CIV § 1940.2

Up to $2,000 penalty for landlord harassment – CIV §1940.2

CIV § 1940.2: Landlords cannot use theft, extortion, threats, immigration threats, or illegal entry to force vacating. Penalty up to $2,000 per violation.

Official text CIV § 1940.2 — California

(a) It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling:

(1) Engage in conduct that violates subdivision (a) of Section 484 of the Penal Code.

(2) Engage in conduct that violates Section 518 of the Penal Code.

(3) Use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. Nothing in this paragraph requires a tenant to be actually or constructively evicted in order to obtain relief.

(4) Commit a significant and intentional violation of Section 1954.

(5) Threaten to disclose information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant. This paragraph does not require a tenant to be actually or constructively evicted in order to obtain relief.

(b) A tenant who prevails in a civil action, including an action in small claims court, to enforce his or her rights under this section is entitled to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each violation.

(c) An oral or written warning notice, given in good faith, regarding conduct by a tenant, occupant, or guest that violates, may violate, or violated the applicable rental agreement, rules, regulations, lease, or laws, is not a violation of this section. An oral or written explanation of the rental agreement, rules, regulations, lease, or laws given in the normal course of business is not a violation of this section.

(d) This section does not enlarge or diminish a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy pursuant to existing state or local law; nor does this section enlarge or diminish any ability of local government to regulate or enforce a prohibition against a landlord’s harassment of a tenant.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1940.2 is aimed at a specific thing: not eviction, but the pressure applied instead of eviction. Subdivision (a) makes five kinds of conduct unlawful when done "for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling". Two are defined by cross-reference to the Penal Code — conduct violating § 484 (theft) and § 518 (extortion). The third is the use or threat of force, willful threats or menacing conduct amounting to a course of conduct that interferes with quiet enjoyment in violation of § 1927 and would create apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. The fourth is a significant and intentional violation of the entry rules in § 1954. The fifth is a threat to disclose information about the immigration or citizenship status of the tenant, an occupant, or someone the landlord knows is associated with them.

The drafting matters in two places. Paragraphs (3) and (5) say expressly that the tenant does not have to be actually or constructively evicted to obtain relief, so the claim does not depend on having actually moved out. And subdivision (b) attaches a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for each violation to a tenant who prevails, including in small claims court — which is why this section turns up in disputes where the sums otherwise look too small to litigate.

Subdivision (c) is the limit. A warning notice given in good faith about conduct that violates or may violate the lease or the law is not a violation, and neither is explaining the lease, the rules or the law in the normal course of business. Subdivision (d) adds that the section neither enlarges nor reduces the landlord's right to terminate a tenancy under other law. So a landlord who serves proper notices and goes to court is not caught by this section; a landlord who removes the front door, cuts the power or mentions immigration authorities may be. Whether particular conduct crosses that line, and what it is worth, is a question of evidence to take to a lawyer or a tenant service.

When it applies

The locks are changed while you are at work and your belongings are inside
The power, water or gas is shut off after you refuse to leave
The landlord threatens to call immigration authorities about you or a relative
Repeated unannounced entries, at all hours, that started once the landlord asked you to move
The landlord removes a door, a window or the refrigerator to make the flat unliveable
Menacing visits and shouted threats after you asked for a repair

What this section does not say

It does not make an eviction unlawful. Subdivision (d) says the section neither enlarges nor diminishes the landlord's right to terminate under other law; a landlord who uses the notice and court route is not violating this section by doing so.
A firm or unwelcome warning letter is not a violation. Subdivision (c) protects a good faith oral or written warning about lease-violating conduct and ordinary explanations of the lease and the rules.
It is not the criminal case. It borrows the definitions of theft and extortion from the Penal Code but creates a civil claim; whether anyone is prosecuted is a decision for a prosecutor, not something this section delivers.
It does not cover ordinary rudeness or a bad relationship. Paragraph (3) requires a course of conduct that would create apprehension of harm in a reasonable person, not merely an unpleasant landlord.
It is not the retaliation section. Punishment for complaining about conditions is § 1942.5; § 1940.2 is about conduct aimed at making you leave.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A tenant who is behind on rent comes home to find the locks changed and their belongings still inside. The landlord says the tenancy is over and will not let them in until they agree to leave.

How the wording applies

Section 1940.2 makes it unlawful to prevent access, or to use or threaten force or menace, for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate, with a civil penalty of up to $2,000 per violation recoverable in small claims. Being behind on rent does not change that: subdivision (d) preserves the landlord's right to terminate through the proper notice and court route, and the fact this turns on is that the lock change bypassed it.

How the parties settled it

The landlord restores access the same day and provides a new key, the parties agree a written repayment schedule for the arrears, and no penalty is claimed provided access is not interfered with again.

Illustrative example

After a tenant refuses to move out at the end of a notice period, the electricity to the unit is disconnected, and the landlord mentions in a message that he could make a call about a relative's immigration status.

How the wording applies

Paragraph (1) covers threatening to disclose information regarding immigration or citizenship status, and cutting off utilities to influence a tenant to vacate falls within the section as well. What separates this from lawful pressure is purpose: subdivision (c) protects a good faith warning about lease-violating conduct, and neither of these acts is that.

How the parties settled it

Supply is restored at the landlord's cost the same day, the message is withdrawn in writing, and both agree a move-out date with the deposit returned in full when the keys are handed back.

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Locked out: the landlord changed the locks and cut the power, in 7 jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

CIV § 1927 California Civil Code § 1927 - Quiet possession: what a landlord guarantees by letting CIV § 1954 California Civil Code § 1954 - When a landlord may enter, and how much notice is required CIV § 1942.5 180-Day Retaliatory Eviction Ban | CIV § 1942.5 CIV § 1946.2 Just Cause Required After 12 Months: CIV § 1946.2

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1940.2 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages