HB278 would authorize Virginia localities to adopt ordinances against residential rent gouging. The bill defines key terms such as “rent,” “rental unit,” and “fair return on investment,” and allows a locality to set an annual residential anti-rent gouging allowance of no more than 3 percent. If a locality adopts such an ordinance, landlords would generally be limited to one rent increase per 12-month period, would have to provide at least 90 days’ written notice of a rent increase, and would need to disclose any applicable exemptions and the contact information for the local board or agency handling complaints and exemptions.
The bill also requires localities to create or designate an anti-rent gouging board to administer exemptions, review challenges, and hear appeals, including petitions from affected tenants or groups representing at least 10 tenants. The board must also provide a “fair return on investment” exemption when needed to offset increased operating expenses, but not for landlords who have failed to bring a unit into compliance with applicable building or housing codes. Localities may impose civil penalties for violations, and tenants may seek enforcement through the board or court. The bill further states that in a nonpayment unlawful detainer case, a landlord may not obtain possession if they failed to comply with the local ordinance.
HB278 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia, § 15.2-959.1, giving local governments express authority to regulate rent increases through local anti-rent gouging ordinances notwithstanding the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and other laws. It would affect landlords, tenants, local governing bodies, and local administrative boards, while carving out numerous exemptions for newer buildings, certain licensed care facilities, shelters, religious facilities, dormitories, transient lodging, and other specified uses.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s posture is that it had support sufficient to be introduced with a broad patron list, but it did not advance out of committee and was continued to the next session by voice vote. That suggests interest in addressing rent increases, but not enough consensus in committee to move the measure forward during this session.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of local authority to cap rent increases and the effect on landlords’ ability to set market rents, especially given the bill’s 3 percent ceiling and enforcement provisions tied to eviction proceedings. Supporters would likely emphasize tenant protections, predictability, and local flexibility, while opponents would likely focus on property rights, housing supply, administrative burden, and the risk that rent regulation could discourage investment or maintenance. The fair-return exemption and multiple carve-outs appear designed to address some of those concerns, but the committee outcome indicates unresolved disagreement.
HB278 would create a new statutory grant of authority for Virginia localities to adopt anti-rent gouging ordinances, overriding contrary provisions in the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and other state laws to the extent necessary. It would affect landlord-tenant relations by allowing local rent-increase limits, notice requirements, exemption procedures, civil penalties, and tenant enforcement mechanisms, and it would give local boards or agencies a formal role in reviewing rent increases and exemptions. The bill would also interact with unlawful detainer proceedings by limiting a landlord’s ability to obtain possession for nonpayment of rent if the landlord has not complied with the local ordinance.
The bill appears to have been introduced with substantial sponsorship, indicating meaningful interest in rent stabilization and tenant protections. However, the lack of recorded votes and the action of being continued to the next session in the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee by voice vote suggest the measure did not have enough consensus to advance. Overall, the sentiment seems mixed: supportive among patrons and likely tenant advocates, but not yet broadly accepted in committee.
The central controversy is whether local governments should be empowered to regulate rent increases and impose penalties on landlords. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill addresses housing affordability and prevents excessive rent hikes, while critics are likely to argue that it interferes with private contracts, could reduce housing investment, and creates administrative and legal complexity. Additional contention may arise over the 3 percent cap, the 90-day notice requirement, the fair-return exemption, and the provision barring possession in nonpayment eviction cases when a landlord has not complied with the ordinance.