AB 1695 adds a new chapter to the Health and Safety Code that prohibits smoking of tobacco products in any indoor area — including individual units and common spaces — of a "state‑subsidized multiunit housing development" when the development’s certificate of occupancy is issued on or after January 1, 2027. The bill draws its definitions of "smoking" and "tobacco product" from cross‑references to the Business and Professions Code and defines "state‑subsidized" to include properties financed in whole or in part by state grants or other state funding, including low‑income housing tax credits.
For owners, developers, and managers of affordable housing, the bill creates a narrow but consequential compliance rule: new state‑funded multiunit projects must be delivered as smoke‑free inside. The change will require updates to construction specifications, lease language, tenant notices, and operating policies; the text does not set out enforcement, penalties, or tenant transition rules, leaving those practical questions to owners and implementing agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that any multiunit housing development financed in whole or part with state funds be smoke‑free indoors if its certificate of occupancy is issued on or after January 1, 2027. It incorporates existing statutory definitions of "smoking" and "tobacco product" by reference to the Business and Professions Code.
Who It Affects
Developers, owners, and property managers of state‑subsidized multiunit housing (including projects using state grants or state‑administered LIHTC funding), as well as tenants in those developments and agencies that administer state housing funds.
Why It Matters
The bill applies a statewide indoor smoking prohibition specifically to new state‑funded affordable housing, shifting compliance and policy duties onto the affordable housing sector and setting a policy expectation for how state dollars will shape resident living conditions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1695 targets the indoor smoking environment in multiunit developments that received state financing. It defines a covered project as any property with two or more units that was financed in whole or in part by state grants or other state funding — an explicit call‑out includes low‑income housing tax credits.
The prohibition is tied to the certificate of occupancy date: only developments receiving that certificate on or after January 1, 2027 are covered.
The operative prohibition is concise: smoking tobacco products is not allowed in any indoor area of a covered development, and the bill explicitly lists both individual dwelling units and common areas. Rather than create new substance definitions in the bill, lawmakers rely on existing Business and Professions Code language for what counts as "smoking" and a "tobacco product," meaning the practical scope depends on those cross‑references.Notably, AB 1695 does not include implementing rules.
It does not create a state enforcement agency role, establish civil penalties, set notice or cure periods for tenants, or specify whether violations give rise to lease termination. That omission means owners and funders will have to translate the statutory ban into lease language, tenant notices, building design choices, and operational procedures — or await guidance from state housing agencies.For mixed‑finance and transit‑oriented projects that layer state funds with local or federal sources, the definition of "state‑subsidized" makes many such projects subject to the ban even if only a portion of the development used state funds.
Conversely, existing properties with certificates of occupancy issued before January 1, 2027 are outside the statute's coverage, limiting the bill’s reach to new construction or newly permitted buildings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The ban applies only to developments with two or more units that received a certificate of occupancy on or after January 1, 2027.
The statute defines "state‑subsidized" to include any project financed in whole or in part by state grants or other state funding and explicitly mentions low‑income housing tax credits.
The prohibition covers all indoor spaces of a covered development, specifically including individual dwelling units and common areas.
AB 1695 pulls the technical meanings of "smoking" and "tobacco product" by reference to the Business and Professions Code, so the practical scope depends on those existing definitions.
The bill contains no express enforcement mechanism, civil penalty scheme, tenant notice requirements, or transitional rules for existing leases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of "Smoking" by cross‑reference
Subdivision (a)(1) adopts the statutory definition of "smoking" from subdivision (c) of Section 22950.5 of the Business and Professions Code rather than restating it. Practically, that means whether activities like vaping or use of certain devices are covered will track how the Business and Professions Code defines "smoking"; owners and counsel will need to consult that provision to understand the full operational scope.
Who counts as state‑subsidized multiunit housing
Subdivision (a)(2) defines covered properties as multiunit developments (two or more units) that were financed in whole or in part with state grants or other state funding, and specifically lists low‑income housing tax credits. This language captures mixed‑finance deals where just a portion of the capital stack comes from state sources, broadening the category beyond projects that are fully state funded.
Definition of "Tobacco product" by cross‑reference
Subdivision (a)(3) refers to subdivision (d) of Section 29950.5 of the Business and Professions Code for the meaning of "tobacco product." Because the bill defers to that existing statutory definition, the inclusion of products such as e‑cigarettes or heated tobacco devices depends on current Business and Professions Code language, which implementers must check.
Indoor smoking prohibition tied to certificate of occupancy date
Subdivision (b) contains the operative rule: smoking tobacco products is prohibited in any indoor area — including individual units and common areas — of a covered development with a certificate of occupancy issued on or after January 1, 2027. The provision’s CO cutoff makes the rule prospective and focused on new construction or newly permitted spaces; it does not retroactively change occupancy rules for older developments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents with respiratory vulnerabilities and children — they gain smoke‑free indoor living spaces in new state‑funded developments, reducing secondhand smoke exposure.
- Public health agencies and advocates — the bill advances a statewide policy expectation that state dollars support tobacco‑free indoor environments in affordable housing.
- Property owners and managers of new builds who implement smoke‑free design from the start — they avoid retrofit costs and reduce smoke‑related maintenance and turnover expenses for units delivered under the rule.
- Insurers and underwriters for housing portfolios — reduced fire risk and lower smoke damage claims in newly covered properties could improve loss profiles for eligible developments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Developers and builders receiving state funding — they must incorporate smoke‑free policies into construction specs, ventilation design, and resident amenities during project planning and budgeting.
- Owners and property managers — they absorb ongoing compliance costs: signage, lease updates, tenant communications, monitoring and enforcement, and potential legal work to integrate the ban into leases.
- Residents who smoke in covered developments — they may face relocation pressures, lease restrictions, or the need to change behavior without the bill specifying accommodations or transition rules.
- State housing agencies and fund administrators — although the bill does not create explicit administrative duties, agencies will likely need to update funding agreements and underwriting checklists, creating indirect administrative costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate policy goals against each other: protecting vulnerable residents from secondhand smoke versus avoiding rules that create enforcement burdens and possible displacement for low‑income tenants. AB 1695 solves the exposure problem for new state‑funded housing but leaves the hardest questions — enforcement, tenant transitions, and mixed‑finance boundaries — unresolved, forcing implementers to choose between health protection and harm from aggressive enforcement.
The bill’s brevity is both its clarity and its complication. By tying coverage to the certificate of occupancy date, the legislature limits the rule to new or newly permitted buildings, but it leaves open how to treat phased projects, substantial rehabilitations, or units that change funding sources post‑construction.
Mixed‑finance projects are susceptible to uneven coverage: a single source of state funding can pull an entire building into the statute, but the bill does not say whether only state‑funded portions must be smoke‑free or whether the ban applies building‑wide.
Implementation and enforcement are undefined. AB 1695 does not create a state enforcement mechanism, outline notice or cure periods, nor specify civil penalties or eviction rules for violations.
That silence forces landlords to choose how strictly to enforce bans within leases and may prompt state housing agencies to issue guidance or incorporate contractual requirements into funding agreements. Those implementation choices have distributional consequences: strict enforcement risks tenant displacement, while lax enforcement undermines the public‑health goal.
Finally, because the definitions of "smoking" and "tobacco product" are borrowed from other code sections, changes to those cross‑referenced provisions or interpretive disputes about whether devices such as e‑cigarettes are covered could materially alter the statute’s practical reach.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.