Free Arizona Lead Paint Disclosure

An Arizona lead paint disclosure is the federally mandated form a landlord delivers to a prospective tenant before any lease of residential property built before 1978. It carries the fixed federal lead warning statement, states the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint and hazards, lists the records being handed over, documents the tenant’s receipt of the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, captures any agent’s acknowledgment, and is signed and dated by every party. Authority is 42 U.S.C. 4852d (Section 1018 of Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992), implemented at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F (EPA) and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A (HUD). Arizona imposes no lead paint disclosure statute of its own — the disclosure duty here is purely federal. Arizona does have a lead statute, and almost nobody writing about this topic has read it: A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 13, Article 6 is headed “Lead-Based Paint”, but it regulates health programmes, physician reporting, and the physical act of applying lead-based paint — not landlord disclosure. What Arizona also adds is an independent habitability duty under A.R.S. 33-1324 for deteriorated paint, covered in our Arizona habitability laws guide. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly what the rule requires.

▶ Watch overview

Arizona lead paint disclosure overview

The lead paint disclosure — often called the Section 1018 disclosure, after the 1992 statute that created it — is the formal federal notice an Arizona landlord delivers to a prospective tenant for any residential property built before 1978. It does four things in one document.

First, it puts the tenant on notice of potential lead exposure through the federally mandated lead warning statement, the fixed language at 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) that must be attached to or included within the lease.

Second, it transmits the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint or hazards in the dwelling. The lessor picks one of exactly two positions: known lead-based paint or hazards are present, with a description of what is known; or the lessor has no knowledge of lead-based paint or hazards in the housing. There is no third box, and there is no “maybe”.

Third, it transmits any reports the lessor holds from prior inspections, risk assessments, or hazard-reduction work. The lessor either provides copies of all available records and lists them, or affirmatively states that no reports or records exist. The rule defines “available” at 40 CFR 745.103 as in the possession of or reasonably obtainable by the seller or lessor at the time of the disclosure — which is broader than “sitting in my filing cabinet”.

Fourth, it documents the tenant’s receipt of the disclosure and of the EPA pamphlet. The signed acknowledgment is the landlord’s primary defence in any later EPA or HUD inquiry or private civil action.

The disclosure is not optional and the duty is not waivable by agreement. A pre-1978 Arizona rental leased without one exposes the landlord to government civil penalties and to a tenant’s private action for triple damages plus fees. Compliance takes fifteen minutes; non-compliance is the most expensive paperwork failure in pre-1978 rental practice.

Arizona imposes no lead paint disclosure duty on landlords. Arizona does, however, have a lead-based paint statute — and it is not the one anybody cites. Both halves of that sentence matter, and getting either half wrong is how this topic goes wrong.

Start with the negative, because it is the answer most Arizona landlords actually need. Title 33 of the Arizona Revised Statutes — the title that contains property law and the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act at Chapter 10 — does not contain a single lead-paint provision. A.R.S. 33-1322, the ARLTA section actually headed “Disclosure and tender of written rental agreement”, requires the landlord to disclose in writing the name and address of the person authorised to manage the premises and of an owner or owner’s agent for service of process, and to inform the tenant that the Act is available on the Arizona Department of Housing’s website. That is the entire list in that section, and lead is not on it. (The ARLTA imposes a handful of other informational duties elsewhere in the chapter — none of them a lead duty.) A.R.S. 33-1324, the habitability section, does not mention lead either. If you are searching for the Arizona lead disclosure statute number, there is not one to find.

Now the positive, which almost no page covering this topic has noticed. A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 13, Article 6 is literally headed “Lead-Based Paint”. It runs from 36-1672 to 36-1676 — and note that there is no 36-1671; the article begins at 36-1672. Here is what each section actually does, and, more importantly, who owes the duty:

Read the article as a whole and the shape is unmistakable. Across all five sections the words landlord, lessor, tenant, disclose, abatement, certification and registry do not appear once. It is a public-health and consumer-product statute from an earlier era: it funds health programmes, it puts a reporting duty on doctors, it bans the sale of unlabelled lead paint, and it criminalises putting lead paint on surfaces children can reach. It does not ask a landlord to disclose anything, to test anything, to register anything, or to remediate anything.

So the honest summary for an Arizona landlord is this: Arizona adds nothing to your disclosure duty, and that is a useful, complete answer. Your disclosure obligation begins and ends with federal law. But Arizona is not a blank page either, and the next section covers the one Arizona provision that can actually bite you.

