Chicago’s FAIR vs. PRO Rental Ordinances: What Landlords Need to Know in 2026

Chicago could be approaching one of the most significant changes to its landlord-tenant laws in decades.

The Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, commonly known as the RLTO, has governed the relationship between Chicago landlords and tenants since 1986. Now, two competing proposals would substantially rewrite those rules: Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Protecting Renters Ordinance, commonly referred to as PRO, and the competing Fair and Accountable Illinois Rental Ordinance, or FAIR.

PRO was introduced in June 2026 with the backing of tenant-rights and housing advocates. In July, a group of City Council members introduced FAIR as an alternative. Both proposals remain under consideration, and neither is currently law. Although the two proposals share considerable common ground, their differences involve some of the most consequential issues affecting Chicago landlords and tenants.

For individual condo owners and smaller rental-property investors in particular, understanding those differences is important. Depending on which provisions ultimately become law, Chicago could see significant changes involving lease non-renewals, relocation payments, security deposits and move-in fees, rental registration, landlord classifications, and the application of the RLTO itself.

Why Is Chicago Considering Changes to the RLTO?

Chicago’s RLTO has been in place for approximately 40 years, and the city’s rental market has changed considerably during that time. Tenant advocates argue that the ordinance has not kept pace with today’s housing environment and that stronger protections are needed to address housing stability, fees, building conditions, displacement, and difficulties identifying or holding some property owners accountable.

Housing providers are facing their own challenges. Property taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance and labor costs, and regulatory requirements have all increased. Smaller landlords in particular argue that continually adding costs, administrative requirements, and legal exposure can make providing rental housing increasingly difficult.

There appears to be considerable agreement that portions of Chicago’s rental laws could benefit from modernization. The disagreement is largely over what that modernization should look like and how to balance stronger tenant protections with the realities of owning and operating rental housing..

What Is the Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO)?

The Protecting Renters Ordinance is Mayor Brandon Johnson’s proposed overhaul of Chicago’s rental laws. PRO would significantly expand tenant protections and landlord obligations, particularly when it comes to lease non-renewals, tenant displacement, rental-property registration, fees, and enforcement.

Among the most significant provisions are new “just cause” restrictions surrounding certain lease non-renewals, relocation payments under certain circumstances, a citywide rental registry, changes involving security deposits and move-in fees, expanded tenant remedies, and a Tenant Bill of Rights. The proposal would also create a new Bureau of Rental Housing Services intended to serve as a centralized resource for rental-housing issues.

Supporters argue that these changes would provide Chicago renters with greater housing stability and stronger tools for dealing with problematic landlords. Opponents argue that PRO goes too far and could substantially increase the cost, complexity, and legal risk associated with owning rental property in Chicago.

What Is the FAIR Ordinance?

The Fair and Accountable Illinois Rental Ordinance was introduced by a group of City Council members as an alternative to PRO. Importantly, FAIR should not be interpreted as simply preserving the existing RLTO. It would also make significant changes to Chicago rental regulation.

FAIR retains several concepts found in PRO, including a citywide rental registry and changes involving security deposits. However, it removes several of PRO’s most controversial provisions, including the proposed just-cause requirements, relocation fees, Tenant Bill of Rights, new Bureau of Rental Housing Services, and city-funded right-to-counsel program. FAIR also introduces incentives related to vacant and out-of-code properties and creates new classifications based on the size of a landlord’s portfolio. That last point could be particularly important for individual condo owners and smaller Chicago real estate investors.

FAIR vs. PRO: What Are the Biggest Differences?

Despite the political debate surrounding the proposals, FAIR and PRO overlap in several areas. Both contemplate a rental registry, changes involving security deposits, and a significant modernization of Chicago’s existing landlord-tenant framework.

The largest disagreements concern how far those changes should go. PRO would place substantially greater restrictions on a landlord’s ability to end certain tenancies and could require significant relocation payments in some circumstances. FAIR eliminates those provisions and takes a very different approach to smaller housing providers.

