever lived in up to this point have been large apartment towers with rental agents, so I admittedly don't have much apartment leasing experience in general.

I found a unit in SOMA I liked that was built in 1912 and is considered a multi family home. I went over to look at it. The master tenant lives in a converted living room and there are 2 bedrooms which are being rented out. The unit is month to month.

They gave me a rather informal looking rental application that states the lease is 60 days. 60 days notice form landlord, 30 for tenant. They require the first month rent, security deposit, application, and a credit check from 1 of the 3 major institutions.

A security deposit is required from each tenant as well as the first month of rent. They would like this in a cashier check or money order, but continued payments are fine with other methods.

The tenant whose room I will be renting indicated that he doesn't believe the unit is rent controlled, but has never seen an increase in rent in the last year he had been living there. The master tenant has lived there since 2012 which is apparently the last time rent had been raised, which makes me think that he has an arrangement with the landlord. He had said that if anything was increased, he has to give 60 days notice.



My questions are mainly, since this unit is from 1912, doesn't that qualify for rent control? Or is that what he was talking about with the sixty days notice?

Is having to pay the initial costs in cashier check or money order normal? To legally protect myself, which one is "safer?" I am assuming both have the option to have some sort of receipt for the hand-off.

After I fill out the application and have everything ready to go, I am assuming I still have to sign onto the lease proper? What should I be walking away with copies of at the end of this agreement?

[Ruth4Truth]

Are you looking to rent a room or an actual apartment? Can you afford an apartment? The arrangement you found sounds dubious. Leases are only for 2 months at a time? You have to renew the lease every two months? Your post is a little confusing. But if that's the case, and the master tenant could choose to not renew your lease at any time, I'd look for a more stable situation.

I suppose the money order/cashier's check requirement is to avoid problems with checks bouncing. Do they also take cash? Receiving a rental agreement signed by the LL (or master tenant?) would function as a receipt for your deposit. What form of payment do they require for your monthly rent after the initial deposit/first months' rent? When your checks are cashed (if they accept personal checks), that functions as a legal document and receipt.

[Raynepain]

I can try to clarify any questions, I did try to be through in my post.

I would be renting a room in a 2 bedroom apartment that has the living room being lived in (seems pretty prevalent in the bay area). It is a month to month agreement that would cause the landlord, if he were to evict me, to give me 60 days notice. I could afford to pay more, though I would not like to.

They would take cash, though I would prefer to not pay in cash as there would be less of a paper trail. The legal document and receipt would be my I would not pay cash.

I am under the assumption that the months after would be checks, but I have to clarify that.

[Ruth4Truth]

It sounds like a typical bay area house share, though I'm not sure if the 2-mo. leasing is normal. Aside from that, it sounds ok. Have you checked out the SOMA neighborhood? There's not much there by way of amenities, grocery, etc.

[beb0p]

To answer your question:

- Just because it's built in 1912 doesn't automatically mean it is rent controlled. If it has been converted to a condo, it probably is not rent controlled (although still could be in some circumstance). The best way to find out is to drop by the SF's Building and Planning office to inquirer on the building's status; and then you have to check if there is any real estate sale on that building sufficiently renders all condos to be no longer under rent control. It's a somewhat cumbersome process.

- Cashier check/money order is to ensure your check doesn't bounce; which is common if you're moving in very quickly after signing the lease.

- You mentioned a master tenant, so this is not a normal transaction. You are signing the lease with the master tenant, not the landlord I assume. But you should be walking away with a signed lease and either a key or some sort of arrangement on how to get the key once your tenancy begins.


Since it sounds like you are renting from a master tenant, that should immediately raises a red flag. Does the landlord knows the master tenant is subletting? If yes, there's no problem. If no, potentially big problem.

If the landlord approves of it, you should receive a written form from the landlord's side in addition to the lease you sign with the master tenant.

If I were you, I'd want to verify of the landlord's approval in some way.

After I fill out the application and have everything ready to go, I am assuming I still have to sign onto the lease proper?

That's the million dollar questions - does the landlord know and are you a sub-tenant or are you a co-tenant?

If the master tenant is renting behind the landlord's back, you are most likely a subtenant and your lease will be with the master tenant.

Even if the landlord approves, you may still be a subtenant if that is the arrangement that they want.

If you are a co-tenant, then your name will be added to the original lease. This also means that the landlord surely knows about you coming on as a new tenant.

You need to ask your master tenant:

1. Are you a subtenant or a co-tenant?

2. Does the landlord knows?
.

[Synchromesh]

Originally Posted by beb0p

- Just because it's built in 1912 doesn't automatically mean it is rent controlled. If it has been converted to a condo, it probably is not rent controlled (although still could be in some circumstance). The best way to find out is to drop by the SF's Building and Planning office to inquirer on the building's status; and then you have to check if there is any real estate sale on that building sufficiently renders all condos to be no longer under rent control. It's a somewhat cumbersome process.

Good call on the condo conversion. That's the only exception from RC rule aside from single family housing. I would totally check with SF B&P department. It's not hard to do and you don't need an appointment but plan at least a couple of hours because things generally don't tend to move super fast there.

1. Are you a subtenant or a co-tenant?

That you can answer right away - he is a sub-tenant. The only way he can become a co-tenant is if either his name gets added to the original lease with the landlord OR he pays rent directly to the landlord. Unless Master Tenant would be stupid enough to let either one of those things happen so he is almost certainly going to be a sub-tenant.

[Raynepain]

Ok that's all good to know. I'll swing the b and p when I get the chance and ask. I still have to get some clarification on what rent control is actually defined as.

I'll look into what agreement I'm supposed to sign. I won't give any money unless there's something verifying it obviously, but I'm glad that my situation seems at least somewhat normal.

[04kL4nD]

This situation sounds sketchy as hell. Not sure why you are even still bothering to consider it.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by Synchromesh

That you can answer right away - he is a sub-tenant. The only way he can become a co-tenant is if either his name gets added to the original lease with the landlord OR he pays rent directly to the landlord. Unless Master Tenant would be stupid enough to let either one of those things happen so he is almost certainly going to be a sub-tenant.

Not always the case. If the lease originally has three tenants and one moved out, the landlord by default, must allow a replacement tenant (who passes screen of course). Now, the new tenant does not have to be on the lease, but the new tenant also does not affect vacancy decontrol (where only the original leasee counts).

Or it's also possible the landlord works out a deal where the original tenant can add a roommate at higher rent.

But yes, I get what you're saying. It sounds suspiciously like a master tenant is subletting out bedrooms behind the landlord's back. Which can be a big problem if the landlord finds out.
.

[Raynepain]

The last 3 apartments I looked at were when there were multiple rooms on a floor and there was always a master tenant, so the practice of having master tenants can't be that uncommon. I will just have to ask about the landlords written permission and the logistics of the lease.