New National Consumer Law Center report provides detailed breakdown of recently enacted rules
States Move to Rein in Apartment Landlord Fees
A rising tide of state-level action is reshaping the environment for so-called junk fees imposed by apartment landlords, marking a pronounced shift in how these charges are regulated in multifamily markets. The momentum comes as federal efforts to close loopholes around ancillary rental charges have slowed, leaving state lawmakers to respond to practices that have drawn sustained criticism.
A new National Consumer Law Center report provides a detailed breakdown of these recently enacted rules and highlights the competitive patchwork of solutions now forming across the country.
Application and Screening Fees
The most aggressive approaches target the origins of the rental relationship—application and tenant screening fees. Vermont has outright banned landlords from charging application fees for residential dwellings, creating a hard stop on such costs for prospective tenants.
Other jurisdictions have chosen caps and refund requirements. California restricts application screening fees to actual costs, not exceeding $30 and requires that landlords return any unused portion and provide a copy of any credit report if a screening fee is paid.
New York similarly prohibits most upfront fees at the beginning of a tenancy except for capped background and credit check costs. Landlords in New York must also provide tenants with documentation of any fees assessed, including reports and receipts.
In Minnesota, strict procedures bar charging a screening fee unless a unit is genuinely available, and all must be refunded if no screening is performed or the tenant is not selected.
Screen Your Tenant Today!
Gain peace of mind with AAOA’s credit, criminal, and eviction reports.
Chipping Away at Ongoing Costs
Beyond the search phase, states have moved to constrain recurring or “hidden” fees during tenancy. For example, Colorado prohibits late fees unless the payment is more than seven days late, capping total late fees at $50 or 5% of past-due rent, whichever is less and forbids interest on late fees.
Oregon’s statutes tie permissible late fees to detailed lease terms and set hard maximums depending on the charge’s structure.
Rhode Island law compels leases to disclose any non-rent fees in the same section as the rent itself, and stipulates that notification of changes must be given at least 40 days in advance.
In Nevada, the law now prohibits any charge assessed to tenants for repairs, maintenance or tasks the landlord is already obligated to perform, with few exceptions. Nevada also bars “convenience fees” for rent payments if no fee-free alternative method is offered.
Pushing for Transparency and Disclosure
Some state regulations focus on requirements for fee transparency and documentation. New Mexico mandates that landlords provide plain-language disclosure of the base rent with an itemized listing of all anticipated charges at the time of listing—well before tenants agree to pay any fee or sign a lease.
Utah requires that all non-rent expenses and screening criteria be laid out in writing before any payment is taken.
In Hawaii and Maryland, the law compels the prompt refund of any unused screening fees and entitles tenants to receipts and copies if out-of-pocket expenses are paid.
Local Action and Increasing Compliance Challenges
The NCLC’s report spotlights state approaches trending toward hard bans or strict restrictions with narrow exceptions, accompanied by notice, documentation and refund requirements. Multiplying local efforts—seen in counties like Montgomery, Maryland and cities such as Olympia, Washington—illustrate how municipal policymakers are also stepping in where statewide rules may fall short.
Although enforcement actions and lawsuits have already begun to test these provisions, the current landscape remains fragmented. For multifamily investors and operators, the upshot is a rapidly evolving array of compliance obligations, documentation and fee structures—a terrain where local detail increasingly matters.
With the federal government’s retreat from the issue, states are now the primary actors, potentially writing the next chapter in the relationship between landlords and tenants and in the contested middle ground of non-rent charges.
Source: GlobeSt.
Accessibility