Issue	PRO	FAIR
Major changes to Chicago rental law	Yes	Yes
Citywide rental registry	Yes	Yes
Security-deposit changes	Yes	Yes
Just-cause restrictions	Yes	No
Relocation-payment requirements	Yes	No
Tenant Bill of Rights	Yes	No
New Bureau of Rental Housing Services	Yes	No
City-funded right-to-counsel program	Yes	No
New landlord-size classifications	More limited	Yes
Small-landlord category up to 12 rental units	No	Yes
Incentives for certain vacant/out-of-code properties	Limited	Yes

These proposals are still subject to negotiation and amendment, so landlords should not assume that every provision shown above will appear in whatever legislation ultimately reaches a final vote.

One of the Biggest Differences: Just-Cause Non-Renewals

One of the most consequential differences between PRO and FAIR involves a landlord’s ability to decide not to renew a lease.

Under current Chicago law, landlords generally do not need to provide a specific reason for declining to renew a lease, provided they comply with applicable notice requirements and the decision is not discriminatory, retaliatory, or otherwise unlawful. PRO would significantly change that relationship by requiring qualifying grounds in certain circumstances before a landlord could recover possession or decline to continue a tenancy.

Consider an individual owner who rents out a Chicago condominium. The tenant has paid rent on time and has not violated the lease, but after several years the owner decides to sell the property, substantially renovate it, allow a family member to occupy it, or simply stop operating it as a rental. Under today’s rules, the owner generally has considerably more flexibility to end the tenancy when the lease expires as long as the appropriate notice is provided.

PRO could place additional restrictions on that decision and, depending on the circumstances, potentially create relocation obligations. Supporters argue that tenants who have complied with their leases deserve greater housing stability. Opponents argue that an owner should retain reasonable control over privately owned property after the contractual lease term has ended.

FAIR does not include PRO’s broad just-cause requirement and therefore more closely maintains the existing landlord-tenant relationship in this area.

Relocation Payments Are Another Major Difference

PRO also proposes relocation-payment requirements under certain circumstances when tenants are displaced through no fault of their own. This has become one of the provisions generating the most concern among Chicago property owners.

Supporters of relocation assistance point out that an unexpected move can impose significant costs on a tenant, including movers, application expenses, deposits, time away from work, and potentially higher rent at a replacement property. From that perspective, relocation assistance provides a financial cushion when a tenant must move despite having complied with the lease.

The counterargument is that requiring a private property owner to fund those expenses can impose a substantial financial burden, particularly on an individual owner with only one or two rental properties. The introduced PRO language has included potentially significant relocation obligations, while FAIR removes those broad relocation requirements.

This is an important example of why the distinction between an individual housing provider and an institutional landlord matters. An owner renting a former residence or one investment condo may have a very different ability to absorb an unexpected multi-thousand-dollar expense than a company operating hundreds of rental units.

The Small-Landlord Exemption Could Change Dramatically

For individual condo owners and smaller Chicago property investors, the treatment of small landlords may ultimately be one of the most important parts of this debate.

Under the existing RLTO, an important exemption generally applies to owner-occupied buildings containing six units or fewer. Simply owning one or two rental properties does not automatically make an owner exempt; owner occupancy is an important component of the current exemption.

FAIR proposes a substantially different framework. It would create three tiers of landlords, with small landlords potentially owning as many as 12 rental units throughout Chicago without being required to live in any of those buildings. PRO, by contrast, largely maintains the current approach to the small-landlord definition.

This distinction could be significant. Someone who owns three condominiums, a two-flat, and a small rental building is operating a fundamentally different business from an institutional owner controlling hundreds or thousands of apartments. Supporters of FAIR argue that its tiered approach better recognizes those differences and allows smaller housing providers greater opportunity to operate and grow.

Tenant advocates have raised the opposite concern. Expanding exemptions could mean that some renters who currently receive RLTO protections would lose certain protections because their landlord falls below the new portfolio threshold. That makes the definition and treatment of a “small landlord” one of the provisions worth watching most closely as negotiations continue.

Both Proposals Include a Rental Registry

Despite their differences, PRO and FAIR agree on one major concept: Chicago should establish a citywide rental registry. Property owners would be required to register rental properties and provide certain information to the city.