Of the five sections in Arizona’s Lead-Based Paint article, one imposes a duty on “any person”, which includes a landlord, a property manager, and a maintenance employee. It deserves its own section because it is genuinely Arizona-specific, genuinely enforceable, and genuinely absent from every competing page.

A.R.S. 36-1674(A)(1) makes it unlawful for any person to apply lead-based paint to any interior surface of residential housing or a public building, and to the exteriors and porches of such housing and buildings, in any area which is readily accessible to children under seven years of age. Subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) extend the same logic to toys, furniture, and cooking, drinking and eating utensils. Subsection (B) sets out a prescribed container warning label for lead-based paint sold to the public, down to the type sizes. Subsection (C) exempts artists’ supplies from that label requirement — and only from that label requirement; the application ban in subsection (A) carries no artists’ exemption. And subsection (D) supplies the teeth: any person who violates a provision of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor — the most serious misdemeanor class in Arizona.

Three things a landlord should take from it.

• It is an application ban, not a disclosure duty. Nothing in 36-1674 requires you to tell a tenant anything, to test, or to remove existing paint. It regulates the act of putting lead-based paint on a surface. Do not let anyone convert it into an Arizona disclosure requirement; it is not one.
• The age is seven, not six. This is the single most citable Arizona-specific fact on this page. Arizona’s statute says “children under seven years of age”. The federal target-housing definition at 40 CFR 745.103 uses “less than 6 years of age” in its target-housing carve-outs. They are different regimes with different purposes and different ages, and conflating them produces a wrong answer in both directions.
• It is criminal, not civil. A class 1 misdemeanor sits in a different universe from a disclosure penalty. In practice this section rarely surfaces, because lead-based paint has not been lawfully sold for interior residential use in decades — but a landlord using up old stock found in a garage, or a maintenance crew applying salvaged paint, is squarely within its terms.

What it is not. 36-1674 does not prohibit painting over intact lead-based paint with modern paint, which is in fact a recognised interim control. What governs disturbing existing paint in a pre-1978 unit is the federal Renovation, Repair and Painting rule, covered further down this page. Two different rules, two different triggers: Arizona controls what you apply; EPA controls how you disturb what is already there.

Most guides list “three things” a landlord must do. The regulation is more precise than that. 40 CFR 745.113(b) requires six distinct elements in the lease or an attachment to it, in the language of the contract. A disclosure missing any one of them is defective, regardless of how professional the form looks. This is the checklist to audit your own paperwork against.

Note what is not in that list: no inspection window, no testing requirement, no filing with any Arizona agency, and no obligation to remediate. The rule is an information-transfer rule. It makes you tell the truth about what you know and hand over what you hold; it does not make you go looking. And note where the duty sits in time: 40 CFR 745.107(a) requires these activities to be completed before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease target housing that is not otherwise an exempt transaction.

“Target housing” is the federal term for property subject to the rule. The definition at 40 CFR 745.103 is residential dwellings constructed before 1 January 1978, subject to the narrow exclusions covered in the next section.

Why 1978 — and which 1978 date actually governs. The operative cutoff comes from the definition itself: 40 CFR 745.103 defines target housing as housing constructed prior to 1978, meaning construction before 1 January 1978. The historical reason that year was chosen is the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s ban on lead-containing paint at 16 CFR 1303.1 — but that ban applies to paint manufactured after 27 February 1978, which is not the same date. Competing pages routinely merge the two and report the CPSC ban as effective 1 January 1978. It was not. The distinction has no practical effect on your compliance answer, because the construction cutoff in 745.103 is what decides coverage, but it does tell you which cite to trust: for whether your unit is covered, read 745.103, not the CPSC rule. Housing constructed from 1 January 1978 onward sits outside the disclosure regime entirely.

How to verify the build year in Arizona. The county assessor’s record is the fastest authoritative source, and Arizona’s large counties — Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai, Coconino — all publish parcel data online with a year-built field. The original certificate of occupancy, the building permit file, and title records also establish it. The lessor carries the burden of correctly identifying target housing — “I think it was around 1980” is not a defence, and a guess that turns out wrong is a knowing violation waiting to happen.

Renovation does not reset the clock. A 1962 building stripped to the studs and rebuilt in 2001 is still target housing. The original construction date controls, not the date of the most recent renovation. This trips up owners of heavily rehabbed older stock constantly.

