CA SB 880
deadResidential property: transfers: institutional investors.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 880 pass?
No. CA SB 880 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-06-30): June 30 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.)
What is CA SB 880 about?
Prospective federal law, the federal 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) , prohibits a large institutional investor from purchasing, or entering into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home, except as specified. If the above-described federal legislation is enacted, this bill would authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, or county counsel to coordinate with the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the United States Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in the implementation of federal regulations, as described, related to violations of federal law involving tenants residing in properties owned, maintained, and managed by institutional investors. Existing law establishes various real estate disclosure requirements applicable to the transfer of residential real property. Before entering into specified transactions relating to residential real property, including an individual sale of residential real property, this bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to provide written notice of the institutional investor's intent to sell the property to each tenant at least 90 days before advertising the residential real property for sale in a multiple listing service, as specified. The bill would require the notice to include, among other things, a statement that the tenant has the right to remain in possession until the end of the lease term, except as specified. For sales of residential real property containing 1 to 4 residential dwelling units by an institutional investor, this bill would require the institutional investor to, among other things, only accept offers from prospective owner-occupants, including any tenant in possession, during the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale. The bill would require the prospective owner-occupant to submit with their offer an affidavit or declaration executed under penalty of perjury stating they are purchasing the residential real property as an owner-occupant, as described. The bill would subject a prospective owner-occupant or an institutional investor to criminal or civil liability. The bill would also require an institutional investor that sells residential real property to record, or cause to be recorded, a certification of compliance under penalty of perjury, as specified. The bill would require the failure to record the certificate of compliance to result in a civil penalty, as described. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney, and tenant to bring an action in the superior court to enforce the bill's provisions, and upon prevailing, would allow for injunctive relief and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would require its provisions to be construed consistently with the above-described federal act, if enacted, and would make its provisions severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA SB 880?
Wahab is the primary sponsor of CA SB 880.
Description
Prospective federal law, the federal 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) , prohibits a large institutional investor from purchasing, or entering into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home, except as specified. If the above-described federal legislation is enacted, this bill would authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, or county counsel to coordinate with the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the United States Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chair of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in the implementation of federal regulations, as described, related to violations of federal law involving tenants residing in properties owned, maintained, and managed by institutional investors. Existing law establishes various real estate disclosure requirements applicable to the transfer of residential real property. Before entering into specified transactions relating to residential real property, including an individual sale of residential real property, this bill would require an institutional investor, as defined, to provide written notice of the institutional investor's intent to sell the property to each tenant at least 90 days before advertising the residential real property for sale in a multiple listing service, as specified. The bill would require the notice to include, among other things, a statement that the tenant has the right to remain in possession until the end of the lease term, except as specified. For sales of residential real property containing 1 to 4 residential dwelling units by an institutional investor, this bill would require the institutional investor to, among other things, only accept offers from prospective owner-occupants, including any tenant in possession, during the first 30 days after the property is listed for sale. The bill would require the prospective owner-occupant to submit with their offer an affidavit or declaration executed under penalty of perjury stating they are purchasing the residential real property as an owner-occupant, as described. The bill would subject a prospective owner-occupant or an institutional investor to criminal or civil liability. The bill would also require an institutional investor that sells residential real property to record, or cause to be recorded, a certification of compliance under penalty of perjury, as specified. The bill would require the failure to record the certificate of compliance to result in a civil penalty, as described. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also authorize the Attorney General, district attorney, city attorney, and tenant to bring an action in the superior court to enforce the bill's provisions, and upon prevailing, would allow for injunctive relief and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would require its provisions to be construed consistently with the above-described federal act, if enacted, and would make its provisions severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2026-01-12
- Latest action
- 2026-06-30 — June 30 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.)
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Wahabauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-06-30
June 30 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.)
committee-failure,committee-passage-unfavorable
2026-06-11
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-05-18
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2026-05-07
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2026-05-07
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 4166.) Ordered to the Assembly.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-04-30
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
reading-1,reading-2
2026-04-29
From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 4084.) (April 28).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-10
Set for hearing April 28.
2026-04-08
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2026-03-25
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-02-11
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2026-01-13
From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 12.
2026-01-12
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar
2026-04-28 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Niello: yes
- Laird: yes
- Allen: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Stern: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Wiener: yes
Consent Calendar 2nd
2026-05-07 · pass · 36-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Strickland: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Laird: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Becker: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Choi: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Limón: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Allen: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Stern: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Jones: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Grove: other
- Gonzalez: other
- Alvarado-Gil: other
- Niello: other
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-30 · fail · 4-3
Member-level votes (12)
- Harabedian: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Dixon: no
- Sanchez: no
- Macedo: no
- Stefani: other
- Bauer-Kahan: other
- Pacheco: other
- Zbur: other
- Papan: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 880. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.