AB 806 makes any covenant, restriction, or condition in rental agreements or other tenancy instruments that effectively blocks a homeowner or resident in a mobilehome subdivision, cooperative, condominium for mobilehomes, or a resident‑owned park from installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a cooling system void and unenforceable. The bill also bars park owners and managers from imposing fees, naming a required vendor or product, claiming rebates or commissions, or forcing removal of cooling equipment, subject to narrow exceptions.
The statute defines cooling systems broadly (portable/window units, evaporative coolers, fans, heat pumps, and similar technologies) and protects tenancy from termination for exercising this right. It creates a private enforcement pathway: willful violators face actual damages and up to $2,000 in civil penalties, and the prevailing party can recover attorney’s fees.
The measure expands residents’ access to cooling—important for heat-safety—but leaves open practical questions about permits, electrical capacity upgrades, and who pays for necessary infrastructure work.
At a Glance
What It Does
Voids lease clauses and park rules that ban or restrict installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of cooling systems in mobilehomes, and prohibits management from charging fees, dictating equipment or contractors, claiming rebates, or requiring removal. Exceptions exist where the installation would violate law, a required permit is denied, or lot power cannot accommodate the unit as shown in writing by a government enforcement authority.
Who It Affects
Homeowners and residents living in mobilehome subdivisions, cooperatives, condominiums for mobilehomes, and resident‑owned parks; park owners/operators and homeowners association managers; local permitting authorities and utilities that oversee electrical capacity and permitting.
Why It Matters
The bill removes contractual barriers to in‑home cooling—reducing legal exposure for residents during heat events—and creates a low‑cap civil remedy to enforce the right. That shifts pressure onto park managers, permitting processes, and electrical infrastructure planning without specifying who pays for upgrades or how technical conflicts will be resolved.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 806 targets contractual and managerial barriers that have prevented mobilehome occupants from adding or updating cooling inside their homes. It treats any lease term, park rule, or similar instrument that effectively prohibits or restricts cooling installations as void.
The protection extends beyond typical rental agreements to cover subdivisions, cooperatives, condominiums for mobilehomes, and resident‑owned parks, so both privately run parks and resident governance structures are within the law’s reach.
The bill places direct limits on what owners and managers can require. They cannot impose fees tied to installing or using cooling equipment, they cannot force residents to use a particular system or contractor, and they cannot take rebates or commissions related to a resident’s purchase or installation.
The statute also forbids management from compelling removal of an existing cooling system or blocking replacement or upgrades, subject to narrowly drawn exceptions.Those exceptions matter in practice. Management may still stop an installation if it would break federal, state, or local law, if a required permit is denied, or if the lot’s electrical service cannot support the unit — but crucially the amperage problem must be demonstrated in writing by a governmental enforcement authority.
That requirement shifts certain technical determinations away from private parties and onto permitting or enforcement agencies, which creates both procedural clarity and potential delays.For enforcement, the bill creates a private right of action: a homeowner or resident can sue for willful violations and recover actual damages plus a civil penalty up to $2,000. The statute also awards reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, increasing the viability of private enforcement while exposing owners and managers to litigation risk.
The law protects tenants from losing their tenancy for exercising the right to install or use a permitted cooling system.What AB 806 does not do is allocate responsibility for infrastructure upgrades, specify how shared electrical systems should be upgraded, or outline timelines for permitting and written determinations. Those gaps are where most practical conflicts will arise: when a lot lacks capacity, when local permits are slow, or when safety concerns require alterations that implicate building codes and manufactured‑home standards.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids any covenant, restriction, or condition in tenancy instruments that effectively prohibits or restricts installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a cooling system in a mobilehome context.
Ownership or management cannot charge fees, require a specific system or contractor, claim rebates or commissions, or force removal of cooling systems, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.
Exceptions allow denial when the installation would violate law, when a required permit is not granted, or when lot amperage cannot accommodate the system — the amperage limitation must be shown in writing by a federal, state, or local enforcement authority.
A cooling system is defined broadly to include window/portable ACs, evaporative (swamp) coolers, fans, heat pumps, and other technologies that produce a cooling benefit, but such systems still must meet applicable health and safety requirements.
Willful violations expose the violator to actual damages and a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000, and the prevailing party in enforcement litigation is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Void any tenancy instrument that restricts cooling
This subsection sweeps broadly: any covenant, restriction, or condition in rental agreements or other instruments that 'effectively' prohibits or restricts cooling installations is declared void and unenforceable. Practically, that language targets both explicit bans and rules or clauses that have the same practical effect (for example, operational rules that make installation impracticable). Enforcement will depend on courts’ willingness to interpret 'effectively' to cover indirect barriers.
