Bay Area Landlord Demands $200 Extra A Month From Tenants That Work From Home: 'Are They Going to Keep 24/7 Surveillance?'

Ally Perry • Writer and Editor

Jul 25, 2026 9:15 AM EDT

Remote work should save you money, not come with an extra cost.

Working from home devotees often praise the fact that doing your job from your house stops you from spending on the commute and lunchtime corporate slop bowls, among other benefits. The ability to clock in without even having to roll out of bed is also a benefit, too.

However, not everybody is comfortable with the idea of a person who conducts their business in their house as well as living in it. If you live with other people, they might get annoyed at somebody being in their personal space for much longer than somebody who works elsewhere. On top of that, what you save in filling up your car can get spent elsewhere, namely internet and electricity bills. It's not going to make anybody who is scrutinizing household expenses too happy.

As a result, it probably shouldn't be too much of a surprise that some landlords get weird around the idea of renting to someone who works remotely. Their property is going to undergo more consistent use than otherwise, and obviously, that is all the more reason to go looking for a reason to sneak in some extra charges.

Add as a preferred
source on Google

via Jakub Żerdzicki

_{^{A close-up of a hand holding some house keys in front of a staircase}}
A prospective tenant was horrified by the conditions of a lease on a property in the Bay Area. In addition to charging moving-in fees and even requiring an application to rent the property, the landlord demanded an extra $200 per month if the person living there was going to work from home.
For the most part, other people who saw the ad felt like this was a greedy and even nonsensical move. After all, those working remotely usually care even more about the proper upkeep of their home. To penalize them for their job seemed like an unnecessary move designed to discourage them from applying. That, or the property owner just wanted to take every opportunity possible to make the most money from whoever was going to live in their house. If they can afford an over $3k deposit, perhaps this wouldn't be too big of a cost for them.
via SaasWiz
via QT111119
via billyBbear
via zbljong
via MelanchoLOL
via DiscoDeoxys
via cowgirl_bebop
via atlanticesque
via rizzbolt
via wallstmemes
via TW0HEADEDBEAST
via K4ngcel