Washington’s just-cause eviction law was written with a clear and commendable purpose: to prevent mass displacement of renters when large apartment buildings change hands. But in its current form, the law unintentionally harms a different group of small housing providers, and, by extension, the tenants who rely on them. It’s time for lawmakers to reform the statute and encourage more housing supply.
Under existing state law, a landlord may end a tenancy based on the landlord’s “intent to sell” only if the property is a single-family residence. The logic behind this carve‑out is straightforward. If the owner of a 50‑unit apartment building could evict every tenant simply by announcing plans to sell, the result would be catastrophic displacement. The law wisely prevents that scenario.
But the statute draws an overly rigid line. It treats all multi‑unit buildings the same, regardless of how they are owned. A condominium building may look like an apartment building from the outside, but legally and financially, it is something very different. Each condo unit is individually owned and individually taxed. Yet the current law discriminates against a condo unit’s owner with respect to the use of their property. This law also affects certain townhomes, row houses, accessory dwelling units and any other type of housing that doesn’t neatly fit the “single-family” definition.
This mismatch creates real‑world problems. Many condo owners are not large corporate landlords; they are retirees, first‑time homebuyers who moved but kept their unit as a rental, or families who rely on rental income to cover homeowners associations dues and mortgages. When these owners need to sell — because of a job change, a financial hardship, or a family transition — they often cannot do so with a tenant in place. Lenders may refuse to finance the purchase of an occupied unit. Buyers may be unwilling to take on a tenant they did not choose. And sellers may be forced into untenable financial positions simply because the law treats their unit as if it were an apartment complex.
The law’s original purpose — preventing mass displacement — is not implicated at all in the condo context. Allowing a single condo owner to end a tenancy in order to sell their unit does not threaten the housing stability of the building’s other residents. The risk that the law was designed to prevent does not exist.
Washington can fix this with a simple, elegant reform: Allow “intent to sell” as a just cause for any individually owned housing unit that has its own tax parcel ID number.
This approach preserves the core protection against mass evictions. Apartment buildings would remain ineligible for the “intent to sell” provision. But condo units, each of which is legally its own parcel, would be treated the same as single‑family homes. The law would finally recognize what property records already show: A condo unit is not a fraction of an apartment building, it is a stand-alone piece of real estate.
This reform would also bring Washington in line with the practical realities of how people buy and sell homes today. Condominiums are a crucial part of the region’s housing ecosystem. About 30% of rental homes leased via the Northwest Multiple Listing Service in the King/Pierce/Snohomish market since 2020 have been condo units, while in Seattle the share of condos is approximately 46%. (This is based on my own tracking during the past 10 years.)
They offer a more affordable path to homeownership. They also provide flexible housing options for people who may later move but want to keep their unit and offer it as a rental. When the law makes it unnecessarily difficult for condo owners to sell, it takes away wealth-building opportunity for a first-time homebuyer and discourages current owners from putting their units in the rental pool.
Critics may worry that expanding the “intent to sell” provision could open the door to abuse. But the law already contains safeguards. Owners must give tenants proper notice, document their attempt to sell and act in good faith. These standards would apply equally to condo owners. This is not weakening tenant protections, but aligning them with the structure of modern housing.
Washington’s housing challenges are complex, and no single policy change will solve them. But this is a reform that costs the state nothing, protects tenants from the very harms the law was designed to prevent and gives small housing providers a fair and reasonable path to sell their property.
The Legislature should seize this opportunity. Updating the “intent to sell” provision is a modest change with immediate and widespread upside.
