For decades the standard East Bay leasing process was straightforward. Collect applications over a weekend, run background checks on the ones that looked promising, and pick the strongest package. That method assumed the owner could freely compare applicants and keep the screening fees from everyone who applied. As of January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill 2493 changed the rules that govern those fees. A landlord who charges an application screening fee must now follow one of two statutory processes. Continuing to batch applications, charge everyone, and select the preferred candidate without meeting either process is no longer a low-risk administrative choice.
The statute does not prohibit an owner from having screening criteria. It requires those criteria to be written, provided with the application, and applied in a defined order if the owner wants to keep the fees from applicants who are considered and denied. The practical result is that the old habit of waiting until several applications are in hand before deciding who gets the unit now collides with the fee rules.
The Two Pathways Under Civil Code § 1950.6
AB 2493 amended Civil Code section 1950.6. A landlord may charge an application screening fee only if, at the time the fee is collected, the landlord offers one of two processes.
The first process is sequential. Completed applications are considered in the order received. The landlord’s written screening criteria must be given to the applicant together with the application form. The first applicant who meets those criteria is approved. Applicants are not charged a fee unless or until their application is actually considered. If fees are inadvertently collected from concurrent applicants whose applications are never considered, those fees must be refunded within seven days (or applied to another unit at the applicant’s option). A landlord following this process is not required to refund the fee to an applicant who was considered and denied for failing the stated criteria.
The second process allows the landlord to review applications in any order and select among them. In exchange, the landlord must return the entire screening fee to every applicant who is not selected for the tenancy, regardless of the reason, within seven days of selecting a tenant or thirty days after the application was submitted, whichever comes first. Under this pathway the owner effectively pays for the screening of every applicant who is not chosen.
Most owners who want to retain the ability to keep fees from denied applicants therefore adopt the sequential process. That choice requires a clear written criteria document, a reliable method of recording when each application becomes complete, and a practice of stopping once the first qualified applicant is approved. Continuing to collect fees from later applicants after an earlier one has already qualified creates the refund obligation the statute was written to avoid.
Written Criteria and the Credit-Report Deadline
The sequential pathway only works if the criteria exist in writing and are provided before the fee is collected. The statute does not dictate the content of those criteria, but they must be established and disclosed. Typical elements include income relative to rent, credit history, rental history, and any criminal-history limitations permitted under fair-housing rules. Criteria that exist only in the owner’s head, or that change depending on which applicants have applied, do not satisfy the requirement. Once the criteria are written, they must be applied consistently in the order applications are received.
A separate obligation applies whenever a screening fee has been paid. The landlord must provide the applicant with a copy of the consumer credit report by personal delivery, mail, or email within seven days of receiving the report. The applicant no longer needs to request it. Waiting until a denial decision is made, or until the screening company finishes other parts of the file, can push the delivery past the deadline. The seven-day clock starts when the report is received, not when the owner finishes the full review.
The statute also requires an itemized receipt for the fee. The receipt must break out the out-of-pocket costs and the reasonable value of time spent obtaining and processing the information. A single total without itemization does not meet the requirement. The maximum fee remains the actual cost of the screening plus the reasonable value of time, subject to the long-standing CPI-adjusted ceiling that began at thirty dollars in 1998. As of recent calculations that ceiling has been in the low-to-mid sixties; owners should confirm the current adjusted figure rather than rely on an older number.
What Changes for Owners Who Previously Batched Applications
The practical adjustment is in the order of operations. Under the sequential process an owner reviews the first complete application against the written criteria. If it meets the criteria, the unit is offered and later applications are not considered (and should not have been charged). If it does not meet the criteria, the owner retains the fee, documents the denial, provides the credit report and itemized receipt within the required windows, and moves to the next complete application. The process continues until a qualified applicant is approved.
Owners who prefer to compare multiple applicants side-by-side can still do so, but only under the refund pathway. In that case every applicant who is not selected receives a full refund on the statutory timeline, and the owner absorbs the screening costs for those applicants. For a single vacancy that draws eight or ten applications, the difference between retaining fees only from considered-and-denied applicants and refunding every unselected applicant is material. The sequential process avoids that cost provided the owner actually stops once the first qualified applicant is approved and does not continue charging later applicants.
The statute also prohibits charging a screening fee when the landlord knows or should know that no rental unit is available or will not be available within a reasonable period. Collecting fees for a unit that has already been leased, or for a unit that will not be ready for months, falls outside the permitted window. The combination of the availability rule and the sequential-or-refund requirement means the old practice of accepting applications “just in case” and sorting them later now carries both a refund exposure and a potential violation for charging when no unit was available.
