Rent control has been praised, criticized, and endlessly debated—but its influence on local housing markets is hard to ignore. As rents climb in cities from New York to San Francisco, the push to limit rent hikes is gaining fresh momentum. Looking back at the roots of rent control in the U.S. and diving into real-world data, a complex picture emerges: one where tenants, landlords, and the broader housing market all feel the effects in surprising ways.
What Is Rent Control?
Rent control is a government policy that limits how much landlords can charge for rent or how much they can raise rent on existing tenants. Typically enacted at the city or county level, these laws cap annual rent increases for certain residential units. The goal is to keep living costs stable and protect tenants – especially moderate-income and elderly residents – from being priced out of their homes.
Rent control policies vary widely. Many modern versions are technically rent stabilization programs – they allow periodic increases by a fixed percentage or inflation rate, rather than an indefinite rent freeze. For example, a law might permit landlords to raise the rent by at most 3% per year for sitting tenants.
It’s important to note that rent control is not very common in the United States today. As of 2024, only about 305 municipalities nationwide have some form of rent control on the books. Only a handful of states allow local rent control at all – California, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C. In contrast, at least 30 states explicitly ban cities from enacting rent control.
A Brief History of Rent Control in the U.S.
The first rent control measures appeared during World War I (1917–1918) when wartime shortages and inflation led to public outcry over “rent profiteering.” Some cities and states imposed temporary rent limits and eviction moratoriums around 1919–1924 to curb skyrocketing rents.
The modern concept of rent control took hold during World War II. In 1942, the federal government enacted nationwide rent controls as an emergency measure to combat wartime inflation and housing shortages. At the peak, roughly 80% of U.S. rental housing was under rent control during the war.
Rent control largely disappeared in the post-war boom, but it resurfaced during the 1970s amid high inflation and housing shortages. Cities with severe housing pressure – including New York and cities in California – began adopting rent stabilization ordinances.
By the early 1980s, dozens of cities had rent control, but a backlash was brewing. In the 1980s and 1990s, many states passed laws to prohibit any new local rent control. In 1994, Massachusetts voters approved a statewide referendum to eliminate rent control, immediately abolishing rent control in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline.
Entering the 2000s, rent control remained in effect only in a few jurisdictions (notably New York City and parts of California, New Jersey, and D.C.), and it was often tightly limited to older buildings.
Today, we are seeing a resurgence of interest in rent regulation as housing costs have soared. In 2019, Oregon made history by becoming the first state to enact a statewide rent control law. That same year, California passed AB 1482, imposing a statewide rent cap and eviction protections.
Impact on Rental Prices and Affordability
A primary goal of rent control is to make rents more affordable for tenants. In the short run, rent regulation clearly succeeds in keeping prices lower for tenants who live in regulated units. By capping annual increases, tenants are protected from sudden rent spikes and can often pay significantly less than the market rate over time.
For example, before rent control ended in Cambridge, MA, rent-controlled apartments were renting at 25–40% below the rates of similar uncontrolled units nearby. In New York City, the median rent-stabilized apartment was around $1,500 a month, which is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the median free-market rent in the city.
However, the story becomes more complex when looking at the overall rental market. While controlled units have lower rent growth, economists have long cautioned that stringent rent controls can lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled segment of the market over time.
A Stanford study of an expansion of rent control in San Francisco (1994–2016) provides concrete evidence: tenants who gained rent control saved money, but citywide market rents rose about 5% higher than they would have without rent control because the policy constrained housing supply. In other words, rent control made renting cheaper for protected tenants but slightly increased rents for newcomers and those not covered by the rules.
Impact on Housing Supply
Perhaps the biggest concern raised by economists and developers about rent control is its impact on the housing supply – that is, the number of rental units available on the market. There are a few key ways rent control can shrink the supply of rentals:
Conversion to Other Uses
Landlords may remove units from the rental market to escape rent regulations. For example, they might convert apartments to condos for sale, or choose to occupy units themselves rather than rent at controlled prices. This happened notably in San Francisco – a study found that landlords of controlled buildings responded by converting rentals to owner-occupied housing or other uses, reducing the rental housing supply by 15% for the group of buildings covered by the expanded rent control.
Less New Construction
Developers might be hesitant to build new rental housing in a city known for strict rent control. In St. Paul, Minnesota, a 2021 rent control ordinance initially applied even to new buildings with a hard 3% cap. The result: new apartment construction plunged. In the year after the policy passed, St. Paul saw a 48% drop in permits for new multi-family housing.
Reduced Upgrades or Expansion
Property owners under rent control might choose not to expand or invest in their properties since the potential return on investment is limited. Over decades, this can mean a city adds fewer secondary units or conversions than it otherwise might.
It’s worth noting that most modern rent control policies try to mitigate these supply effects by including provisions like vacancy decontrol (allowing rents to reset to market when a tenant leaves) and new construction exemptions (so developers can build new units without caps).