Common areas in multi-unit buildings. If the building predates 1978, the disclosure scope reaches the common areas as well as the leased unit. The rule defines “common area” at 40 CFR 745.103 as a portion of a building generally accessible to all residents or users, including but not limited to hallways, stairways, laundry and recreational rooms, playgrounds, community centers, and boundary fences. This has a practical consequence for records, covered below: a building-wide evaluation is disclosable to every tenant in the building, not just the one whose unit it sampled.

Arizona context. Arizona’s housing stock skews young — the state’s explosive growth happened after the trigger date, so a very large share of Phoenix-metro and Tucson-metro rental inventory was built in 1978 or later and is simply outside the rule. That is exactly what makes Arizona landlords vulnerable: the compliance muscle never develops, and then a portfolio picks up a 1950s bungalow in central Phoenix, a mid-century fourplex in midtown Tucson, or an older property in Bisbee, Globe, Prescott, Winslow or Yuma, and nobody remembers the rule exists. Mixed-vintage portfolios are where this goes wrong, because the answer differs unit by unit. When in doubt, verify against the assessor record rather than assuming the unit is new enough.

Even pre-1978 property can fall outside the rule. The carve-outs are narrow, and they come from two different places in the regulation — which is why competing lists of “the lead paint exemptions” disagree with one another. Some are exclusions written into the definition of target housing at 40 CFR 745.103: a unit that meets one of those was never target housing in the first place. The others are transaction-level exemptions listed at 40 CFR 745.101: the housing is target housing, but this particular deal is outside the subpart. The compliance answer is often the same either way, but knowing which provision governs tells you which text to read and which facts matter.

• Housing built in 1978 or later (40 CFR 745.103). Not target housing at all.
• Zero-bedroom dwellings (40 CFR 745.103, definitional). A dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area. The rule’s own definition says the term includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings. This exclusion is now conditional: under 40 CFR 745.103 as amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416), a 0-bedroom dwelling is target housing when a child under six resides or is expected to reside there — the same child-under-six condition that governs the elderly and disabled limb. It was unconditional before the amendment, and older charts still show studios as categorically exempt.
• Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (40 CFR 745.103, definitional), unless a child under six resides or is expected to reside there. The rule defines “housing for the elderly” as retirement communities or similar types of housing reserved for households composed of one or more persons 62 years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy. Since the 13 January 2025 amendment this exclusion and the 0-bedroom exclusion both carry the child condition.
• Short-term leases of 100 days or less (40 CFR 745.101(c)), where no lease renewal or extension can occur. Arizona’s substantial snowbird and short-stay market makes this the most-claimed exemption in the state — and the most-misclaimed. Read the words “where no lease renewal or extension can occur”. A month-to-month tenancy does not qualify, because it renews. A five-month winter lease does not qualify, because it exceeds 100 days.
• Certified lead-free housing (40 CFR 745.101(b)). Property found to be lead-based paint free by an inspector certified under the federal certification programme or a federally accredited State or tribal programme. Since Arizona is not an authorised state, that certification runs through the EPA programme. Retain the certification; it is the only proof of the exemption.
• Qualifying lease renewals (40 CFR 745.101(d)). A renewal of an existing lease where the lessor has previously disclosed all information required under 745.107 and no new information described in 745.107 has come into the lessor’s possession. Watch the cross-reference: 745.101(d) points at 745.107, not at 745.113(b); pages that cite 745.113(b) here have followed the wrong thread. The rule adds that renewal includes both renegotiation of existing lease terms and ratification of a new lease. If anything new reached you, the exemption is gone.
• Foreclosure sales (40 CFR 745.101(a)). Exempt — but note this is a sales exemption, and it is the one most often misread on rental pages. A purchaser at foreclosure who then leases the pre-1978 property owes the tenant the full disclosure.

Federal law requires the lessor to give the prospective lessee an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet before any lease obligation attaches. 40 CFR 745.107(a)(1) names it: the EPA document entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, or an equivalent pamphlet that has been approved for use in that State by EPA. This is a separate duty from the disclosure form, and failing it is a separate violation supporting independent damages. Handing over a beautifully executed disclosure without the pamphlet is a violation.

Where to get it. The pamphlet is published jointly by EPA, HUD, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and is free at epa.gov/lead. It is available in English, Spanish, and additional languages. EPA refreshed the pamphlet in recent years; deliver the current edition rather than a decade-old PDF sitting in your templates folder.

