Mike Tolj specializes in representing business owners and landlords in the leasing and sale of commercial properties. He has over 18 years of experience in the industry and knows how to get deals done quickly and efficiently. Mike is passionate about helping business owners and landlords alike achieve their real estate goals. He has a track record of achievement, having completed numerous transactions for his clients.
As a veteran of LA’s cutthroat multifamily scene, I’ve seen “cash for keys” become the go-to for upgrading aging rentals obstructed by low rents. Data shows some investors coerce buyouts, systematically stripping protections from vulnerable tenants amid an affordability crisis. While regulations exist, non-compliance is incentivized over compliance. I aim to illuminate pragmatic paths for ethical investing before reactionary policies invite unintended consequences. Read on as I discuss balancing returns and accountability.
As a commercial real estate veteran with nearly 20 years of experience representing landlords and investors in California’s dynamic property market, I’ve observed “cash for keys” buyout agreements become an increasingly common tool for owners seeking to reposition aging rental units.
However, data reveals tenant buyouts may also contribute to the broader loss of affordable housing stock and displacement of lower-income renters, especially in sought-after urban markets like Los Angeles. As policymakers weigh additional protections, it merits a deeper look into how regulatory gaps can lead to abuse.
I’ll provide an in-depth exploration of key questions surrounding cash for keys:
The sum of money for keys process refers to the practice of landlords offering tenants lump sum rent payments in exchange for vacating a rental unit upon agreement, without necessitating a formal lengthy eviction process and procedures. While seemingly straightforward in principle, several intricate practical elements surround negotiating and executing these agreements.
First, the buyout arrangement must manifest through a binding contract reflecting consent from both landlord and tenant. Cash for keys agreements delineate pertinent terms like the financial sums involved, the timeline for vacating, and other individualized stipulations. Most localities require outlining the tenant’s right to consult legal advice and the ability to rescind within an established window. Landlords typically introduce a standardized template proposal for starting deliberations.
The landlord initiates proceedings by extending a buyout offer amount customized to the tenant’s situation, factoring in elements like the gap between existing rent and potential market value after upgrades, years occupying the unit, and cost savings over formal eviction. Tactics to elicit acceptance range from presenting the deal as a win-win opportunity to intensive persistence verging on harassment. Once floated, landlords expect tenants to either accept, decline or counteroffer higher if deemed inadequate.
Upon settling on agreeable compensation and terms, the executed contract codifies the arrangement into an actionable cash-for-keys buyout agreement. This legal document protects both parties should disputes emerge later. Some jurisdictions require filing copies with housing authorities for tracking and enforcement purposes.
Savvy but pressured tenants should tap available resources before signing buyout agreements with irreversible consequences. Legal aid clinics guide assessing comparable replacement housing costs and relocation assistance. Counsel ensures landlords meet minimum standards around areas like required notifications, formal filing, and good-faith negotiation tactics.
Landlords eager to renovate and raise rents often view absorbing the expense of buying out tenants as reasonable for the long-term payoff through upgraded and modernized inventory generating higher rental income. Buyouts circumvent the court-supervised alternative of eviction, which imposes its costs like legal fees, missed rents amid proceedings, reputation damage, and time investments.
Navigating the eviction process poses challenges for both landlords and tenants regarding time, expenses, legal complexities, and uncertainty of outcomes. While eviction remains an option for a property owner, tenants in rent-controlled units hold distinct rights that dictate procedures.
To formally evict a tenant legally, landlords must adhere to extensive procedural notification, filing, and hearing requirements that vary across jurisdictions. Justifications center on lease violations like nonpayment of rent or documented nuisance behaviors. The eviction process aims to surface evidence determining the rightful occupation of the property.
Overall, the standard eviction process progresses across several stages including initial notice, court filing, tenant response, judgment hearings, sheriff lockouts, and reclaiming possession. Complex litigation throughout can consume 4-6 months not counting execution delays. Landlords face heavy court and legal costs even in straightforward cases of nonpayment with tenants unwilling or unable to catch up arrears and vacate voluntarily.
