Judge Rules Santa Ana’s Tenant-Dominated Rental Housing Board Violates Due Process

An Orange County Superior Court decision finds the composition of the Rental Housing Board under the City of Santa Ana’s rent control law violates property owners’ constitutional rights.

In a significant ruling on Oct. 22, 2025, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Rental Housing Board created under Santa Ana’s rent-control and just-cause eviction ordinance is unconstitutional because its composition undermines due process protections for landlords.

The case was brought in February 2023 by the Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC), which maintained that the board is tilted in favor of tenants and thus denies rental property owners a fair and impartial hearing.

According to the court order by Judge William Claster, “The effect of this ruling is to find the Rental Housing Board’s composition unconstitutional.”

The judge further noted that even though the ordinance was re-enacted for 2024, it lacks “explicit language … regarding tenants not being eligible to be at-large members,” and that the board remains “intentionally unbalanced in favor of tenants.”

Under the ordinance, Santa Ana’s seven-member board was structured to include three tenant members, two non-financial-interest “at-large” members, and two landlord members.

The AAOC contends that because approximately 91% of Santa Ana’s rental stock is subject to the city’s rent-control law, tenant-members of the board inherently have a financial interest in limiting rent increases, thereby compromising impartiality.

A hearing in December will determine whether the board is severable from the ordinance; if not, the entire rent-control scheme could be invalidated.

From a policy perspective, the ruling raises major questions for local rent-control regimes. For conservative property-rights advocates and economic-growth proponents, the decision underscores the need for regulatory boards to respect due-process norms and balanced representation.

Meanwhile, city officials must evaluate whether the driver behind rent controls—housing affordability—can be pursued without sacrificing constitutional safeguards.