Nevada All-In Rent Law 2025: Fee-Free Payment Required

Assemblymember Venicia Considine introduced a version of this bill in the 2023 session, and Governor Lombardo vetoed it. Similar protections had also stalled in an Assembly committee back in 2021. The 2025 version passed and was signed, making it one of the more significant tenant-facing wins to clear a legislature that's produced several vetoed housing bills in recent sessions.

[Cite: This Is Reno, "Tenant protections"]

Rent has to be set forth as a single figure representing the maximum total amount of periodic rent that includes any mandatory fees, wherever a rental agreement states or refers to a rent amount, and a landlord can't then charge more than that disclosed figure.

[Cite: NRS 118A.200, subsections 6-7, as amended by Chapter 227, Statutes of Nevada 2025]

That's a structural requirement paired with an enforcement hook, not a labeling suggestion. A lease listing a base rent figure and a separate line of mandatory add-on charges elsewhere in the document doesn't satisfy this rule just because the math is technically disclosed somewhere in the paperwork, and a landlord who discloses one number and invoices a higher one is violating the statute regardless of how reasonable the extra charge seems on its own.

The single-figure requirement extends to every place rent is listed, which secondary compliance guidance interprets to include advertising channels such as listing sites and printed materials, not only the executed lease document.

[Cite: Yield PRO, "Nevada law reshapes apartment advertising and utility billing"]

A landlord running the same $1,400 base-rent listing across multiple platforms while a mandatory amenity or trash fee gets added at signing has a compliance gap in the advertising itself, independent of what the final lease says.

A landlord or their agent has to provide a tenant at least one method of paying rent, or any other fee or charge, that doesn't require the tenant to pay a fee for using it or to provide bank account information.

[Cite: Assembly Bill 121, Section 2]

That's two separate conditions in one requirement: no cost to use the method, and no requirement to hand over banking details as a condition of using it.

For an online payment portal, a landlord can only pass through the actual fee the portal operator charges, separately disclosed in the lease, rather than adding a markup on top of it.

[Cite: The Brenku Team, "AB 121 Nevada Explained: New 2025 Rental Law for Landlords"]

The fee-free method has to exist independently of whatever online system a landlord already runs; a portal charging a processing fee can still operate as an optional convenience, but it can't be the tenant's only option.

The statute bars requiring a tenant to provide bank account information as part of the fee-free method, which sits in tension with the fact that a personal check displays a tenant's bank routing and account numbers.

[Cite: Assembly Bill 121, Section 2]

Secondary compliance guidance treats checks and money orders as satisfying this requirement in practice, but the statute doesn't carve out checks by name. A landlord relying on checks as the fee-free option is following common industry interpretation, not a stated exception.

A landlord can bill water, natural gas, or electric service separately from the all-in rent figure only if the utility provider can't contract directly with the tenant, or the property uses a master-metered system covering multiple units.

[Cite: NRS 118A.200, subsection 8, as amended]

That's a conditions-based exception, not a blanket one. A landlord whose units are individually metered and whose utility providers can bill tenants directly doesn't get this exception just because the charge happens to be for a utility.

Even where the utility exception applies, a landlord can only pass through the actual cost of the utility, with no markup, and has to disclose in the lease why that utility is billed separately from the all-in rent figure.

[Cite: NRS 118A.200, subsection 8]

A landlord charging a flat estimated utility fee that doesn't track actual usage is exceeding what this exception permits, even in a building that otherwise qualifies for it.

The utility exception specifically covers water, natural gas, and electric service; flat-rate charges like trash pickup or sewer service don't fall within that carve-out and have to be folded into the single all-in rent figure.

[Cite: Yield PRO, "Nevada law reshapes apartment advertising and utility billing"]

That's a distinction worth flagging directly, since a landlord who's used to billing trash and sewer as separate line items alongside water and electric now has to treat them differently under this statute: fold them into the advertised rent, rather than continuing to list them as add-ons.

If a landlord rents a unit to a different applicant before completing the paying applicant's background check, the landlord has to refund the application fee, credit-report fee, or background-check fee to that first applicant.

[Cite: Assembly Bill 121, Section 4.5, subsection 1]

That closes a gap where an applicant pays for screening that never gets used because the unit was filled by someone else in the meantime.

A landlord can't collect an application fee, a credit-report fee, or a background-check fee for a minor who's a member of the household.

[Cite: Assembly Bill 121, Section 4.5, subsection 2]

That's a flat prohibition, not a refund-if-triggered rule; a landlord charging a per-occupant application fee that includes minor children is charging for something this statute doesn't permit at all.

Reporting on this law is consistent that the fee-free payment requirement reaches every tenant as of October 1, 2025, whether that tenant signed their lease before or after the law took effect.

[Cite: Nevada Current, "Tenant protection reining in hidden fees in rental leases takes effect Oct. 1"]

A landlord can't tell an existing tenant that the fee-free option only applies to new leases signed going forward; the payment-method requirement itself isn't tied to when the lease was executed.

The all-in rent disclosure requirement, by contrast, is tied to what a written rental agreement actually says, which points toward updating lease language at renewal or a new signing, rather than an immediate rewrite of every active lease the moment the law took effect.

[Cite: The Brenku Team, "AB 121 Nevada Explained: New 2025 Rental Law for Landlords"]

That's a different compliance timeline from the payment-method rule, and treating the two as one undifferentiated requirement is where a landlord is most likely to miss something: the payment option has to change now, while the lease-language fix follows the property's normal renewal cycle.

A tenant who wins a civil action over a violation of the rent-disclosure or overcharge rules is entitled to actual damages, equitable relief, costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and $250 in statutory damages for each violation that involved deception.

[Cite: Assembly Bill 121, Section 3]

That $250 figure is specific to deceptive violations; it isn't a flat per-violation penalty that applies automatically to every technical noncompliance, though the actual-damages and attorney's-fee components apply more broadly to a winning claim under this section.

The practical starting point is auditing every place rent is currently listed, listing platforms, printed materials, and the lease itself, to confirm the figure shown matches the actual maximum a tenant will be charged, with no separate mandatory fee added afterward.

For payment systems, confirming that at least one genuinely free option exists for every current tenant, not just new leases, closes the compliance gap that carries the most immediate exposure, since that requirement doesn't wait for a renewal cycle the way the pricing-disclosure fix does.