California law provides substantial protections to residential tenants. Because “ignorance of the law is no defense”, it behooves landlords to better understand the obligations owed to tenants, even if those obligations are not set forth in an underlying lease agreement.
One such obligation, codified in California Civil Code section 1941 et seq., is the implied warranty of habitability, by which all landlords covenant that the leased premises are suitable living quarters and will be sufficiently maintained for the duration of the lease. This obligation cannot be waived.
At a minimum, and as required by the relevant California Civil Code sections[1], the premises must have adequate: (i) waterproofing / weather protection; (ii) plumbing; (iii) hot and cold running water; (iv) heating; (v) electrical lighting; (vi) receptacles for garbage and rubbish; (vii) floors, stairways, and railings in good repair; (viii) locks on doors and windows; and (ix) telephone jacks and wiring. Other habitability requirements exist vis-à-vis other California statutes, such as the California Health and Safety Code[2] – by which a dwelling could be deemed substandard if it “endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants” (e.g., the presence of lead).
Moreover, there will be a “rebuttable presumption of breach” (i.e., it is the landlord’s burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise) if the following conditions are met: the dwelling ‘substantially lacks’ any of the aforementioned deficiencies; a government employee responsible for enforcing housing laws who has inspected the dwelling has provided written notice to the landlord of any such deficiencies; said deficiencies still exist 60 days after the issuance of that written notice; and the deficiencies were not caused by the tenant’s own act or omission[3].
Though the above might seem onerous, landlords are not without defenses. For example and as alluded to above, the deficiency must be substantial (as determined on a case-by-case basis). Also, landlords are not accountable for defects of which they were unaware and which would not have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. Thus, the landlord’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged deficiency is an essential prerequisite to an actionable breach of implied warranty claim. Finally, tenants are obligated to personally repair damage and deterioration caused by their own acts or neglect. Additionally, a landlord has no duty to repair a deficiency if the tenant is in substantial violation of any of the following tenant obligations: keeping the dwelling clean and sanitary; disposing of rubbish, garbage, and other waste in a clean and sanitary manner; properly using and operating all electrical, gas and plumbing fixtures and keeping them as clean and sanitary as their condition permits; preventing (within the tenant’s reasonable control) the destruction or unauthorized removal of facilities or equipment; or occupying the dwelling as a residence and not occupying it for different purposes for which it was intended[4].
Mike Cheng is a partner in the litigation department at Berliner Cohen, LLP. He can be reached by telephone (408) 286-5800 and via email (mike.cheng@berliner.com).
This article is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Anyone with questions about this topic should consult an attorney.