AB 299 creates a special rule for people who take refuge in motels, hotels, or short‑term lodgings because their prior housing was made uninhabitable by a federally declared major disaster or a state emergency. The bill says such guests are not tenants — and their occupancy will not count as a new tenancy under California civil procedure — until they have lived in the lodging for 270 consecutive days.
The bill also imposes operational duties on lodging operators: a prominent written notice at or before check‑in when the operator believes the guest is disaster‑displaced, a confirmation form with two explicit choices for the guest, and a 72‑hour written notice requirement before requiring a guest to vacate after 30 days, subject to narrow exceptions (nonpayment, nuisance, property damage, or risk of harm). The measure applies only to disaster displacement and sunsets January 1, 2031.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes that guests displaced by a federal major disaster or a gubernatorial state emergency will not become tenants under state law until they have stayed 270 consecutive days in a motel, hotel, or qualifying short‑term lodging. It requires lodgings to give a written state notice and obtain a signed confirmation form, and to provide 72 hours' written notice before requiring vacatur after 30 days unless enumerated exceptions apply.
Who It Affects
Motels, hotels, and short‑term lodging properties that were registered or met the short‑term lodging definition on the disaster declaration date; operators and front‑desk staff who must deliver notices and keep confirmation records; people displaced by disasters who rely on temporary commercial lodging; local emergency managers and legal counsel advising lodging or tenants.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a uniform statewide rule during disasters that changes when ordinary landlord‑tenant protections attach, reducing immediately triggered tenant rights for displaced guests while adding administrative and legal compliance requirements for lodging operators. It shifts the short‑term housing landscape during disasters by clarifying occupancy status and limiting immediate tenancy claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 299 starts by defining the trigger events and the covered properties. A “disaster” for this law means either a federal major disaster declared by the President or a state emergency declared by the Governor under California law. “Lodging” covers motels and hotels and extends to short‑term rental properties, but only if the property either complied with a local registration/licensing requirement in effect on the disaster date or, where no local regime existed, met the state’s short‑term lodging definition that day.
The bill creates a single substantive rule about tenant status: if a guest is staying in lodging because their prior residence was substantially damaged, destroyed, or made uninhabitable by the disaster, the guest is not considered a tenant under Section 1940 and their presence does not create a new tenancy for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 until the guest has lived there for 270 consecutive days. Practically, that means eviction and other tenant‑rights mechanisms that depend on tenant status do not automatically apply during that initial period.To operationalize this, AB 299 requires the lodging operator, when it reasonably believes a guest is disaster‑displaced and the stay will exceed 30 days, to give a written notice in at least 12‑point type explaining the 270‑day rule and to provide a confirmation form offering two checkboxes: one confirming the guest is displaced by the disaster and accepts the 270‑day rule, the other denying displacement.
If a guest refuses to check either box, the operator may rely on other reasonable information to make the determination and is allowed to limit or refuse service. Once a qualifying guest has stayed more than 30 days, the operator must give at least 72 hours’ written notice before requiring them to leave, unless the guest fails to pay, disturbs others, damages property, or poses a safety risk.The statute is narrowly tailored to disaster displacement and explicitly excludes guests who are staying for other reasons.
It is also temporary: the law sunsets and is repealed on January 1, 2031. That sunset creates a finite window for this statewide approach to govern post‑disaster occupancy and recordkeeping, leaving open how local rules and future legislation will interact after repeal.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill delays the legal classification of a disaster‑displaced guest as a tenant until they have stayed 270 consecutive days in the lodging.
A lodging operator that believes a guest is disaster‑displaced must give a printed or electronic notice in at least 12‑point type explaining the 270‑day rule before or at check‑in for stays that could exceed 30 days.
Operators must provide a confirmation form with two explicit choices (displaced and acknowledge 270‑day rule, or not displaced), and may rely on other reasonable information or refuse service if the guest declines to answer.
If a qualifying displaced guest has stayed more than 30 days, the operator must give at least 72 hours’ written notice before requiring vacatur, except for nonpayment, nuisance, damage, or safety risk.
The entire statutory regime applies only to disaster displacement and automatically expires on January 1, 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: 'Disaster' and covered 'Lodging'
This paragraph pins the statute to specific emergency declarations: either a presidential major disaster declaration or a gubernatorial state emergency under Gov. Code §8625. That limits application to formally recognized disasters, not every local calamity. The lodging definition reaches traditional commercial establishments and certain short‑term rentals, but only if the property met local registration or the state short‑term lodging test on the disaster date—so hosts who began operating after the disaster or who were noncompliant are outside the law’s scope.
270‑day rule: when a guest becomes a tenant
This provision creates the core legal effect: disaster‑displaced guests are not tenants under Civil Code §1940 and their stay does not create a new tenancy under CCP §1161 until 270 consecutive days pass. The practical consequence is that operators can avoid immediate application of many tenant protections and the usual unlawful‑detainer framework for nearly nine months, unless other laws say otherwise. That raises immediate questions about which eviction remedies remain available and how courts should treat disputes that arise before the 270‑day mark.
