Royal Gardens Healthcare

2339 W. Valley Blvd., Alhambra, CA 91803 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (626) 289-7809· 43 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since Apr 3, 1968 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: SERRANO GROUP (11 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)

1/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Jan 23, 2026

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.31

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 71 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Apr 16, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
Apr 16, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint F-0880
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint F-0558

View all 71 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Apr 16, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Apr 16, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Apr 16, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint · F-0558
Apr 16, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656
Apr 16, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Apr 9, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Apr 8, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy. · from a complaint · F-0691
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jan 23, 2026	B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912
Jan 13, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Aug 21, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Aug 21, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627
Aug 11, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jul 22, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Apr 22, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Mar 5, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · from a complaint · F-0800
Dec 5, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Dec 5, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Dec 5, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Dec 5, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 5, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Dec 5, 2024	B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Dec 5, 2024	B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912
Sep 30, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint · F-0732
Jul 31, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Jul 3, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Jul 3, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657
Dec 20, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0825
Dec 20, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Dec 20, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · from a complaint · F-0636
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Dec 10, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Dec 10, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881
Dec 10, 2023	B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 21).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2023	20	E
2024	16	E
2025	6	E
2026	29	E

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

1.11

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

3.61

3.90

3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	4.31	4.31	3.95	top 38% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	1.11	0.61	0.69	top 8% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.61	3.90	3.50	bottom 39% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.79	0.51	0.48	top 11% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	58.5	36.7	45.8	bottom 4% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	45.5	38.1	42.9	bottom 34% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.53, RN 1.17, weekend 3.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.53 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Royal Gardens Healthcare. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Individual

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Bin Mendel LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
BL Cali Partners LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Fensterman, Howard	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Fensterman, Jordan	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Fensterman, Robert	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Gardens Licensee 4 LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	01/01/2016
Jacobs, Dov	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
JS Fenton LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Leibson, Staci	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
RGF Consulting LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Serrano Group LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Serrano Partners LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Taub, Judah	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Yaame LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	01/01/2016
Gardens Licensee 4 LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2016
Jacobs, Dov	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2016
Yu, Armando	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2016

All 17 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Serrano Group — 11 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Royal Palms Post Acute — Glendale, CA · overall 2/5
Royal Terrace Healthcare — Duarte, CA · overall 3/5
California Post Acute — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5SFF
Corona Post Acute Center — Corona, CA · overall 1/5
Hollywood Premier Healthcare Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Long Beach Healthcare Center — Long Beach, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Maclay Healthcare Center — Sylmar, CA · overall 2/5abuseSFF
Monrovia Post Acute — Duarte, CA · overall 3/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 10 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"Which staff are trained in ostomy care, and how often is that care provided and checked?"
"Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
"Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
"CMS reports 59% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"The ownership record on file lists 17 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
"Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 313 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Sunny Village Care Center	0.6 mi	Alhambra, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Alhambra Hospital Med Ctr DP/SNF	1.1 mi	Alhambra, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Atherton Baptist Home	1.4 mi	Alhambra, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Heritage Manor	1.8 mi	Monterey Park, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Monterey Park Conv Hosp	1.9 mi	Monterey Park, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Alhambra Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP	2.0 mi	Alhambra, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Huntington Healthcare Center	2.3 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★☆☆☆	4/5
Royal Vista Care Center	2.6 mi	San Gabriel, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
South Pasadena Care Center	2.7 mi	South Pasadena, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Live Oak Rehab Center	2.8 mi	San Gabriel, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Ivy Creek Healthcare & Wellness Centre	2.9 mi	San Gabriel, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
San Gabriel Valley Medical Ctr D/P SNF	2.9 mi	San Gabriel, CA	★★★★☆	3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Royal Oaks Manor-Bradbury Oaks — Duarte, CA · overall 4/5
Royal Palms Post Acute — Glendale, CA · overall 2/5
Royal Terrace Healthcare — Duarte, CA · overall 3/5
Saint Vincent Healthcare — Pasadena, CA · overall 3/5
San Gabriel Conv Center — Rosemead, CA · overall 3/5
San Marino Healthcare Center — San Gabriel, CA · overall 3/5abuse

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Alhambra →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055818.