Since January 1, 2020, refusing an applicant because they hold a Section 8 voucher has been illegal everywhere in California. The voucher counts as income, the ad cannot say no, and the income screen has to run on the tenant’s share of the rent. Screening on everything else still works exactly as before.
The question I still hear every month
When I talk with San Diego owners about filling a vacancy, one question comes up more than almost any other, usually asked quietly: we do not have to take Section 8, right? I understand where it comes from. For decades, participation really was optional, and most owners formed their view of the program in that era. But the answer changed in 2020, and the owners who have not updated it are carrying risk they do not know they have.
Two state laws, SB 329 and SB 222, redefined source of income under California’s fair housing law to include Section 8 and VASH vouchers and other rental assistance. Refusing to consider an applicant because part of their rent arrives as a subsidy is now source-of-income discrimination, the same legal category as refusing someone over race or religion. The City of San Diego had its own ordinance saying this even earlier, so local owners have been under some version of this rule for years. And it reaches further than the application decision. Writing “No Section 8” in a listing is itself unlawful, which matters because fair housing groups run testers who call about ads exactly like that. This sits on top of the layered rent and termination rules I covered in AB 1482 versus San Diego’s ordinance: one more place where the stricter rule is the one that governs.
What you still control
Here is what the law did not do. It did not require you to accept any particular applicant, and it did not lower your standards. A voucher holder goes through the same screening as everyone else: rental history, references, identity, employment verification, prior evictions. The requirement is that the criteria be the same criteria, applied the same way.
Two adjustments are spelled out in the law. First, the income screen runs on the tenant’s portion of the rent, not the full contract rent. On a $3,200 home where the housing authority pays $2,400, an applicant paying $800 out of pocket needs income measured against $800. A three-times-rent standard means $2,400 a month of income, not $9,600. Run the math on the wrong number and a denial that feels routine becomes evidence. Second, since 2024, SB 267 says you cannot lean on credit history alone for a subsidized applicant without offering them the option to show alternative verifiable evidence of ability to pay, things like pay records, benefit statements, or bank statements, and then reasonably considering what they provide. Screening still does its job. It just has to be built to these specifications, and the job it does is the one that matters most, because a failed placement costs the same no matter how the rent is paid.
What accepting a voucher actually involves
Operationally, a voucher tenancy adds a third party with paperwork. The housing authority inspects the property before its share starts flowing, signs its own contract alongside your lease, and then pays its portion by direct deposit every month, which is the part owners tend to warm to once they see it: a large share of the rent arriving from a government payer that does not lose its job. The friction is real but front-loaded. The inspection has standards, the paperwork takes time, and the first subsidy payment can lag move-in while it all clears, so the timeline needs managing like anything else.
The risk, meanwhile, lives almost entirely in one place: the casual sentence. Not a policy document, not a lease clause, but the owner or manager who answers the phone and says we do not take Section 8. That sentence, said to a tester, is a complaint that writes itself. The law turned the answer to a common question from a preference into a compliance matter, and the owners who get this right are simply the ones who know which question they are being asked.
Joe Wiseman is a licensed California broker (DRE #02043323) and owns Best Nest Property Management in San Diego.