Mandatory state notice at check‑in
When the operator believes the guest is disaster‑displaced and the stay could go past 30 days, the lodging must hand or send a written notice, at least 12‑point type, using prescribed language explaining the 270‑day rule and the 72‑hour limited vacatur requirement. The formatting requirement (size and written form) drives front‑desk processes and creates an evidentiary trail for later disputes about whether the guest was properly informed.
Confirmation form and operator options if guest refuses
After the notice, the operator must give a confirmation form that lets the guest affirmatively declare displacement or deny it. If the guest refuses to choose, the operator can rely on other reasonable information (for example, referrals from emergency services or insurance letters) to make the displacement determination. The operator also may limit or refuse the stay if the guest refuses to answer—this is a key leverage point that lets lodging manage occupancy but creates a discretionary factual inquiry that could produce disputes or accusations of improper exclusions.
72‑hour written vacate notice after 30 days with narrow exceptions
Once a qualifying guest has stayed beyond 30 days, the operator generally must provide written notice at least 72 hours before requiring them to vacate. The statute carves out four clear exceptions where immediate removal is permitted without the 72‑hour period: failure to pay charges, interference with other guests' quiet enjoyment, reasonable grounds to believe the guest has damaged or will damage property, and reasonable grounds to believe the guest poses a safety risk. Those exceptions track operational realities but will require operators to document nonpayment, nuisances, or threats to rely on an immediate removal.
Limited scope: only displacement by disaster
The law explicitly excludes guests who are staying for reasons unrelated to disaster displacement. That narrows the statute to its policy target—disaster survivors—but it also imposes a factual threshold operators must evaluate (was the guest’s prior housing made uninhabitable by the disaster?). That factual line may be contested in practice and requires guidance on acceptable proof and the meaning of terms like 'substantially damaged' or 'uninhabitable.'
Sunset and repeal
The statute automatically sunsets and is repealed on January 1, 2031. This temporary lifespan signals legislative intent for an interim, emergency‑era rule rather than a permanent restructuring of landlord‑tenant law. Operationally, lodgings and legal advisors must track the date because rights and obligations revert to pre‑existing law after repeal, potentially creating a 'cliff' for long‑term occupants who arrived during the statute's window.
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
- Disaster‑displaced individuals who use commercial lodging: gain a predictable period (up to 270 days) before being classified as tenants, which preserves access to short‑term shelter without triggering some tenant obligations and uncertainties.
- Tenant and disaster relief advocates: receive a statutory safeguard that prevents immediate conversion of emergency lodging into full landlord‑tenant relationships, reducing the chance that survivors lose temporary shelter due to immediate tenancy disputes.
- Local emergency managers and shelters coordinators: gain a clearer legal framework for using commercial lodging as part of emergency housing strategies, because the statute standardizes when tenant law attaches.
Who Bears the Cost
- Motels, hotels, and qualifying short‑term rental operators: must implement notice and confirmation workflows, retain records, and manage potentially long‑term displaced occupants that could reduce turnover and revenue from other guests.
- Front‑desk staff and property managers: face new administrative tasks and discretionary judgments about displacement status, increasing training needs and legal exposure for mistaken determinations.
- Local governments and courts: may see increased disputes over displacement status, eviction timing, and the scope of exceptions, which can create enforcement and adjudication burdens without an appropriation for additional resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting disaster survivors’ access to temporary lodging without converting every commercial shelter stay into a permanent tenancy that operators cannot manage: the bill delays tenant status to preserve short‑term housing stability for survivors, but in doing so it restricts operators’ usual property controls and creates discretionary factual gates that can either protect or exclude needy people depending on how operators apply them.
AB 299 solves a real post‑disaster problem—clarifying when commercial lodging counts as a tenant—but it creates practical and legal frictions. First, the statute depends heavily on factual determinations (was the guest displaced; did the property comply with local registration on the disaster date; is the guest causing a nuisance or danger) that are open to dispute.
Operators get discretion to rely on 'reasonable information' or to refuse service when a guest declines to answer the confirmation form, but the bill does not define acceptable proof standards or recordkeeping requirements beyond the written notice and form. That gap invites litigation over evidentiary thresholds and could produce inconsistent local outcomes.
Second, the economic trade‑offs are real. Hotels and short‑term hosts could end up with long‑staying displaced guests who reduce revenue from higher‑paying short reservations, and the 72‑hour vacatur limitation after 30 days limits quick turnover absent the enumerated exceptions.
Operators will need to balance humanitarian response with commercial viability; absent compensation or targeted relief, some operators may react by tightening acceptance policies or increasing check‑in screening, which could deny lodging to people who legitimately need it. Finally, the sunset creates a policy cliff: occupants who arrive during the statute’s effective window may find their legal status changes if the law expires, complicating long‑term housing transitions and continuity of services.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.