Accessory Dwelling Unit – www.BeachChatter.com

You knew someone would conduct a survey asking senior citizens where they would prefer to live as they grow older. I’m sure you also knew the answer before the survey was done. There’s no place like home!

A study by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) shows an overwhelming 76% of seniors aged 50+ want to stay in their current home and 77% want to remain in their community as long as possible. Sadly, only 46% expect they’ll be able to stay in their home. Another 13% believe they’ll be able to move to a different residence in the same community.

How strongly do those surveyed feel about staying in their home? Over half wanted it to the extent they were willing to share their home (32%), build an accessory dwelling unit (31%) or join a “village” that provides services to enable aging in place (56%). (We plan to explore “senior villages” in a future article.

“half of the survey respondents indicated they would be
willing to share their home simply for companionship”

In an interesting sidelight, half of the survey respondents indicated they would be willing to share their home simply for companionship. The strength of this psychological need is supported by anecdotal tales we’ve all heard about retirees who move in together for companionship, but remain single for financial reasons. Even more telling is the response of 30% who reported lacking companionship, feeling left out or feeling isolated.

About one third of those surveyed expect their existing home to require major modifications. Most of that group, roughly 25% of the respondents, are not willing or able to make those changes. As a result, they plan on relocating completely to a new area. Moving to a new area can offer a tremendous incentive in that the average price of housing varies dramatically from state to state across the nation.

“less than 25% of seniors are attracted to senior developments”

Some active adult communities, designed for the 55+ cohort, offer pools, gyms, coffee bars, workshops, golf courses and cooking classes. Despite all the amenities, less than 25% of seniors are attracted to senior developments.

In many cases, the problem lies with the lack of social interaction. The AARP concluded “creating a social environment that appeals to everyone is a key part of forming strong, livable communities.” The group cited results showing over 80% of seniors felt it important to socialize with friends and neighbors; engage with both young and old residents; volunteer in the community; and continue formal education.

While we’re looking at the things seniors desire, it’s equally interesting to see what it is they don’t want. On the list of “least important community features” we find that over 75% of the respondents don’t want “Activities specifically geared towards adults with dementia.” Nor are they interested in “Local schools that involve older adults in events and activities,” or “Activities geared specifically towards older adults.” This further reinforces the idea that seniors want to interact with both young and old people.

There are those who say “Children will keep you young.” This survey would suggest a whole lot of us believe that maxim.

Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on Unsplash

We had a call recently asking how California’s new statewide rent cap laws impact homeowners who are supplementing their income by renting out an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The primary concern was, “Is the owner forced to keep a tenant or pay relocation if they decide to quit renting?”

The question stems from what is called the “just cause requirements” of the new rent control law. Our client was concerned about a decision to evict the current tenant and allow a grandchild to occupy the ADU while attending school locally. If “just cause” applied, it would require they provide relocation assistance to their current tenant.

Renting a part of your home, whether a single room or an entire “guest cottage” may be excluded from the law.

To answer the question, we reviewed the rent cap legislation with an eye to what terms would control should a homeowner need to evict tenants from an ADU.

Applicability of “just cause” relocation assistance, and the rent cap of 5% plus the local Consumer Price Index (CPI) both rely on the same tests.

The first of those tests is the type of property. Multi-family dwellings, i.e., everything from apartment buildings down to duplexes are included in the scope of the law. SFRs though, are excluded, and most importantly, an SFR with an ADU qualifies as an SFR and may be excluded if the second test is also met.

The second test relates to the owner of the property. The following owner types are always included within the scope of the law:
— A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code.
— A corporation.
— A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.

The bottom line is that “mom and pop” operations do not fall under the rent cap or the just cause eviction sections of the new laws. There is a caveat! You must notify your tenants!

At the time the lease is signed, tenants should be provided written notice that the residential real property is exempt from this section using the following statement: “This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (c)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(7) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.”

Here is a link to the legislation in question:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482