Why San Diego Tenants Should Seek Property Tax Protection in Commercial Leases
Most San Diego business owners know that commercial landlords typically pass on real estate taxes, including property taxes, to their tenants. Whether it's a triple net lease requiring commercial tenants to pay their pro rata share of all property taxes due including property tax reassessments or a base year lease (common for office buildings) where tenants are responsible for property tax increases only, property tax reassessments can have a devastating effect on unsuspecting San Diego tenants. The problem stems from California's Proposition 13 which limits property tax reassessments to 2% annually, but allows for full tax reassessments upon the transfer of ownership. Unwary prospective tenants may not realize that an attractive property has not been reassessed under Proposition 13 for years, if not decades. If the property is sold, or ownership is transferred in any number of ways, the property tax reassessment can be significant.
For example, consider a property that has not changed ownership in ten years (meaning it has not been reassessed for Proposition 13 purposes in ten years). In 1994, at the time the property last changed ownership, its value was assessed at $10,000.000.00. Assuming maximum Proposition 13 increases annually of 2%, in 2003 the Proposition 13 tax basis for the property would be $12,189,944. At a tax rate of 1.5%, the tax on the property in 2003 would be $182,849.00 (12,189,944 X .015). A new tenant in 2003 with a 10% pro rat share of property expenses under a triple net lease would owe $18,285 in taxes for 2003. Typically, these taxes are anticipated and paid by tenants as part their monthly Common Area Maintenance (CAM) expenses. However, in 2004, if the property is sold to an investor for $20,000,000.00, it triggers a Proposition 13 reassessment. The Proposition 13 reassessment is based on the new $20,000,000 price tag resulting in a property tax of $3,000,000.00 (20,000,000 X .15%). The new tenant's pro rata share for 2004 is virtually doubled to $30,000.00. In most cases, the tenant will continue to pay the same monthly CAM payment for 2004 and will be billed for the difference upon reconciliation in early 2005 (approximately $11,350 assuming the 2004 CAM calculations accounted for an anticipated 2% Prop 13 tax increase). This can place a significant burden on a new or growing business especially when the business owners do not see it coming. In some cases, the amount owed can be staggering. This is a highly simplified example, but the outcomes are similar in just about any scenario so long as property values are appreciating faster than the 2% maximum allowed under Proposition 13. Of course, the problem is less common in San Diego's current down market, but it is a climate where large appreciations can be expected in the future.
The simple solution for tenants is to seek Prop 13 protection (a clause in the lease that excludes from tenant's expenses any increase in property taxes resulting from reassessments or at least those increases directly attributed to a transfer of ownership). This is not always a practical solution, especially for tenants with less leverage. Nonetheless, it should always be the subject of negotiation. The potential harm can devastate a business. If complete Proposition 13 protection is not possible, tenants should consider seeking a cap (say 5%) on annual property tax increases or an advance agreement to spread out the lump sum tax payment that would be due upon reconciliation. If these concessions prove impossible which is often the case, a new tenant needs to know when the property was last reassessed for Proposition 13 purposes, what its assessed value was at the time and what its assessed value is today in order to forecast the potential losses due to a transfer of ownership. The longer it's been since the last reassessment, the greater the tenant's exposure to extreme property tax increases.
The property tax increase isn't a one-time burden. The new tax basis remains until the property is again reassessed and will not decrease unless property values decrease. It's understandable then that landlords seek to pass the burden onto tenants. In fact, a commercial property is harder to sell (has less value) if its tenants have Proposition 13 protection. Either way, blindly entering into a commercial lease without understanding how property taxes are apportioned is unwise for tenants and landlords alike. Consultation with a San Diego Commercial Lease Lawyer is the best way to avoid pitfalls like this.
A recapture clause allows a landlord to terminate the lease and take back possession of the premises upon the occurrence of certain conditions. It is usually associated with complex "assignment and subletting" clauses that allow tenants, upon landlord's approval, to assign their lease or to sublet a part of the leased premises to a third party. Landlords like to include "recapture clauses" that are triggered by a tenant's mere request for the approval of an assignment or subletting.
The best first step towards improved management of CAM expenses is for property managers to simply pay attention. Supervision of maintenance operations ensures that waste is kept to a minimum. If or when a tenant does question a specific expense, the landlord will be prepared to produce relevant invoices and explain why the expenses were necessary. This is especially important for anchor tenants who typically have the resources to challenge landlords' accountings. Too often property managers ignore potential problems hoping that the tenant will either forget about it or accept an evasive answer for fear of creating conflict. What property managers tend to overlook is that tenants have long memories. If later problems arise or if business starts to decline (for whatever reason), tenants inevitably latch onto the older seemingly innocuous issues and the landlord/tenant relationship can deteriorate rapidly. Regardless of the tenant's size, experienced property managers know the headaches this can create.
Paragraph 12 - Assignment and Subletting: The AIR lease does not address circumstances where an assignment results in net profit to the tenant. Landlords and tenants should work with their attorneys to include lease language that defines profits in such situations and how those profits are to be divided.
Paragraph 4.2(a)(ix) passes on the costs of capital improvements to the tenants. This is also common in commercial leases. The AIR lease calls for the costs to be amortized over 12 years reducing the tenants' monthly burden. However, this burden may still be significant depending on the size of the commercial property and the particular premises leased. This can be especially problematic for smaller businesses leasing space in a smaller commercial property. If the business leases 25% of the space from a 50,000 square foot strip mall and the lessor decides to completely remodel the property at a cost of $500,000.00 , the business' monthly obligation increases an additional $868.00 not including any additional property tax passed on to tenants. This can be disastrous for new or growing small business. This clause essentially passes on the costs of discretionary capital improvements to tenants. Capital improvements ultimately benefit both the landlord and its tenants. As such, passing on a portion of the cost is reasonable. However, tenants need to be acutely aware of this potential expense. Ideally, tenants will negotiate for the elimination of this clause. Alternatively, tenants should seek a cap on the capital improvement costs that may be passed on to the tenant during the term of the lease. From the landlord perspective, agreeing to a cap might be a reasonable compromise, but the landlord should clarify that the cap only applies to discretionary capital improvements. Compliance with applicable laws is dealt with comprehensibly by the AIR standard lease and California law.
In general: The parties to a commercial lease should always be acutely aware of important terms and definitions such as Premises, Common Areas, 