Language. The disclosure must be provided in the language of the contract — 40 CFR 745.113(b) says so expressly, giving English and Spanish as its examples. An English lease takes the English pamphlet; a Spanish lease takes the Spanish edition. This matters more in Arizona than in most states: a Spanish-language lease requires the Spanish disclosure and the Spanish pamphlet, and a landlord who negotiates in Spanish but papers the deal in English has a documentation problem well beyond lead. Match the pamphlet to the lease language, not to the conversation.

Delivery. Hand delivery with the lessee initialing receipt is the gold standard. Electronic delivery is permitted subject to the E-SIGN conditions covered below. What does not satisfy the rule is pointing at a website: posting a link is not delivery. The pamphlet must be transmitted as a complete document, on paper or electronically.

Existing tenants. The leasing disclosure duty attaches to new leases, not to sitting tenants mid-term. There is one important exception, and it is the renovation rule: if you disturb paint in an occupied pre-1978 unit, the occupants must receive the lead hazard information regardless of when their lease started. That is covered in the renovation section below.

The rule does not require you to test for lead, and it does not require you to remove it. You do not have to take anyone’s word for this, because the regulation says it in terms. 40 CFR 745.107(a) provides that nothing in this section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities. EPA says the same thing in its public guidance: the rule does not require sellers or landlords to test or remove lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, and it does not cancel leasing or sales contracts. It is a disclosure rule, not an abatement rule. The statute itself carries the second half of that: 42 U.S.C. 4852d(c) provides that nothing in the section affects the validity or enforceability of any sale or contract for the purchase and sale or lease of any interest in residential real property, nor creates a defect in title. A missed disclosure is a violation with real consequences — but it does not void your lease.

The standard is actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge and not a duty to investigate. If the unit has never been tested and you hold no reports, “no knowledge” is the honest, lawful answer, and checking it exposes you to nothing.

The trap is the opposite direction. “No knowledge” becomes fraud when you actually know something:

• You hold a risk assessment, inspection report, or abatement record for the unit or the building.
• A previous tenant’s child had an elevated blood-lead result traced to the unit — a result Arizona physicians report to the state health department under the reporting rules A.R.S. 36-1673 directs the director to adopt.
• A code-enforcement notice, insurance report, or contractor flagged deteriorated paint.
• You know the property was tested and the report is inconvenient, so you never collected it. Remember that “available” reaches records reasonably obtainable by you, not merely those in your hand.

Note the asymmetry the rule creates. Testing is optional; disclosing is not. A landlord who tests and finds lead must disclose it, and many owners conclude — rationally — that they would rather not know. That is lawful. What is not lawful is knowing and papering over it, because 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3) attaches its treble-damages remedy to knowing violations, and a fact-finder deciding what you knew will look at every document in your file.

This is the most widespread error on the lead-disclosure internet, it is present on Arizona pages ranking for this exact query today, and it is worth being precise about — because form vendors routinely bolt a “10-day inspection opportunity” checkbox onto rental disclosures, and some pre-tick it on the landlord’s behalf, which manufactures a tenant acknowledgment of a right that does not exist.

Read the regulation. 40 CFR 745.110(a) provides that before a purchaser is obligated under any contract to purchase target housing, the seller shall permit the purchaser a 10-day period (unless the parties mutually agree, in writing, upon a different period of time) to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. Purchaser. Seller. Purchase. Every operative noun is a sales noun. Subsection (b) adds that a purchaser may waive the opportunity in writing — again, purchaser. The underlying statute is scoped identically at 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C).

Now read the lessor rules. 40 CFR 745.113(b) — the six elements listed earlier — contains no inspection-opportunity item. Neither does the EPA lessor disclosure form. And 745.113(a)(5), which does carry a received-or-waived statement about the 10-day opportunity, sits in the seller subsection and applies to contracts to sell.

EPA says it in plain words. On its real-estate disclosure page the agency states that renters can ask their landlord or property manager to get a paint inspection from a certified inspector before signing a lease, however landlords and property managers are not required to do so by this Disclosure Rule. The corresponding duty in EPA’s own summary is to “provide homebuyers a 10-day period” — homebuyers.

