Facts: A residential landlord owned several rental properties. The city enacted an ordinance requiring annual inspections of all residential rental properties in order to identify substandard properties. Cities are precluded from enacting housing standards which conflict with those of the state.
Claim: The landlord sought to invalidate the ordinance, claiming the ordinance violated state housing standards since a city may not enact housing standards which conflict with those of the state.
Counterclaim: The city claimed the ordinance did not violate state standards since the inspections did not alter state standards, but only provides a method of their enforcement.
Holding: A California court of appeals held the ordinance does not violate state standards since the ordinance did not conflict with the state standards, but provided a method of enforcement of housing standards.
Also at issue in this case:
Facts: A residential landlord owned several rental properties. The city enacted an ordinance requiring annual inspections of all residential rental properties to identify substandard properties. The ordinance required inspectors to obtain consent from landlords and tenants prior to entering units for inspections. However, the ordinance allowed inspectors to enter properties without consent if the inspector had reason to believe a dangerous condition of the property required an immediate inspection for public safety.
Claim: The landlord sought to invalidate the ordinance, claiming the ordinance violated tenants’ right to privacy since the inspections allowed searches without a warrant.
Counterclaim: The city claimed the ordinance did not violate tenants’ right to privacy since landlord and tenant consent was a prerequisite to property inspections, unless an emergency threatened public safety.
Holding: A California court of appeals held the ordinance did not violate tenant privacy since inspectors were required to receive consent before entry, unless an emergency threatened public safety. [Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 CA4th 982]
It absolutely violates a tenant’s right to privacy. As a tenant, you don’t feel you can turn away the inspector — not without causing your landlord a big problem.