AB 1684 Cannabis Fines: What California Landlords and Tenants Need to Know

Since AB 1684 took effect January 1, 2024, California cities and counties can impose administrative fines up to $1,000 per violation and $10,000 per day — immediately, no cure period — for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, jointly and severally on the property owner and each owner of the tenant business entity. That cap is only the immediate tool: post-notice fines are uncapped, and other statutes reach $30,000/day. No state agency tracks adoption, but published council actions show the ordinance moving through jurisdictions statewide — from Siskiyou and Sonoma counties in the north to Orange, Colton, and Port Hueneme in the south, with cities including Eastvale, Oakley, Fullerton, and Brentwood added since — out of 540 California cities and counties authorized to follow. If you own California commercial real estate near a cannabis market — or occupy space under a pre-2024 lease — you might want to know how this works.

What AB 1684 actually changed

AB 1684 amended Government Code § 53069.4 to let a local agency declare unlicensed commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance and impose administrative fines immediately, bypassing the cure-period rules that apply to most zoning and building violations. The statute preserves larger fines elsewhere — up to $30,000/day in DCC civil penalties under Business & Professions Code § 26031.5, and up to $10,000/day for “knowingly renting” property for unlicensed cannabis activity (or $30,000/day for aiding and abetting) under companion statute AB 1448.

AB 1684 is not self-executing: each jurisdiction must adopt an implementing ordinance. It also authorizes referral to the AG’s Cannabis Administrative Prosecutor Program under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 or § 26038.

Who is on the hook — and joint and several liability

The statute is explicit: an ordinance may hold jointly and severally liable the property owner and each owner of the occupant business entity. A landlord and every LLC member of the tenant can appear on the same citation, and the city can pursue any one for the full amount. Because unlicensed operators are frequently judgment-proof, cities now have a statutory path to the property owner and the individual members of the tenant LLC.

The landlord safe harbor — and its three conditions

Section 53069.4(a)(2)(E) carves out a safe harbor for absentee-but-diligent landlords. If a property owner substantiates all three of the following before an administrative hearing officer, the ordinance must give “a reasonable period of time” to correct the violation before imposing fines:

1. A tenant is in possession of the property that is the subject of the administrative action.
2. The lease prohibits the commercial cannabis activity — the owner or agent can produce the written agreement.
3. The owner had no actual knowledge and no actual notice — no complaint, inspection, or other information put the owner on notice of the unlicensed activity.

Cities have implemented the safe harbor almost verbatim — Oakley’s Chapter 4.41 tracks it word-for-word — and the Assembly Committee analysis confirms the language was carried forward from AB 2164 (2018) into AB 1684’s expanded regime.

The operative word is “actual.” Constructive notice — the smell, the utility spike, the neighbor’s complaint you never returned — is not what the statute measures. Once the owner has actual notice, though, the safe harbor closes.

Where lease drafting meets enforcement risk

Treat AB 1684 as a lease-drafting and lease-administration problem, not a criminal one:

• Add an express cannabis prohibition to every commercial lease and renewal if you do not intend to authorize commercial cannabis activity. A general “no unlawful use” clause probably qualifies, but a specific reference to “commercial cannabis activity as defined in Business & Professions Code Division 10” removes the argument.
• Reserve inspection rights and cross-default the cannabis clause with the standard default and unlawful-use provisions, so a violation is a full termination event, not a haggle.
• Preserve your paper trail. The safe harbor is a factual showing at an administrative hearing — you will need the lease, correspondence, and complaint log. Assume the city has already subpoenaed the utility records.
• Respond in writing to any complaint or inspection notice the moment it arrives — that is when the “no actual knowledge” prong stops running in your favor and the “reasonable time to correct” clock starts.
• Do not accept “cash-only, no questions” rents in cannabis-adjacent submarkets. The above-market rent will not offset the joint-and-several exposure if a citation issues.

For tenants and licensees, the corresponding point: a city can use AB 1684 against your landlord as leverage against you, even when your DCC paperwork is clean but local approvals have lapsed. Keep local authorizations current and disclose any enforcement contact to your landlord in writing before the landlord hears about it from the city.

If you receive an administrative citation

You still have appellate rights. Government Code § 53069.4(b) gives a de novo superior-court appeal after the administrative hearing, and Wang v. City of Sacramento Police Dept. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 372 — pre-AB-1684 precedent construing the predecessor statute — confirmed the de novo appeal is available regardless of fine amount. And in Thomas v. County of Humboldt, 124 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit held that ruinous daily cannabis-abatement fines can violate the Excessive Fines Clause when they are punitive rather than remedial — an argument to preserve early.

Bottom line

AB 1684 sits at the intersection of cannabis regulation and commercial real estate. The exposure is not resolved in a DCC licensing proceeding; it arrives as an administrative citation on the building, and the hearing is at city hall. The safe harbor is available, but only to landlords whose lease documentation and enforcement response predate the citation.

___________________________________________________________

If you own or lease commercial real estate touched by California cannabis — licensed or otherwise — the Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore reviews and drafts cannabis-aware commercial leases, responds to AB 1684 and AB 1448 citations, and represents property owners and licensees before local hearing officers and the DCC.

Legal commentary, not legal advice.