SIGN UP FOR MY MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
One clause in a commercial lease can quietly shift six or seven figures of value, and therefore should never be dismissed as boilerplate. The issue is who pays the increase in property taxes when a sale or other change in ownership triggers reassessment under Proposition 13.
Under Proposition 13, annual increases in assessed value are generally capped at 2% from a property’s base year value. However, upon a change in ownership or new construction, the property is reassessed at current fair market value. That is where lease economics can shift overnight. For long-held properties, the gap between assessed value and market value can be substantial. When reassessment occurs, annual property taxes can increase dramatically. The only question is whether the landlord or the tenant agreed to absorb that increase.
Reassessment Is Not Just About a Sale
Many assume reassessment happens only when a property is sold. It does not. A “change in ownership” can also be triggered by transfers of 50% or more of ownership interests in the landlord entity, certain cumulative ownership shifts, or significant new construction. Reassessment risk can arise from recapitalizations, joint venture restructurings, estate planning transfers, or development activity, events entirely unrelated to the tenant’s operations.That reality makes the tax clause in a lease far more consequential than it first appears.
Operating Cost or Ownership Risk?
Landlords often view reassessment as part of the cost of operating the building and therefore a proper pass-through expense. Tenants tend to view it differently. They see it as a risk of ownership created by the landlord’s voluntary decision to sell, recapitalize, or restructure. That philosophical divide frequently drives the negotiation.
In most triple-net and Base Year leases, tenants pay their proportionate share of property taxes. Even in many so-called “gross” leases, including common AIR CRE gross forms, tenants ultimately bear increases in real property taxes above a negotiated base year. The critical question is whether the lease requires the tenant to pay increases attributable specifically to a change in ownership.
If the tenant must pay all increases, including those caused by reassessment, the tenant bears the volatility risk. If the lease provides “Proposition 13 protection” and excludes reassessment increases from recoverable taxes, the landlord absorbs that increase.
From the landlord’s perspective, absorbing reassessment increases directly reduces net operating income and therefore reduces value. At a 5% cap rate, every $10,000 of lost annual NOI translates into a $200,000 reduction in value. That is not merely a tax issue. It is a capital event. Sophisticated buyers and lenders underwrite it accordingly.
For tenants, the issue is predictability of “all in” occupancy costs. A long-term lease signed when the property’s assessed value is low can become materially more expensive if the landlord sells and the tenant must fund the resulting tax spike.
Old Building vs. New Building
The analysis can differ in newly constructed projects. If a building has just been assessed at full market value at the commencement of the lease, the tenant is already paying taxes at market levels. In that context, a landlord may argue that reassessment during the term simply reflects current market conditions, not a hidden windfall, and that full Proposition 13 protection is unwarranted.
By contrast, in older buildings or properties with long-standing holding which results in below-market assessments, the spread between assessed value and current market value may be significant. In those situations, the economic stakes are far higher, and tenants are more likely to press for protection.
Two Questions to Ask at the Outset
When negotiating a California commercial lease, both sides should begin with two threshold questions.
– First, how large is the spread between the current assessed value and the current market value? The greater the gap, the greater the potential increase upon reassessment.
– Second, how long is the lease term? The longer the lease, the greater the probability that a sale, recapitalization, or ownership shift will occur during the term, triggering reassessment while the tenant is still in possession.
These two variables, spread and time, largely determine the magnitude of the risk.
Common Negotiated Structures
In landlord-favorable markets, full Proposition 13 protection is rarely granted. When the building has a deeply discounted assessed value and protection is necessary to secure a tenant, the parties often negotiate middle-ground solutions, including:
– Excluding only the first reassessment event
- Capping the tenant’s exposure by dollar amount or percentage
– Limiting reassessment pass-throughs to once within a defined period
– Granting the landlord a buy-back right allowing reimbursement of reassessment increases in connection with a sale or refinance
Any Proposition 13 protection clause must be drafted carefully to exclude only increases attributable to a change in ownership, not the routine 2% annual inflationary increases permitted under Proposition 13. Sloppy drafting can unintentionally freeze taxes entirely, which few landlords intend.
Tenants should also consider whether receipt of a buy-back payment could have income tax consequences if structured outside the normal operating expense framework.
The Bottom Line
If there is a meaningful gap between assessed value and market value, and the lease runs long enough for a transfer be likely to occur, the financial consequences can be significant. Reassessment can quietly reprice the deal years after execution.
The property tax clause is not technical fine print. It is an allocation of capital risk.
Before signing a California commercial lease, both landlord and tenant should quantify the reassessment exposure and deliberately decide who bears it. Because when reassessment occurs, taxes will increase.
The only real question is whether you negotiated that risk or unknowingly inherited it.
SIGN UP FOR MY MONTHLY NEWSLETTER