Washington Rent Increase Notice 2025: Landlords Must Give 90 Days' Written Notice Using the State Form

The statute sets 90 days as the minimum notice period; it doesn't override a longer notice period a specific local jurisdiction independently requires.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, 2025 Wash. Sess. Laws, c. 209, amending RCW 59.18]

That floor-not-ceiling structure means a landlord operating in multiple Washington cities can't apply a single statewide 90-day standard everywhere; a property inside a city with its own longer requirement, Seattle's 180-day rule being the clearest example, needs that longer local timeline instead.

The law requires the rent-increase notice to use substantially the form the statute itself provides, not simply any written notice that happens to state the new rent amount and an effective date 90 days out.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A landlord relying on a generic notice template, even one that technically gives 90 days' advance warning, risks noncompliance if that template doesn't substantially track the statute's own required form and content; hitting the timing deadline alone doesn't satisfy this separate form requirement.

Starting June 11, 2026, personal delivery alone completes service of the rent-increase notice, and a mailed copy, where one is required, can go by ordinary first-class mail sent from within Washington rather than needing certified mail.

[Cite: RCW 59.12.040, as referenced for notice delivery under H.B. 1217, effective 2026-06-11]

That change actually eased what had been a more demanding delivery process; a landlord who previously built certified-mail procedures into rent-increase notice delivery can now rely on standard first-class mail from an in-state sender, which simplifies the logistics without weakening the underlying 90-day timing requirement.

This 90-day notice requirement and the statute's separate rent-cap formula, 7% plus CPI or 10%, whichever is less, are 2 distinct obligations that both have to be satisfied for a rent increase to be fully compliant.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209; RCW 59.18.700]

A landlord who correctly calculates an increase within the applicable percentage cap, but delivers notice late or in a noncompliant format, hasn't actually satisfied the law; both the substantive cap and the procedural notice requirement have to be met independently, and failing either one creates exposure.

Since local jurisdictions can require notice periods longer than the statewide 90-day minimum, a landlord with properties in multiple Washington cities effectively manages several different minimum notice periods at once, not one uniform statewide number.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A property manager overseeing a multi-city portfolio benefits from a jurisdiction-specific notice calendar, flagging which cities require the standard 90 days and which, like Seattle, require something longer, rather than defaulting to a single statewide timeline that might fall short in a specific city.

The 90-day period runs from when the notice is actually delivered to the tenant, not from when the landlord drafts or finalizes the notice internally.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A landlord who finalizes a rent-increase notice internally well in advance, but delays actual delivery to the tenant, needs to count the 90 days from that later delivery date; building in extra internal lead time before the delivery itself helps avoid an unintentional shortfall in the tenant-facing notice period.

Since the delivery method itself changed in 2026 and the required notice period varies by jurisdiction, a landlord benefits from clearly documenting exactly how and when each rent-increase notice was delivered to a given tenant.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209; RCW 59.12.040]

A landlord who can show the specific delivery method used, personal delivery or first-class mail, and the exact date that occurred, is in a much stronger position if a tenant later disputes whether the full required notice period was actually provided.

Since the statute specifies that the notice has to substantially follow its own provided form, a landlord using that actual template, rather than an independently drafted notice, reduces the risk that a tenant successfully challenges the notice on content grounds.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A landlord building a standardized rent-increase notice process should start from the statute's own form language directly, adapting only what's genuinely specific to that tenancy, rather than drafting a notice from scratch and hoping it substantially matches what the law requires.

The 90-day notice requirement applies to a rent increase generally, not just to increases that approach the statutory percentage cap.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A landlord planning even a small, clearly-under-the-cap rent increase still has to meet this same 90-day notice and form requirement; the notice obligation isn't scaled down or waived simply because the increase itself is modest.

Given that some cities require notice well beyond the 90-day statewide floor, building an internal planning window of 100 or more days before any rent increase gives a landlord buffer room to confirm the correct jurisdiction-specific requirement before finalizing delivery.

[Cite: H.B. 1217, c. 209]

A property manager who waits until exactly 90 days before an intended increase, without first confirming whether the specific city requires more, risks discovering a longer local requirement too late to still meet it for that planned effective date.

The practical starting point is replacing any generic rent-increase letter template with one built directly from the statute's own required form language, confirmed against the current delivery-method rules.

Building a jurisdiction-specific notice-period reference, flagging which Washington cities require more than the 90-day statewide floor, keeps a multi-city portfolio from applying a single timeline that falls short in a specific location.