For a growing number of renters in New York and Los Angeles, the apartment they have is not just home, it is a financial trap. The lease that once offered stability is now the only thing standing between them and a rental market that feels out of reach. Even as some parts of the country see cooling rents, the priciest coastal metros still have large shares of households that have stayed put for at least five years. For many of those long-term tenants, giving up an existing lease is a gamble they simply cannot afford to take.
National picture is mixed
At the national level, there is at least a hint of relief. Realtor.com reports that the median asking rent for 0 to 2 bedroom units slipped to about $1,667 in February 2026, continuing a long run of year-over-year declines. The same data show vacancy rates climbing in many metropolitan areas, which has created a few renter-friendly zones around the country, even if the relief is uneven. That split, with somewhat cheaper options in many Sun Belt markets and stubbornly tight conditions on the coasts, is exactly what turns a long-held lease in a high-cost city into a lifeline that is very hard to surrender.
Which metros are most at risk?
According to the New York Post, New York City has the highest concentration of long-term renters in the country, with roughly 53.3% of renter households having stayed in the same home for at least five years. Los Angeles is not far behind at about 49.6%. The Post also flags several other California markets that look similarly trapped: Oxnard at 49.5%, Fresno at 49.3%, Stockton at 47.9% and Riverside at 44.5%. There are comparable pockets across New England, where a large share of tenants would face severe affordability pressure if they had to move. The analysis describes the typical long-term renting household as living in a two-bedroom unit, headed by a 55-year-old, with a median household income around $48,500.
Why many renters can’t—or won’t—move
One big reason people are staying put is the cost of borrowing. Higher mortgage rates have pushed many would-be buyers out of the ownership market and extended the time they remain renters. Nadia Evangelou of the National Association of Realtors has noted that elevated mortgage costs have sidelined potential buyers, which keeps more households in rentals for longer than they expected. At the same time, research from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies documents persistent rent burdens and an aging renter population. Taken together, that means moving, and trying to find a similar unit at a price they can manage, is a financially risky and often prohibitively expensive proposition for many long-term tenants.
Policy protections only go so far
Local rent-stabilization and rent-control programs offer some cover. In cities that have them, those rules can blunt sharp rent spikes and give long-term tenants a measure of protection that is increasingly rare elsewhere. The New York Post notes that regulated apartments can effectively lock in affordability for households that manage to secure one, which helps explain why people hold on to those units so tightly. The catch is that such protections are far from universal. Most long-term renters live outside strong regulatory systems and would likely face much higher rents in any replacement unit if they were forced to move.
What to watch next
Housing experts caution that a softer national rent trend will not magically fix local scarcity in places like New York and Los Angeles. They point to a few key indicators worth watching: the path of mortgage rates, shifts in vacancy rates and whether new construction actually filters down to lower-cost segments of the market instead of only serving the high end. The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies highlights the need for a dual approach that both protects existing long-term renters and accelerates the creation of affordable units, along with targeted move assistance or down-payment help. Without that kind of two-track strategy, long-term renting is likely to feel less like a stepping stone to stability and more like an insurance policy against a market that too many households simply cannot afford.
