Albuquerque renters have rights on paper but who’s enforcing them?

The City Council on Monday deferred a vote on a rental protections ordinance as officials pointed to an enforcement gap that leaves renters facing hidden fees despite state laws meant to cap them.

The proposed Rental Practices Ordinance, O-25-102, would fold state tenant protections into the city’s Housing Code to give local enforcement real authority. Supporters argue that existing limits on application and late fees are often unenforced, leaving renters with rights on paper but little recourse.

“This is already New Mexico state law,” City Councilor Nichole Rogers said. “We tried to see what would happen, and it got kicked to the City of Albuquerque.”

Rogers uncovered the enforcement problem after reporting a landlord who charged a $250 application fee, five times the state’s legal limit. The state Attorney General’s Office referred the case to the city, but city code enforcement said they could not act without a local ordinance. Consumer Protection staff later told Rogers they could not enforce the state law without local backing, she said.

The ordinance would curb predatory fees and require landlords to disclose the full cost of renting upfront. Building on Senate Bill 267, passed in 2025, the measure codifies statewide protections that cap application fees at $50 and late fees at 5% of rent. 

Rogers’ ordinance adds one requirement — that landlords provide at least one fee-free payment option. Violations would carry a $250 civil fine, giving Albuquerque code enforcement officers the authority to penalize landlords for “deceptive or unfair trade practices” under the Housing Code.

About a dozen residents testified in support, sharing experiences with surprise fees. 

“One little fee can change between being homeless and being housed,” Marceline Kostiner said during public comment.

Alan LaSeck, executive director of the Apartment Association of New Mexico, opposed the ordinance, calling it a “duplicative process” that creates legal conflicts and could subject landlords to double penalties.

“We don’t disagree with any of the provisions. That’s already law,” he said.

Rogers said she met with landlord groups and the apartment association to find common ground. She rewrote the enforcement section, adding mediation through the City Legal Department and certified mail so landlords would know when the time clock starts for a violation.

“I went above and beyond,” she said. The changes, however, did not win industry support.

The ordinance takes a narrower approach than Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn’s tenant protection measure, which failed last June. While Fiebelkorn’s bill included provisions like pet rent bans and a rental registry, Rogers focused on codifying existing state fee protections.

The council will reconsider the measure Jan. 21.