The eviction process commences with issuing formal notice per local specifications on acceptable delivery and documentation methods. Initial notices articulate violations prompting potential eviction proceedings while providing tenants an opportunity to rectify or respond within strict deadlines before further escalation.
In instances of evictions due to recurring late or missing rent, landlords can apply security deposit funds toward arrears first before taking legal action. However, tenants may contest improper withholding if disagreements around rightful deductions emerge. Adjudication of disputes adds time and cost.
If after the allotted notice period tenants fail to either pay rent owed amounts or vacate the property on their own accord, filing an unlawful detainer lawsuit petitions the court to compel the tenant to move so landlords may regain possession. Without legal force tenants could simply refuse to leave, hence the structured process permitting police enforcement.
Landlords seeking to formally evict holdovers or nonpaying tenants must honor notification waiting periods, properly file court documents, and receive favorable judgment before sheriffs forcibly remove residents and their belongings. Only strict adherence from start through conclusion guarantees recovering rental income potentially compromised by problematic occupants. It also prevents former tenants from claiming improper, illegal, or retaliatory eviction down the line.
Landlords may offer tenants money, known as a “buyout agreement,” to vacate rental properties. In Los Angeles, the average buyout is around $25,000, but offers range from just a few thousand dollars to over $100,000 for long-term renters. Owners make these cash-for-keys offers to avoid lengthy and costly formal eviction processes. If tenants don’t accept initial offers, landlords might come back with increasingly attractive packages to convince them to leave. After tenants move out, owners can renovate the units and raise rents closer to current market prices, generating substantially more rental income.
Some landlord negotiation tactics, however, are seen as overly aggressive or coercive. These include repeatedly pressuring tenants to take buyouts despite refusals, threatening future harassment or withholding maintenance, implying renovations will force tenants out eventually anyway, and requiring lots of documentation meant to intimidate rather than inform.
For cash-for-keys agreements to be legally enforceable in California and Los Angeles, they must disclose relocation assistance rights, outline the minimum required compensation, and provide signed notification that tenants can rescind acceptance within 30 days. However, many arrangements go unreported, allowing violators to skirt these regulations.
Los Angeles presents an ideal backdrop to examine themes around the use and potential misuse of tenant buyouts. As rents skyrocket amid a deep affordability crisis, the nexus of old housing stock, strong tenant protections, major investor demand, and vulnerable renters produce inevitable tension and disputes.
Last week, the Los Angeles City Controller’s Office released data showing over 4,800 cash for keys agreements were filed with the city from 2019 to 2023. Buyout offers have become a frequently used tool for landlords hoping to get tenants to leave rent-controlled apartments without going through formal eviction processes, which can take time, be costly, and are governed by strict rules.
These areas contain high numbers of renters under stabilized leases, allowing a substantial lift between achieved rents and market potential after upgrades
Top zones for reported buyouts include:
These areas contain high numbers of renters under stabilized leases, allowing a substantial lift between achieved rents and market potential after upgrades.
Landlords and property owners often tout cash-for-keys buyouts as an amicable solution that financially benefits both parties. Tenants gain funds to help cover moving costs, while landlords avoid lengthy formal eviction proceedings and red tape. After tenants vacate, owners can renovate the units and supply updated, quality housing options to the market. For example, an owner may give a buyout to a long-term tenant paying below-market rent, then upgrade the apartment and rent it out for a higher price to new tenants.
However, tenant advocacy groups allege abusive overuse of buyouts. They argue that “cash for keys” offers often function as thinly veiled threats, rather than mutual agreements, to coerce financially vulnerable renters. Advocates claim landlords have weaponized buyouts to systematically strip rent control protections from long-term tenants and destabilize affordable housing markets. For instance, an owner may repeatedly pressure a protected tenant to take a buyout and vacate, then renovate and double the rent – displacing residents reliant on existing affordable units in a neighborhood.
