I signed a one year lease to a second floor apartment in a two story unit in California. The current tenant of that unit extended making the unit unavailable. The leasing agent verbally offered another like unit on the first floor, right beside the swimming pool with a sliding glass door opening to the pool area. It was even offered at a reduced rent. I accepted verbally but have since reconsidered. I have not paid any security deposit and never moved in. I would like to break this lease. Do I have grounds to do so?

Tenant law pretty much requires everything in writing. The exception is when a tenant occupies a rental by verbal arrangement; then at the very least he is a 'tenant at will,' usually month to month, which requires a certain minimum to be terminated by each party.

So I see no reason why you are obligated to the verbal agreement here. The LL sounds pretty accommodating, however, so I would be as nice as you can about it. I would think twice about opening right onto the pool. What if you have to sleep during the day, never mind the lack of privacy.

The LL sent an email with the following: "The law goes even so far as to allow us to move them into different unit, without their consent, in a complex as long as the terms are the same, in the off change we can't get a unit ready in time." This seems to indicate that they can make the change without verbal or written agreement.

I've never heard about that law, and the terms aren't the same (lower rent!)
I'd put the burden on them to show you the CA civil code (which is very long but you can read it online too).
You can also say 'Look, you can try suing me, but I will fight it on the grounds that I work nights and need to sleep days (or whatever sounds good), the unit isn't in any way similar because of the pool proximity, and the terms aren't the same because it's cheaper rent. Plus I didn't agree to the change in writing. Even if you win a judgment I won't pay.'

That's what I would say.

It is possible that such a law exists. But I love people who tell you what the law is without a specific cite. So you respond asking them to cite the section of the law.

But if that is the law, then you are bound by the lease.

The LL sent an email with the following: "The law goes even so far as to allow us to move them into different unit, without their consent, in a complex as long as the terms are the same, in the off change we can't get a unit ready in time." This seems to indicate that they can make the change without verbal or written agreement.

I too strongly doubt that there is any such law.

What probably happened is this: they were given an opinion by their attorney with regard to a different fact pattern, and they failed to understand that different facts lead to different conclusions. For example, if they had a tenant who had pre-signed a lease and paid a deposit before occupancy, their legal advisor told them that they could offer a different unit. This would be your situation. But if the tenant accepted the arrangement, the enforceability of the substitution was never actually tested. They erroneously concluded that they could require such a substitiution.

I could find no such "law" but it could be possible it is one of the terms of the lease, did you read your copy of the lease

I could find no such "law" but it could be possible it is one of the terms of the lease, did you read your copy of the lease

The lease contains no language to indicate that they can change units. It only states that I can terminate the lease if the unit is not available 15 days after the promise date (which it was not).

The lease contains no language to indicate that they can change units. It only states that I can terminate the lease if the unit is not available 15 days after the promise date (which it was not).

And that may supercede any statute.