The proposals differ in the amount of information required. FAIR would generally require more limited information, such as the property address and contact information for the owner or authorized agent and the person responsible for repair requests. PRO would require additional ownership information, including information intended to identify individuals behind certain LLCs and trusts.

Supporters argue that a registry would make it easier for Chicago to identify property owners, enforce building codes, and locate responsible parties when serious problems arise. For responsible landlords and property managers, however, a registry would also create another compliance requirement that would need to be tracked carefully.

Security Deposits and Move-In Fees Could Also Change

Security deposits and move-in fees are another important area for Chicago landlords to watch. Both proposals contemplate changes involving security deposits, although the details differ and the ultimate treatment of move-in and move-out fees remains an important point of debate.

PRO would cap security deposits at one month’s rent and substantially restrict move-in fees. FAIR also contains a security-deposit cap, while the Chicago Association of REALTORS® has identified ambiguity in FAIR’s introduced language concerning move-in and move-out fees.

This is particularly relevant in Chicago because many landlords have moved away from traditional security deposits in favor of reasonable non-refundable move-in fees. Chicago’s security-deposit requirements have historically been highly technical, and mistakes can create significant liability. Any new restrictions affecting these fees could therefore change how many owners structure the financial terms of a new tenancy. Because these provisions are still being negotiated, landlords should be cautious about changing their current practices based on proposed language that has not become law.

What Would PRO Mean for Chicago Landlords?

If PRO were enacted substantially in its current form, Chicago property owners would operate in a considerably more regulated environment. Restrictions surrounding certain non-renewals, potential relocation obligations, additional registration and disclosure requirements, expanded tenant remedies, and changes involving security deposits and fees could all require landlords to adopt new procedures.

Large professional housing providers would likely respond by adding systems, legal review, and compliance resources. The greater concern for many individual owners is that complex requirements can be considerably harder to navigate for someone who owns a single condominium or a small handful of rental properties and does not have a dedicated legal or compliance department.

This is one of the central arguments made by PRO’s opponents: regulations intended to address large or problematic landlords can also increase costs and risks for responsible individual property owners. Those increased costs do not necessarily disappear. Over time, they can affect rental pricing, investment decisions, and whether smaller owners choose to remain in Chicago’s rental market.

What Would FAIR Mean for Chicago Landlords?

FAIR would still represent a meaningful change to Chicago rental regulation and should not be interpreted as simply preserving the current system. A rental registry, security-deposit changes, new landlord classifications, and other regulatory provisions would still require owners and property managers to adjust their practices.

However, FAIR removes several of the provisions generating the greatest concern among property owners, particularly just-cause requirements and broad relocation-payment obligations. It also attempts to distinguish between small housing providers and large institutional owners rather than treating every landlord identically.

That does not mean FAIR is universally supported by housing providers. The Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance, which represents small and midsize landlords, has said there are still important issues that need to be resolved within the proposal.

As a result, landlords should not view this debate as simply “tenant-friendly PRO versus landlord-friendly FAIR.” Both proposals would make meaningful changes, and both could change considerably before a final vote.

.

Which Proposal Is Better for Tenants?

From a tenant-protection standpoint, PRO clearly goes further. A renter concerned about being displaced despite paying rent and complying with the lease would likely find the just-cause and relocation provisions particularly valuable. Supporters also argue that stronger enforcement mechanisms and a more detailed rental registry could make it easier to identify and hold negligent landlords accountable.

FAIR provides fewer protections in those areas and would potentially expand the number of smaller landlords receiving exemptions from portions of the RLTO. Tenant advocates therefore argue that some renters could receive fewer protections under FAIR than under the current ordinance.

The underlying policy question is how much additional housing stability the city should guarantee renters while still recognizing the ownership rights and financial realities of the individuals and businesses providing that housing.

Which Proposal Is Better for Small Landlords?

For many individual condo owners and smaller rental-property owners, FAIR would likely create a more manageable regulatory environment than PRO if the proposals were enacted substantially as currently written.

The absence of broad just-cause restrictions and relocation payments is significant, as is FAIR’s recognition that someone with a small portfolio may warrant different treatment from an institutional housing provider. That does not mean every provision of FAIR benefits small landlords or that additional tenant protections are unwarranted.

