@Roman Stefaniw@Justin Windham mis-interpreted your question. 

Now if your interpretation is cash flowing enough to quit your job that is another conversation.  20 or 30 properties at 1k a month a door, if managed properly is a great revenue mark in my book. 

The seller responded that since the issue was repaired and he believes there is no ongoing problem, he did not think it needed to be disclosed.When I asked him to extend the inspection period so I could follow up with the repair company and conduct my own inspection, he declined.I disagree with this interpretation.

My interpretation of the CA law is that unless the medical condition constitutes a disability there is no obligation on the part of the landlord to let them out of the lease.

You are now a foreign entity doing business in CA since YOU run the business from there so Cali wants their $800 either way.So whether you need a REI tax pro is all open to interpretation.

Because this clause wasn't in the lease agreement,You hear these kinds of excuses and explanations (vary by circumstances) everywhere you go nowadays.We're becoming a nation where the Law is subject to personal excuses by indviduals that aren't suposed to interpret laws.

This leaves a lot of room for interpretation and that is exactly the issue we are having at the moment.

We have to interpret the phrase to the best of our abilities, aka guess.

This has been interpreted to mean "any increase in tenant expense to live there".

Quote from @Timothy Franklin: Okay @Jay Hinrichs that makes sense to me, I didn't interpret it like that.