WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 3507

Establishes standards for determining an unconscionable rent increase; excludes from public access landlord tenant records in certain circumstances.

2026-2027 Regular Session Introduced by Yvonne Lopez and 4 co-sponsors

A-3507 codifies a multi-factor test to judge unconscionable residential rent increases, using market benchmarks, tenancy context, and property conditions.

Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 3507

Legislative Bill Summary: Assembly Bill No. 3507 (A-3507), 2026-2027 Session – New Jersey

Overview

  • Jurisdiction: New Jersey
  • Session: 222
  • Bill Type: Assembly bill
  • Committee: Assembly Housing Committee
  • Prefiled/Status: Prefiled for 2026-2027 session; reported favorable by the Assembly Housing Committee (as of March 9, 2026). Passed the Assembly on March 23, 2026. Referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs on May 4, 2026.
  • Sponsors: Main sponsor and co-sponsors include Shanique Speight, Carmen Morales, Yvonne Lopez, Annette Quijano, Cody Miller.

Purpose and Intent

A-3507 codifies the test used in New Jersey case law to determine whether a rent increase is unconscionable. The bill provides a structured, multi-factor framework for judicial review of a proposed rent increase, aiming to balance landlord interests with tenant protections and to curb excessive or deceptive rent hikes.

Key Provisions and Changes

  1. Consolidated Test for Unconscionable Rent Increases

    • Courts would evaluate a rent increase against a non-exhaustive, multi-factor test. No single factor is determinative; a holistic assessment governs whether an increase is unconscionable.

  2. Enumerated Factors to Consider (Non-Exhaustive List)
    Courts would assess, among others, the following:

    • Amount of the proposed rent increase: Magnitude of the increase.
    • Landlord’s expenses and profitability: Financial considerations and potential margins, including factors specified in the bill.
    • Rents at comparable properties: Comparison to neighboring properties, including:
      • HUD Fair Market Rents (FMR)
      • HUD Small Area Market Rents (SAMR)
    • Relative bargaining position: Availability of rental housing in the area and how that impacts negotiating leverage.
    • Shock to the conscience: Whether the increase would be viewed as unreasonable by a reasonable person.
    • Tenure-based context: Length of time since the last rent increase by the current owner, length of tenancy, and length of property ownership.
    • Property condition and habitability: Condition of the premises, any habitability claims, and outstanding code violations affecting health and safety.

  3. Non-Exhaustive and Flexible

    • The enumerated factors are explicitly not exhaustive.
    • Courts may consider additional relevant factors on a case-by-case basis to determine unconscionability.

Who Would Be Affected

  • Residential Tenants/Residents: Households facing proposed rent increases can seek judicial review if they believe increases are unconscionable under the articulated test.
  • Landlords/Lessor Entities: Landlords proposing rent increases would be subject to the statutory framework and must justify increases under the factor-based test.
  • Judiciary: Courts would apply the new framework when adjudicating disputes over rent increases and determine whether an increase is unconscionable.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Effective Date: The summary does not specify an immediate effective date in the provided text; typically, language would indicate implementation upon enactment or a defined effective date after enactment. If enacted, the bill would apply to rent increase disputes arising after that date or to increases proposed after enactment, depending on final drafting.
  • Pending Actions: As of the provided status, the bill has passed the Assembly and moved to the Senate for consideration. Further action would require Senate passage and eventual signing by the Governor.
  • Judicial Application: The framework would guide trial courts in civil proceedings contesting rent increases, likely within existing landlord-tenant litigation processes.
  • Existing Law Alignment: The bill codifies a test already reflected in state case law, providing statutory codification and potential standardization across jurisdictions.

Practical Implications

  • Creates a clearer, judiciary-guided standard for assessing rent increases, potentially providing stronger protections for tenants against large or opaque increases.
  • Requires landlords to consider broader market benchmarks (including HUD FMR/SAMR) and property-related factors (habitability, code violations) when proposing increases.
  • Encourages transparency in landlord-tenant negotiations by elevating the importance of rents at comparable properties and local housing availability.

Conclusion

A-3507 establishes a codified, multi-factor framework to determine whether a residential rent increase is unconscionable in New Jersey. By incorporating market benchmarks, tenancy context, property conditions, and bargaining dynamics, the bill seeks to curb excessive increases while preserving legitimate landlord considerations. The bill is progressing through the legislative process and would become law upon final passage and enactment.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.