Impact on Tenant Stability and Mobility
One unquestionable benefit of rent control is that it helps incumbent tenants stay in their homes longer. By limiting rent hikes, rent-controlled tenants are far less likely to be priced out or forced to move due to unaffordable increases.
A study in New York City found that the average rent-stabilized tenant had lived in the same apartment for 12 years, whereas the average renter in an unregulated unit had a tenure of only about 6 years. That’s double the length of stay. Likewise, the San Francisco rent control study documented a 20% reduction in mobility among tenants covered by rent control.
This greater stability has many positive ripple effects for families and communities. Long-term tenants can establish deeper roots: they patronize local schools, build social ties with neighbors, and aren’t constantly worrying about having to find new housing.
However, there is a flip side: reduced mobility can lead to inefficiencies or “mismatch” in housing allocation. Because tenants have a strong incentive to stay in a rent-controlled apartment even if their life circumstances change, you sometimes get situations like empty-nesters still occupying a multi-bedroom unit that would be ideal for a family.
Another issue is that new renters have fewer choices – with incumbent tenants staying put, fewer units turn over and come onto the market. For instance, the vacancy rate in rent-stabilized apartments in NYC is extremely low (often under 2% in normal times).
Impact on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change
Rent control’s relationship with gentrification is complex. On one hand, by preventing sudden rent hikes and evictions, rent regulations can slow the displacement of lower-income residents from gentrifying neighborhoods.
However, recent research indicates that over the long term, strict rent control may actually fuel certain aspects of gentrification. The Stanford study of San Francisco found that rent control “likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco.” When landlords responded to rent caps by converting units to condos or other uses (reducing the rental supply), it ultimately opened the door for higher-income newcomers to purchase or occupy those units.
A dramatic real-world example comes from Cambridge, Massachusetts. When rent control was abolished there in 1995, neighborhoods that had been relatively affordable rapidly gentrified. A study found that in Cambridge’s post-rent-control years, buildings that had been under rent control saw significant upgrades: higher turnover brought in wealthier tenants and homeowners, dilapidated buildings were renovated, and local businesses shifted toward upscale services. The end of rent control led to an immediate rise in property values and a notable drop in crime by 16% in those neighborhoods.
Impact on Housing Quality and Maintenance
One frequently cited downside of rent control is that it may lead to deterioration of housing quality over time. If landlords’ revenue from a property is artificially limited, they might skimp on maintenance and repairs because they cannot recoup those costs through higher rents.
Historical evidence and surveys support this concern. A classic study by Downs (1988) and others noted that prolonged rent control can contribute to dilapidation as owners cut back on everything from routine maintenance to major renovations. A more recent survey in New York City found that a significant number of landlords of rent-stabilized buildings planned to reduce non-essential maintenance and improvements due to tightened rent regulations.
Modern rent stabilization laws try to address this by allowing certain exceptions – for instance, landlords can sometimes apply for a rent increase beyond the cap if they perform major capital improvements on the building. Some regimes also permit “pass-through” of specific cost increases (like tax hikes or utility increases) into rent.
Nonetheless, the incentive structure is clear: under strict rent control, a dollar spent on improvements yields less payoff to the owner, so older controlled buildings may see gradual decline in quality.
Rent Control in Major U.S. Cities
Rent control policies in the United States are mostly found in a few major cities. Each city’s approach is a bit different.
New York City
New York City has the longest history of rent regulation in the country, dating back to the 1920s. Today, NYC’s system is quite complex, with two main programs: rent control and rent stabilization. True “rent control” in NYC is now rare – it applies only to certain tenants who have been in place continuously since 1971 in buildings built before 1947 (around 16,000 units or roughly 1-2% of rentals).
The vast majority of regulated apartments (approximately 1 million units, nearly 50% of the city’s rental housing) fall under rent stabilization. Rent-stabilized units are generally in buildings of 6 or more units built between 1947 and 1974. Under stabilization, landlords can raise rents only by a percentage determined annually by the NYC Rent Guidelines Board.
In 2019, New York State passed the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, which ended vacancy decontrol and many loopholes, essentially ensuring apartments stay regulated even after turnover and severely limiting rent increases from renovations.
San Francisco
San Francisco’s rent control was adopted in 1979. It covers most rental units in buildings constructed before June 13, 1979. SF’s ordinance limits annual rent increases to a small percentage, tied to a fraction of the Consumer Price Index (typically around 60% of CPI).
San Francisco (like all California cities) allows vacancy decontrol due to the Costa-Hawkins Act. This means when a tenant moves out of a rent-controlled unit, the landlord can reset the new tenant’s rent to the current market price.
Currently, controlled units make up a large portion of SF’s rental housing – estimates suggest roughly three-fifths of San Francisco’s rental stock is rent-controlled. The outcome is that many long-term renters in San Francisco pay well below the market rent. However, anyone seeking a new apartment in SF faces the reality of the current market rates, which are among the highest in the nation.