The larger policy question is how Chicago protects renters from genuinely abusive practices while maintaining an environment in which responsible smaller housing providers are still willing to own, improve, and operate rental properties. Chicago’s rental stock includes individually owned condominiums, two-flats, three-flats, and other small properties whose economics and operations can be very different from those of large apartment portfolios.

Could FAIR and PRO Eventually Become One Ordinance?

That is certainly possible. Despite the attention given to their differences, there is substantial overlap between the proposals. WBEZ reported that proponents have described the proposals as overwhelmingly similar, although the remaining disagreements involve some of the most consequential issues, including just cause and the treatment of small landlords.

As negotiations continue among alderpersons, the mayor’s office, tenant advocates, and housing-provider groups, the final legislation could incorporate elements from both proposals. Individual provisions could also be substantially modified before anything reaches a final City Council vote.

For landlords, that means the introduced versions of FAIR and PRO are important for understanding the debate, but they should not be treated as the final rules Chicago property owners will ultimately have to follow.

What Should Chicago Landlords Do Right Now?

For now, neither PRO nor FAIR changes your existing lease or your current responsibilities as a Chicago landlord. Both remain proposals, and landlords should continue complying with the current Chicago RLTO, Illinois law, fair housing requirements, and all other applicable regulations.

Property owners should nevertheless pay close attention to what happens next. Provisions involving small-landlord exemptions, move-in fees, security deposits, rental registration, lease non-renewals, and relocation payments could materially change how Chicago rental properties are operated. Most importantly, landlords should not change their practices based solely on headlines or preliminary versions of either proposal. The final ordinance could look considerably different from what has currently been introduced.

Landlords who feel strongly about either proposal should also consider contacting their local alderperson. Chicago’s 50 alderpersons make up the City Council, and their votes ultimately determine whether city legislation becomes law. The Chicago City Clerk specifically provides tools to identify your ward and contact City Council members and encourages residents to make their voices heard on issues that matter to them.

When contacting your alderperson, consider explaining your individual circumstances rather than simply stating that you support FAIR or PRO. Let them know how many rental units you own, what type of properties you operate, and how particular provisions could affect your ability to maintain, improve, and continue providing rental housing. Likewise, renters who feel strongly about the proposed protections can contact their alderperson and explain how the provisions could affect their housing stability.

Find Your Chicago Ward & Alderperson

Chicago City Council Directory & Contact Information

Why These Changes Matter for Chicago Rental Property Owners

Chicago already has a complex landlord-tenant regulatory environment. Owning a rental property here involves considerably more than finding a tenant and collecting rent. Owners need to understand lease requirements, required disclosures, security-deposit and fee rules, notice periods, fair housing requirements, maintenance obligations, condominium association requirements, and changes to both Chicago and Illinois law.

The FAIR and PRO debate demonstrates how quickly that regulatory environment can evolve. For someone who owns a single Chicago condo or a small portfolio, staying current with those changes can be challenging, particularly when real estate is not their full-time profession.

Whatever legislation ultimately emerges, responsible landlords should understand both their obligations and their tenants’ rights. Good property management is not simply about avoiding violations; it is about having consistent procedures that protect the property, provide tenants with a professionally managed home, and reduce unnecessary disputes for everyone involved.

How City Roots Properties Can Help

At City Roots Properties, we work with Chicago condo owners and smaller rental-property investors to take the day-to-day responsibilities of being a landlord off their plate. Our full-service property management includes tenant screening and placement, lease preparation, rent collection, tenant communication, maintenance coordination, routine inspections, lease renewals, financial reporting, and HOA coordination when applicable.

Just as importantly, we continually monitor changes affecting Chicago rental properties so our management practices, leasing procedures, and documentation can evolve along with the law. For owners who prefer to manage their property themselves but want professional assistance finding a tenant, our Tenant Placement Plus service handles the leasing process from pricing and marketing through comprehensive screening, lease preparation, and move-in.

Whether PRO, FAIR, or a negotiated combination of the two ultimately becomes law, Chicago landlords will need to understand what the final ordinance means for their properties. City Roots Properties will continue monitoring these proposals and updating our clients as Chicago’s rental laws evolve.