Record-Keeping That Makes the Sequential Process Defensible
The sequential process is only as strong as the records that show the order of completed applications. A timestamped online portal, a dated log of when each application and its supporting documents were received, and a copy of the written criteria provided to each applicant create the paper trail. Without those records an owner who approved the second or third applicant will have difficulty demonstrating that the first completed application did not meet the criteria. In a dispute the absence of contemporaneous documentation is usually resolved against the party who controlled the process.
Automated systems reduce the chance of missing the seven-day credit-report and receipt deadlines. Manual processes can comply, but they require a checklist that triggers the moment a report arrives and the moment a denial is issued. Holding secondary application fees in an authorization status rather than charging them until an application is actually reached for review is one practical way to avoid the inadvertent-collection refund obligation. Once an earlier applicant is approved, the later authorizations are simply released.
Full-service Oakland and East Bay leasing services already incorporate written criteria, sequential review, and automated delivery of reports and receipts so individual owners do not have to build the tracking system themselves. The same process applies across San Leandro, Hayward, Castro Valley, and other East Bay cities; local rent-control or just-cause rules may add additional lease terms after approval, but they do not change the statewide application-fee sequence.
How This Interacts with Other Screening Limits
AB 2493 governs fees and the order of consideration. It does not replace fair-housing rules, local source-of-income protections, or restrictions on the use of criminal history. Criteria that disproportionately exclude protected classes, or that treat housing vouchers differently from other lawful income, remain subject to those separate laws. A written criteria document that is clear and consistently applied helps on the fee side; it does not automatically satisfy fair-housing obligations. Owners should review criteria against both sets of rules before publishing them.
Reusable tenant screening reports remain available under Civil Code section 1950.1. A landlord who accepts a portable report that meets the statutory requirements may not charge an additional screening fee for that report. AB 2493 expressly states that its provisions do not prevent a landlord from accepting such reports. For owners who prefer not to manage the sequential-or-refund choice, accepting portable reports is a third practical path, provided the report is current and contains the information the owner’s criteria require.
In rent-stabilized cities the screening process also feeds into the later rent-cap and just-cause rules. An applicant approved under the sequential process still receives a lease that must comply with the applicable local ordinance. The screening decision itself, however, is governed by the statewide fee statute and fair-housing law, not by the local rent board. Keeping the two files separate—application sequence and fee documentation on one side, lease terms and rent adjustments on the other—avoids mixing compliance obligations. Our San Leandro property management work maintains that separation so a screening file does not become the source of a later rent-adjustment dispute.
A Practical Sequence for the Next Vacancy
Before the unit is listed, finalize the written screening criteria and attach them to the application form. Decide whether the sequential process or the refund process will be used, and configure the application system accordingly. If sequential, charge or authorize the fee only when an application is reached for review, and stop once the first applicant who meets the criteria is approved. Deliver the credit report within seven days of receipt and the itemized receipt at the time of the fee. Document the order of completed applications and the reason any considered applicant was denied.
If the refund process is chosen instead, budget for the screening costs of every unselected applicant and calendar the seven-day or thirty-day refund deadline. In either case, do not collect fees for a unit that is not available or will not be available within a reasonable time. After approval, the ordinary lease, deposit, and move-in steps proceed under the applicable local and state rules. Coordinated complete property management folds the screening sequence into the same system that later handles rent collection and maintenance, so the compliance file that begins with the application continues through the tenancy.
The Longer Pattern
AB 2493 is one more instance in which a previously informal leasing habit has been converted into a documented process with deadlines and refund exposure. The cost of writing clear criteria, timestamping applications, and delivering reports and receipts on time is modest. The cost of continuing to batch applications, charge every applicant, and select among them without following either statutory pathway is the refund obligation plus the risk of a complaint that the fees were collected improperly. Owners who treat screening as an administrative afterthought now carry more process risk than they did before 2025.
SLPM has managed East Bay residential property since 1978. We already run sequential screening against written criteria, deliver credit reports and itemized receipts within the statutory windows, and maintain the timestamped records that show the order of completed applications. If you would rather have the criteria, the application sequence, and the fee documentation handled as part of ordinary leasing instead of as a reaction to a complaint, start with a free quote.
Request your free property management quote here. We will tell you how your current screening process lines up with the sequential and refund pathways under AB 2493.