Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Senate Bill

SB 880: Residential property: transfers: institutional investors.

Passed one chamber Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

SB 880 is a senate bill introduced in the California Senate on January 12, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Residential property: transfers: institutional investors. Primary sponsor: Aisha Wahab (D). Most recent recorded action (June 30, 2026): June 30 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.).

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Aisha WahabPrimary sponsorDemocraticSenate10

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. June 30 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.)
  2. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
  3. Referred to Com. on JUD.
  4. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
  5. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 4166.) Ordered to the Assembly.
  6. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
  7. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 4084.) (April 28).
  8. Set for hearing April 28.
  9. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
  11. Referred to Com. on RLS.
  12. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 12.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page