Management prohibitions — fees, vendor mandates, commissions, removal
This subsection lists specific actions managers cannot take: charging a fee, requiring a specific system or contractor, claiming rebates/commissions, or compelling removal or blocking upgrades. Those items operate as black‑letter prohibitions on common managerial controls (administrative fees, vendor deals, and architectural mandates). Managers will need to revise rules and contract templates and stop routine practices that monetize or limit residents’ cooling choices.
Narrow exceptions: law, permits, and documented amperage limits
The statute allows three defenses for management: illegality, a required permit that is not granted, and inadequate amperage to power an individual system. The amperage exception is tightly framed: the limitation must be 'demonstrated in writing by a federal, state, or local governmental enforcement authority.' That puts the burden on management to obtain formal, agency‑level documentation rather than relying on in‑house electricians or informal assessments.
Broad definition of 'cooling system' with a safety qualifier
The bill lists examples—portable and window units, evaporative coolers, fans, heat pumps—but deliberately leaves room for other technologies that 'reasonably' create cooling benefits. Every permitted system must comply with applicable health and safety requirements, which preserves regulators’ ability to block units that create fire or structural hazards while protecting commonplace cooling options.
Protections against tenancy termination
This short provision prevents owners or managers from terminating a resident’s tenancy for installing, upgrading, replacing, or using a cooling system allowed under the statute. It functions as an additional layer of protection, separate from contract invalidation, and gives residents an immediate shield against eviction‑style retaliation.
Private enforcement: damages, capped civil penalty, and attorney’s fees
Willful violators are liable for actual damages and face a civil penalty up to $2,000 payable to the homeowner or resident; the prevailing party in an enforcement action recovers reasonable attorney’s fees. The 'willful' standard and the $2,000 cap will shape litigation strategies: plaintiffs may seek statutory interpretation to define 'willful,' and defendants will evaluate whether small caps and the need to prove willfulness make settlement or policy changes preferable to protracted disputes.
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
- Mobilehome homeowners and residents (especially low‑income, elderly, and medically vulnerable individuals) — they gain clearer legal authority to add cooling inside their homes and protection from eviction or fees when doing so, improving heat resilience.
- Resident‑owned parks and cooperative boards that prioritize residents’ wellbeing — the law allows resident governance to support in‑home cooling without being undermined by older covenants or management practices.
- Tenant advocates and public health organizations — the statute creates an enforceable tool to reduce heat exposure in vulnerable housing stock, aligning legal remedies with heat‑safety programs.
- Independent cooling contractors and retailers — expanded ability for residents to purchase and install cooling systems may increase demand for a wider range of products and services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Park owners and professional managers — they lose some contractual control, may face litigation risk and compliance costs, and could be pressured to fund or coordinate electrical upgrades when lots lack capacity.
- Local permitting and enforcement authorities — the bill channels certain technical determinations (especially amperage limits) to governmental bodies, which could increase inspection and documentation workloads.
- Residents who choose to install systems — while protected from fees and eviction, residents typically must pay equipment and installation costs and may face higher electricity bills; the statute does not obligate owners to pay for upgrades.
- Utilities and infrastructure planners — if many installations exceed existing lot capacity, utilities may confront demand spikes or requests for service upgrades without a statutory cost‑allocation framework.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between guaranteeing individual access to life‑saving cooling inside private mobilehomes and protecting shared infrastructure, safety, and communal governance: enabling residents to install cooling systems solves an immediate public‑health problem but shifts technical, financial, and safety burdens onto managers, permitting authorities, utilities, and sometimes other residents, with no clear mechanism in the bill to allocate those costs or manage the technical tradeoffs.
The statute resolves a clear access problem but leaves open several thorny operational questions. First, electrical capacity is the practical pinch point: the law permits denial when amperage cannot be accommodated, but it requires a written finding from an enforcement authority.
That creates a procedural gatekeeper function for agencies that may not have been funded or staffed for a surge in determinations, and it does not say who pays when service must be upgraded.
Second, the bill’s enforcement mechanics are a double‑edged sword. Awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party and allowing up to $2,000 in civil penalties makes litigation an attractive enforcement route for advocates and may encourage rapid policy changes by owners.
At the same time, the 'willful' requirement for damages may raise pleading and proof burdens, producing uncertainty about when and whether managers will be held liable. Finally, the law preserves compliance with 'applicable health and safety' rules but gives no detail on interplays with federal manufactured housing standards, historic property controls, or HOA architectural review processes—areas where disputes over structural modifications, ventilation, or exterior equipment could still require adjudication.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.