Is Chicago’s New Renter Protection Ordinance About to Make Housing More Expensive?

The headlines say it’s about protecting renters. But will it actually—or will it backfire?

In September 2026, Chicago’s City Council Housing Committee backed Mayor Brandon Johnson’s revised Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO)—a sweeping rewrite of tenant protections that caps security deposits, bans move-in fees, and creates a new Bureau of Rental Housing Services. On the surface, it sounds like good news for renters. Lower upfront costs. Fewer hidden “junk fees.” A level playing field.

But if you’re a landlord renting out your first condo, or holding onto a unit you bought years ago at a 2% interest rate, or a tenant trying to understand why your next lease might cost more—this ordinance hits you both in ways the headlines don’t explain.

The HOA Fee Trap: A Problem Nobody’s Talking About

Here’s the part that matters: PRO doesn’t just ban what landlords charge. It bans what the building charges too—at least, legally, landlords can’t pass it through to tenants anymore.

In a professionally managed condo building, the move-in fee, move-out fee, and various operational costs aren’t decided by your landlord. They’re set by the condo association’s board. A $150 move-in fee here, a $200 move-out fee there, building reserve assessments, elevator reservations, lobby maintenance—these are legitimate operational costs that keep common areas safe and functional.

The building collects them. Historically, the landlord has passed them to the tenant through the lease. It’s standard, disclosed, and for most renters, transparent.

But PRO doesn’t distinguish between “landlord-imposed” and “building-imposed” fees. Its language is deliberately broad: landlords can only charge fees from a narrow whitelist (application fees capped at $20, pet fees, documented utility pass-throughs, and tenant-caused repairs). HOA move-in fees aren’t on that list. Neither are building operational costs charged as line items.

The result: Condo landlords are legally trapped. They cannot break out the HOA move-in fee as a separate charge. They cannot itemize building costs. They have two choices: absorb the fees (and shrink their already-thin margins) or fold them into base rent.

Most will do the second one. That means renters pay the fee—they just won’t see it labeled as a fee. It’ll be baked into monthly rent.

Renters didn’t save money. They just lost visibility into how much of their rent is actually going to building operations.

Why This Matters for Landlords (Especially Mom-and-Pop Owners)

If you own one or two units in a Chicago high-rise, you’re not a real estate firm with economies of scale. You bought your place 15 years ago at a 2% rate. You’re holding it because it makes financial sense, or because you love the building, or because you wanted to keep a toe in the market. The rental income helps cover the mortgage and HOA fees.

You’re not rich. You’re just trying to be a responsible landlord and break even.

Now, on top of your mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and HOA dues (which are rising), PRO says you can’t pass through the building’s own move-in and move-out fees. The building still charges them—to you, as the owner. But you can’t ask the tenant to cover their share.

That’s $200, maybe $300 or $500 per tenant turnover. Spread across a few units per year, it adds up fast. Your margin narrows. Your stress increases. And after a few years of rent freezes (because Chicago’s economy softens or because you can’t raise rent enough to cover rising HOA fees), you start doing the math.

Here’s where the 1031 exchange enters the picture.

A 1031 exchange lets real estate owners postpone capital gains taxes by reinvesting proceeds into another property. It’s a powerful tool—and a way to move money out of Chicago.

A landlord holding a unit in a rising-fee environment, facing narrowing margins, and tired of regulatory complexity has an exit: sell the unit, do a 1031 exchange, and buy a rental property in Austin, Nashville, or Arizona. Same tax deferral, less regulation, better margins, and predictable HOA structures.

Multiply that by hundreds of mom-and-pop owners in Chicago condos, and you’ve just lost rental housing supply. And when supply drops, rents rise.

The very renters PRO was meant to protect end up paying more.

The Unintended (or Maybe Intended) Consequence

This is the part city planners don’t always think through: regulation doesn’t just change incentives for landlords. It changes which landlords stay.

Institutional landlords—big firms with hundreds of units and sophisticated accounting—can absorb regulatory costs. They’ll hire compliance staff, fold fees into algorithms, and price tenants accordingly. They’ll stay in Chicago.

Mom-and-pop owners, especially those with a handful of units and thin margins, can’t. They leave.

When mom-and-pops leave, inventory shrinks. Institutional landlords fill the void. Rents rise to meet the cost of institutional management. And the rental market gets colder, more formal, and less flexible—the opposite of what pro-tenant policy is supposed to create.

What This Means for Tenants

If you’re renting in Chicago, you probably care less about HOA mechanics and more about one simple question: Will my rent go up?

The honest answer is yes. PRO will indirectly increase rents because landlords are forced to absorb costs they used to pass through. Smaller operators will exit or shrink their portfolios, reducing supply. And the regulatory framework itself—the rental registry fee, the compliance machinery, the Bureau of Rental Housing Services—costs money. Landlords will price that in.

A $20 application fee cap might save you $150 at lease signing. But if it drives enough landlords to exit that your next renewal happens in a tighter market, you’ll pay that back and more.

You also lose information. When move-in fees were itemized separately, you could see how much of your deal was building costs versus landlord margin. When it’s baked into rent, you can’t. That’s less transparency, not more.

The Takeaway

PRO is well-intentioned. Rent is expensive. Fees can be predatory. The conversation about renter protections in Chicago deserves to happen.

But good policy asks hard questions before it passes. And this ordinance never really asked: What happens to housing supply and prices when you squeeze the people who own and manage rental housing?

The answer, based on decades of housing policy research, is usually: less housing, higher prices, and a market controlled by the only operators who can afford the regulatory burden.

If you’re a landlord, a renter, or just someone who cares about keeping Chicago affordable, this is worth paying attention to. The question isn’t whether PRO intended to help renters. It’s whether it actually will.