I am not understanding this. Doesn’t the (presumed) master tenant take primary responsibility for building safety, especially if he or she uses the building in a manner which it was not designed for? The owner was allegedly lied to by the master tenant and the artists who lived there, at least insofar as the place was being improperly used as living quarters.
Steve,
We own a small office building. In law, it is very clear that the landlord has the ultimate responsibility for what goes on in his premises. We require our tenants to carry their own insurance because our insurance carrier demands it. The FD does come around and inspect the tenants offices individually, and they perform a general inspection the results of which are actionable by us as owners. And we have to have the fire sprinkler system inspected by an independent contractor every five years with their report going to the FD.
You also mentioned “master tenant.” There really isn’t such a thing, since he is the only one with a contract with the owner, he is the only tenant. Most owners will not allow a tenant to sub lease space without landlord’s approval. As a landlord you should understand all uses to which your property is put and any tenant improvements have to be approved. But here, the property wasn’t zoned for overnight occupancy. We would not allow a tenant to take up permanent residence as an example. Furthermore, the city code would not allow it. The property is commercial and that means people go somewhere else to sleep and bathe. This place in Oakland was a warehouse and it wasn’t sprinklered. Plus it had tenant “improvements” that were not approved by anyone, and they were not “permitted” and inspected.