A rental listing in California has sparked fury for making residents already dealing with the nation’s highest gross rent pay even more: by charging a fee for working from home.

The “newly built” furnished one-bedroom and one-bathroom unit is on the market in Walnut Creek, a city roughly 16 miles west of Oakland.

The 535-square foot accessory dwelling unit — an independent living space located on the same lot as a primary home — is charging $3,250 for rent. But if you’re working from home, you’d need to pay an additional $200.

The listing includes utilities, internet, a private patio and parking. It boasts a “custom sunlit living space, light colored engineered hardwood floors and an updated functional kitchen.”

Many renters on social media did not seem to care about all the features and were instead aghast at the idea of paying extra to work from a space they already paid for.

“That is absolutely insane,” reacted Bay Area resident Julie Crawford. “Is there extra for a stay-at-home mom, too?”

“That is a violation of privacy,” San Francisco resident Aviva Kirsten commented. “They should use the home they see fit as long as it is not a disturbance to the neighborhood.”

According to Zillow, the average rent across the Bay Area is about $3,650 a month, 81% higher than the national average.

Derek Barnes, CEO of the East Bay Rental Housing Association, told ABC7 that such fees are unusual but also are within reason. A remote worker uses more electricity, water, internet and air conditioning than an in-office one.

“It’s almost like a utility cost recovery or environmental conservation fee,” Barnes said. “You’re not likely, you know, to be aware of your usage of these precious resources if you don’t see a bill.”

The Post reached out to the owner of the listing for comment.

Such debates over charging more rent for remote workers are becoming more common ever since remote work became more mainstream due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dave Stickland, an entrepreneur from North Carolina, commented on X he encountered a similar request from a landlord there for an extra $300 per month. He, like others, questioned how such a rule can even be enforced without being privacy-invasive.

“Dude also insisted to keep his INDOOR cameras installed,” he said.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters