California Landlord Compliance · Screen an applicant
California Rental Screening Fee Rules 2025: What Changed
An applicant who pays a screening fee for a unit that was never really available, or who never hears back about whether they got the place, has been a recurring complaint in California rental markets. AB 2493, in force since January 1, 2025, targets exactly that gap by tying screening fees to actual unit availability and adding a hard deadline for refunds and credit report disclosure.
Written by PlatuniThe short answer
- 1.A landlord can't charge a screening fee when they know, or should know, that no rental unit is available, or won't be available within a reasonable period.
- 2.Under the fee-based screening process, a landlord must refund the entire screening fee to any applicant who isn't selected, regardless of the reason, within 7 days of selecting a tenant or 30 days of the application being submitted, whichever comes first.
- 3.A landlord must give the applicant a copy of their own consumer credit report within 7 days of receiving it, automatically, without the applicant having to ask.
- 4.AB 2493 doesn't replace or override the separate reusable screening report option under Civil Code section 1950.1; a landlord can still accept a portable report an applicant brings instead of running fee-based screening.
- 5.The law amends Civil Code section 1950.6 and has been in force since January 1, 2025.
- 6.These specific rules apply to the fee-based screening path. A landlord accepting a reusable report under the separate statute is operating under different rules.
This covers
- · California residential rental applications where a landlord charges a screening fee under Civil Code section 1950.6
- · Applicants who pay a screening fee, whether or not they're ultimately selected for the unit
- · Fee-based screening specifically, as distinct from the reusable screening report process
Usually exempt
- · Situations where a landlord accepts a reusable, portable screening report under Civil Code section 1950.1 instead of running its own fee-based screening
- · Units genuinely available, or reasonably about to become available, at the time the fee is charged, which is the baseline condition this law regulates rather than an exemption from it
- · Other aspects of tenant screening, such as fair housing and discrimination rules, which are governed by separate statutes not touched by AB 2493
1. No fee without an available unit
AB 2493 prohibits a landlord from charging a screening fee when the landlord knows, or should have known, that no rental unit is available at the time, or will become available within a reasonable period. This targets a specific practice: collecting screening fees from applicants for a unit that isn't actually on offer, whether because it's already been rented, taken off the market, or was never realistically going to be available to that applicant.
[Cite: AB 2493, Stats. 2024, ch. 966, amending Civil Code section 1950.6]
The statute doesn't define exactly how long "a reasonable period" is. That's a judgment call left to the circumstances of a given listing rather than a fixed number of days written into the law. A property manager charging fees for units still weeks or months from being ready should be prepared to justify that timeline as reasonable if it's ever questioned.
2. The refund deadline for non-selected applicants
Under the fee-based screening process, a landlord must return the entire screening fee to any applicant who isn't selected for tenancy, regardless of the reason for not selecting them, within 7 days of choosing a tenant or 30 days of when the application was submitted, whichever comes first.
[Cite: AB 2493, Stats. 2024, ch. 966, amending Civil Code section 1950.6]
The "whichever occurs first" structure matters operationally. If a landlord fills the unit quickly, the 7-day clock starts running from that selection date for every applicant who wasn't chosen, even if it's well inside the 30-day window. A landlord who's slow to fill a unit still owes refunds by the 30-day mark regardless of whether a final selection has been made.
4. How this fits alongside reusable screening reports
California has a separate mechanism, under Civil Code section 1950.1, that lets an applicant bring a portable, reusable screening report to multiple rental applications instead of paying a new fee for each one. AB 2493 doesn't disturb that system. The chaptered text is explicit that nothing in the new fee-based rules prevents a landlord from accepting a reusable screening report under that separate section.
[Cite: AB 2493, Stats. 2024, ch. 966, amending Civil Code section 1950.6, cross-referencing Civil Code section 1950.1]
In practice, this means a landlord has two distinct paths available. Accepting an applicant's existing reusable report is governed by section 1950.1's own rules. Running the landlord's own fee-based screening triggers the availability, refund, and disclosure requirements described in this article. A landlord who offers both options to applicants needs to track which rules apply to which applicant based on which path was actually used.
5. What "reasonable period" leaves unresolved
It's worth being direct about a gap in the statute rather than filling it with a guess. Neither the chaptered bill text nor the secondary compliance guides checked for this article define a specific number of days or weeks that counts as a "reasonable period" for a unit to become available. This is left as a factual question rather than a bright-line rule.
[Cite: AB 2493, Stats. 2024, ch. 966, amending Civil Code section 1950.6]
A property manager charging screening fees for units with a longer runway before move-in should document the basis for treating that timeline as reasonable, lease-end dates, renovation schedules, or similar concrete facts, rather than relying on an assumption that any advance timeline automatically qualifies.
6. What property managers should check in their process
Three parts of an existing screening workflow are worth auditing against these rules specifically. First, whether fee collection is tied to a confirmed, or realistically near-term, unit availability rather than happening automatically whenever an application comes in. Second, whether the refund process for non-selected applicants is triggered reliably, by either the selection date or the 30-day mark, since missing either trigger point creates exposure. Third, whether credit report delivery to applicants happens automatically within 7 days as a built-in step, rather than depending on an applicant remembering to ask.
A screening process that already handles all three correctly for the fee-based path, and separately tracks reusable-report applicants under the other statute, is likely already compliant with what AB 2493 requires.
7. What happens if these rules aren't followed
The statute itself, as chaptered, doesn't spell out a specific dollar penalty or statutory damages figure for a violation, and no independent source checked for this article identifies one either. What's clear is that this is a legal requirement with real compliance exposure, not a suggested best practice, so a landlord who doesn't follow the availability, refund, or disclosure requirements should expect to face a dispute over noncompliance rather than assume the absence of a listed dollar figure means the rule is unenforceable. A qualified California housing attorney is the right resource for evaluating specific exposure in an actual dispute.
[Cite: AB 2493, Stats. 2024, ch. 966, amending Civil Code section 1950.6]
Reading this as a tenant?
If you paid a screening fee and weren't selected for the unit, your landlord owes you a full refund within 7 days of choosing someone else, or within 30 days of when you applied, whichever happens first. You're also entitled to a copy of your own credit report automatically, without having to ask for it, within 7 days of the landlord getting it.
Sources and review
- 1.AB 2493, Chapter 966, Statutes of 2024, chaptered text, amending Civil Code section 1950.6.
Substantive review means an editor re-checked each cited section against the current code, not that the page was re-saved. Corrections: compliance@platuni.com.
Frequently asked questions
Can a landlord charge a screening fee for a unit that isn't available yet?
Only if the unit will become available within a reasonable period. If the landlord knows, or should know, no unit is available or will be within that reasonable window, charging a fee isn't allowed.
How long does a landlord have to refund a screening fee to a non-selected applicant?
Within 7 days of selecting a tenant, or 30 days of when the application was submitted, whichever comes first.
Do I have to ask for a copy of my credit report, or does the landlord have to send it automatically?
The landlord has to send it automatically, within 7 days of receiving it, without the applicant needing to request it.
Does this replace the reusable screening report system?
No. AB 2493 doesn't affect a landlord's ability to accept a reusable, portable screening report under the separate statute governing those reports. It specifically governs the fee-based screening path.
What counts as a "reasonable period" for a unit to become available?
The statute doesn't define a specific timeframe. It's treated as a factual question based on the circumstances rather than a fixed number of days.
What happens if a landlord doesn't follow these rules?
The statute doesn't specify a particular dollar penalty, but this is a legal requirement, not a suggestion. A landlord facing a dispute over noncompliance should consult a qualified California housing attorney.