Beyond granular debates around specific buyout instances lies a much larger context. The utilization of tenant buyouts to systematically remove rent-stabilized inventory chips away at the fragile remnants of affordable housing across California’s most unaffordable metro areas.
Accelerates the gap between average incomes and prevailing rents *California already suffers the lowest rental vacancy rate since 1986
According to Freddie Mac data, the differential between yearly household income growth and rental appreciation in Los Angeles stretches to an untenable disconnect.
Preserving affordable housing stock amid rising rents presents complex challenges without easy fixes. However, examining the shortcomings of regulations around cash-for-keys buyouts provides insights into potential reforms.
Los Angeles adopted new notification regulations in 2017 to protect tenants facing buyout offers. These rules require landlords to meet minimum compensation levels when making cash-for-keys offers, such as paying long-term tenants enough to cover high rents for several months. Tenants also have a 30-day window to rescind acceptance of buyouts. Additionally, landlords must file copies of buyout agreements with the city, enabling better tracking.
However, major gaps still enable abuse and harassment. The policy lacks meaningful enforcement mechanisms, with insubstantial penalties for violations. This incentives non-compliance over compliance for unscrupulous landlords. There is also limited tenant awareness of buyout rights. For example, an owner may present a vulnerable tenant with a lowball buyout offer without mentioning the 30-day cancellation window, hoping the renter signs without realizing their protections.
While buyout solicitation cannot be outright banned, tenants weighing whether to accept agreements must recognize the long-term trade-offs and consult objective guidance.
Nonprofit tenants’ rights clinics provide free counsel, such as:
The Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department assists with:
Per Los Angeles city data, landlords filed nearly 5,000 buyout lease agreements over 4 years, though actual incidence far exceeds documented cases. Koreatown, Echo Park, and Mid-Wilshire saw the most activity.
Potential legislative changes include mandating buyout solicitation logs, increasing penalties for unfiled agreements, and tightening standards around what constitutes “voluntary” acceptance by tenants.
Tenants can refuse buyouts without repercussion. They also can consult legal clinics on their rights and relocation assistance services on calculating comparable housing expenses when weighing potential agreements.
Removing rent-stabilized units through buyouts shrinks affordable stock, fuels rising rents beyond the pace of income growth, and ultimately displaces lower-income populations.
Owners should ensure good-faith negotiations, report agreements as legally required, and refrain from overly aggressive solicitation tactics bordering on harassment to avoid fueling public demands for more draconian policies.
As CRE investors, we aim to upgrade properties while tenants seek to maintain affordable CRE. Though opposing interests, both sides want practical solutions. Progress requires compassion along with facts. While numerically small, high-impact landlords set standards. I urge industry leaders to self-enforce ethical buyouts, as government overreach looms.
Let’s enhance transparency and accountability to filter out bad actors while rewarding conscientious owners repositioning communities responsibly. Open dialogue around measured reforms prevents reactionary policies from undermining returns and stability. By self-policing and addressing valid concerns, the commercial real estate community can balance revitalization with displacement through nuanced, private market solutions.
Schedule a consultation with me to discuss responsible investing strategies further amid this complex landscape of competing CRE priorities. My insider expertise helps clients navigate pricing power ethically while avoiding pitfalls that might attract burdensome regulations. I look forward to advising how you can upgrade your properties while respecting tenant concerns.
The information presented in articles on our website or affiliated platforms is exclusively intended for informational purposes. It’s crucial to grasp that this content does not constitute professional advice or services. We strongly recommend our readers to seek guidance from appropriately qualified experts, including, but not limited to, real estate and other attorneys, accountants, financial planners, bankers, mortgage professionals, architects, government officials, engineers, and related professionals. These experts can offer personalized counsel tailored to the specific nuances of your individual circumstances. Relying on the content without consulting the relevant experts may hinder informed decision-making. Consequently, neither Tolj Commercial Real Estate nor its agents assume any responsibility for potential consequences that may arise from such action.
