Chicago’s Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO). What Property Owners and Housing Professionals Need to Know
Chicago’s rental housing landscape may be entering another significant period of change.
The proposed Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO) represents a broad effort to overhaul Chicago’s existing Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO). Introduced in June 2026, PRO has generated considerable discussion among renters, housing advocates, landlords, property managers and real estate professionals.
Importantly, the proposal has evolved.
On September 16, the Chicago City Council’s Committee on Housing and Real Estate advanced a substitute version of PRO to the full City Council. Several provisions from the original proposal were removed or modified, while a number of significant changes affecting rental housing remain. Here are the key issues to understand.
1. Security deposits would be capped
Under the proposal, security deposits would be limited to one month’s rent.
The ordinance also proposes changes involving security-deposit administration, including provisions addressing interest and the handling of multiple deposits.
For housing providers, this is significant because Chicago’s existing security-deposit rules already create substantial compliance obligations. The proposed changes would alter how landlords structure move-in costs and manage tenant deposits.
2. Move-in fees would be effectively prohibited
PRO would substantially restrict the use of move-in fees.
This is an important distinction in Chicago’s rental market. Some landlords have historically used move-in fees instead of larger security deposits, while some renters have viewed fees as a way to reduce the amount of money required upfront.
Changing that structure could affect how rental properties are marketed, leased and priced.
3. A citywide rental registry is proposed
PRO would establish a Residential Rental Registry covering owners of one or more dwelling units offered for rent in Chicago.
Proposed annual registration fees of:
- 1–4 units: $20 per unit
- 5–49 units: $40 per unit
- 50+ units: $60 per unit
Owners who do not live or maintain a place of business in Chicago would also have to designate a qualifying local representative to receive city notices.
Beyond the registration fee itself, the registry would introduce another layer of reporting, recordkeeping and compliance for property owners and management companies.
4. The original “Just Cause” provisions have changed
This is one of the most important developments and one that deserves careful attention.
The original version of PRO included significant Just Cause requirements governing non-renewal and recovery of possession, along with relocation-payment provisions.
The substitute ordinance advanced on September 16 removed the Just Cause requirement for lease non-renewals and removed relocation-fee requirements associated with non-renewals.
That means articles or social-media posts describing PRO solely in terms of the original Just Cause and relocation provisions may no longer accurately describe the legislation currently moving through City Council.
The proposal is still subject to further legislative action.
5. Tenant rights and enforcement would expand
PRO also proposes a broader framework of tenant rights and remedies.
The analysis identifies provisions involving issues such as tenant organizing, rent withholding, lease termination, retaliation, quiet enjoyment, repairs and expanded remedies.
The proposal also contemplates expanded damages, penalties, attorney-fee provisions and other enforcement mechanisms.
For housing providers, this means compliance would become increasingly important, not simply from an operational standpoint, but also from a litigation-risk perspective.
6. The financial impact could extend beyond registration fees
The debate surrounding PRO is ultimately about more than a few new fees.
Changes to deposits, move-in charges, tenant remedies, registration requirements and landlord obligations can affect the economics of operating rental housing.
The analysis shows that additional compliance costs and restrictions could increase operating expenses for housing providers. Supporters of PRO, meanwhile, argue that stronger rules are needed to create greater transparency, stability and protections for Chicago renters.
Those competing perspectives are an important part of understanding the policy debate.
What happens next?
The substitute version of PRO has cleared the Housing and Real Estate Committee and is headed toward consideration by the full Chicago City Council.
A separate proposal, the FAIR ordinance is also moving through the Council, creating an additional legislative path for changes to Chicago’s landlord-tenant regulations. According to the Chicago REALTORS® September 17 update, both proposals could reach the full City Council for consideration on September 23.
The bigger picture
Whether you are a renter, small housing provider, investor, property manager, leasing professional or real estate practitioner, PRO is worth watching closely.
The most important takeaway is this:
Don’t rely on summaries of the original proposal when evaluating what PRO would actually require.
The legislation has already changed, and additional changes could occur before and potentially during the City Council process.
For property owners especially, now is the time to understand the proposed requirements, review current leasing and property-management practices, and monitor the final language before making decisions about rental properties.
Chicago’s housing market depends on both tenant stability and a viable supply of rental housing. The challenge for policymakers will be determining how those objectives can coexist within a regulatory framework that is workable for the people who rent homes and the people who provide them. How you can take action? Tell your Alderperson to vote No on PRO.
This article is intended for informational purposes and is not legal advice. PRO remains proposed legislation, and the final requirements may differ from the current substitute ordinance.
About the Author, Arthur R. van der Vant