Los Angeles
Los Angeles has had rent stabilization since 1978. The Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) applies to rental units in buildings built on or before October 1, 1978. About three-quarters of LA’s multi-family rental units fall under the RSO, which amounts to roughly 600,000 apartments in the city.
Like SF, Los Angeles must abide by California’s Costa-Hawkins law, so vacancy decontrol is in effect. Also, single-family homes and any building constructed after 1978 are not covered by the city’s rent cap (though they are subject to the statewide cap of 5%+CPI from AB 1482).
Portland, Oregon
Portland is subject to Oregon’s statewide rent control law, which took effect in 2019. Oregon’s law (SB 608) was the first of its kind in the U.S. The Oregon law originally capped annual rent increases at 7% plus the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the West region. This cap applies to most rental units that are over 15 years old.
In response to high inflation, Oregon amended the law in 2023 to set an absolute hard cap of 10%. Now the rule is: annual increases are limited to 7% + inflation or 10%, whichever is lower.
Recent Rent Control Legislation
In the last few years, we’ve seen significant new legislation on rent control:
California AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019)
This law, effective January 2020, established a statewide rent increase cap and eviction protections in California. It limits annual rent increases to 5% plus the local CPI inflation rate, up to a maximum of 10%. AB 1482’s cap covers most rental units that are over 15 years old, including single-family homes owned by corporations.
Importantly, AB 1482 does not override stronger local rent control; rather, it sets a floor. So in Los Angeles, for instance, older units follow LA’s stricter RSO, but a newer unit built in 2005 (now past 15 years old) is covered by AB 1482’s 5%+CPI cap.
Alongside the cap, AB 1482 instituted “just cause” eviction rules statewide, meaning landlords must state a qualifying reason for evicting tenants who’ve been in place at least 12 months.
Oregon SB 608 (2019)
As described above, this law initially capped rents at 7% + CPI (no max), then was amended in 2023 to max out at 10%. It also included a statewide ban on no-cause evictions after one year of tenancy.
These two laws represent a new wave of “anti-gouging” rent control – more flexible than older models, but still providing a backstop against runaway rents.
Future Outlook for Rent Control
Looking ahead, the role of rent control in addressing the housing affordability crisis will likely continue to evolve:
More States Reconsidering Rent Control
Given the public’s concern about rising rents, we may see additional states enabling rent control. In a 2024 Redfin survey, 82% of Americans – across both political parties – said they support capping rent increases.
States like Minnesota have already taken steps (allowing cities to adopt rent control via voter initiatives), and Illinois and Colorado have seen legislative proposals to remove state bans.
Landlord and Developer Adaptation
We can expect landlords and developers to continue adapting to any new regulations. If more rent control comes into play, the real estate industry might shift strategies – for example, focusing on building condos vs. rentals in certain markets.
Comprehensive Housing Strategies
Most housing economists emphasize that rent control by itself is not a long-term solution to housing affordability. Therefore, we’ll likely see an increasing call for pairing rent stabilization with robust housing production and subsidies.
The experts’ dream scenario is: use rent control to prevent displacement of low-income renters now, but simultaneously invest heavily in building affordable and market-rate units so that in the future, the market is not so tight and fewer people need the protection.
In conclusion, the future of rent control will likely involve fine-tuning – finding that sweet spot where tenant protections are strong enough to prevent exploitation and displacement, but not so stringent that they choke off investment in housing. Many experts maintain that increasing housing supply is the ultimate solution to high rents, yet that is a slow process and doesn’t help those currently facing eviction due to rent hikes.
The experience of the next few years in places like California, Oregon, New York, and Minnesota will likely shape the narrative on whether rent control’s benefits outweigh its costs, and how it can be improved to serve both tenants and the long-term health of our housing markets.
References
- Rent Control: Definition, How It Works, vs. Rent Stabilization – Investopedia
- Rent control in the United States – Wikipedia
- Gentrification triggers 16 percent drop in city crime in Cambridge, Massachusetts – Phys.org
- Rent Control vs. Rent Stabilized Housing in NYC – CityRealty
- The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco – American Economic Association
- Rent Control: A Political and Policy Conundrum – Zillow Research
- What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control? – Brookings Institution
- Roughly 4 in 5 U.S. Residents Believe There Should Be Caps on Rent Hikes: Survey – Redfin
- The Frozen City – City Journal
- St. Paul Apartment Construction Slows; Rent Control Under Scrutiny – Planetizen News
- Cities Face Resistance as They Vie for Rent Control – Governing
- 2024 Income and Affordability Study – Rent Guidelines Board
- More than 60000 Rent-Stabilized Apartments Are Now Vacant – The City
- State Law AB 1482 – Mountain View, CA
- Landlord-Tenant Issues – State of California – Department of Justice
- Rent Stabilization: Office of Economic Analysis – Oregon.gov