What this means for you. An Arizona landlord owes a prospective tenant no statutory inspection window. You may offer one voluntarily, and doing so is a reasonable gesture for a tenant who asks — but do not describe it as a federal right, and do not put a checkbox on your disclosure asserting the tenant received or waived a right the rule never gave them. A form that documents a fictitious waiver is worse than one that stays silent: it is an inaccurate statement on a document every party signs certifying accuracy. The generator on this page prints no such line, by design.

Complete the fields below to generate a federally compliant Arizona lead paint disclosure. The generated PDF reproduces the lead warning statement, the lessor’s disclosure items, the lessee’s acknowledgment items, the agent’s acknowledgment, and the certification of accuracy with signature and date lines for each party.

40 CFR 745.113(c) requires the lessor to retain a copy of the completed disclosure for no less than three years from the commencement date of the leasing period. That is the entire legal requirement, and it is also the single highest-leverage thing in this whole guide, because the signed disclosure is the only artefact that proves you complied.

Think about how a lead dispute actually unfolds. A tenant alleges no disclosure. There is no Arizona agency database to consult; nothing gets filed anywhere in this state or any other. The dispute reduces to whether you can produce a signed document. If you can, the claim usually ends. If you cannot, you are defending a knowing-violation allegation with your word against theirs, and the statute puts treble damages and fee-shifting on the other side of that argument.

What belongs in the file:

• The executed disclosure with every party’s initials, signatures, and dates.
• A note identifying which pamphlet edition was delivered, in which language, and how.
• Copies of every record and report you handed to the lessee.
• The lease itself, if the disclosure was inserted rather than attached.
• For electronic delivery: the consent record and the delivery/access log.

The rule itself says the three years is not the measure of your exposure. 40 CFR 745.113(c)(2) provides that the recordkeeping requirement “is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee’s or purchaser’s rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).” Read that carefully, because it is the sentence that should govern your retention policy: three years is how long you are required to keep the file. Be precise about what the sentence does and does not say. It says expressly that the recordkeeping requirement imposes no limitation on civil suits under the Act and does not affect the lessee’s rights under 4852d(b)(3). It does not say that the three-year mark is irrelevant to a defence, and it says nothing at all about how long a tenant has to sue — that is a question of the applicable limitation period, not of this rule. What follows is simply that discharging the retention duty is not the same as outliving the exposure. A landlord who shreds the file on the three-year anniversary has discharged the duty to retain while keeping every bit of the liability that file would have defended.

Practical retention advice. Three years is a floor, not a target. Arizona’s limitation periods for the underlying claims run longer than three years, and a lead-poisoning claim brought on behalf of a minor can surface many years after the tenancy ends. Retention is nearly free; destroy the file on the three-year anniversary and you have optimised for the wrong risk. Keep it for the life of ownership and hand the file over at sale.

Electronic disclosure and e-signature are permitted. The signed electronic disclosure is the same legally binding document as a paper one, under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001. Almost no competing Arizona guide states the conditions EPA attaches, so here they are.

If you provide the required disclosure information electronically, EPA expects you to give the tenant:

• A clear statement of the right to receive paper documents. Electronic delivery is the tenant’s option, not your default imposition.
• The procedure to withdraw consent, and the consequences of withdrawing. Spelled out, not implied.
• How to access and retain the electronic records. A file the tenant cannot open or keep has not been delivered.
• Consent demonstrating they can actually access the materials. You need affirmative consent showing the tenant can receive the forms in the format you are using.

The underlying principle: the use of electronic technology must give the tenant complete access to all disclosure materials. A portal link buried in a welcome email, a PDF the tenant cannot download, or an e-sign flow that shows the signature page without the pamphlet all fail that test even though a signature comes back.

Retention is identical. Three years, same as paper — but electronic records need a real home. An e-signature vendor account you stop paying for is not a retention plan. Export the executed PDF and the audit trail into storage you control.

The disclosure rule governs leasing. A different rule governs work on the building, and Arizona landlords routinely comply with the first while breaching the second.

The RRP rule. The EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting rule at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E applies to renovation, repair, or painting that disturbs painted surfaces in pre-1978 target housing. Above the de minimis threshold, the work must be performed by an EPA-certified firm using certified renovators and lead-safe work practices — containment, prohibited practices such as open-flame burning and uncontained power sanding, and cleaning verification. This is not a paperwork rule; it dictates how the work is physically done, and it applies to a landlord’s own maintenance staff, not just outside contractors.

The 60-day information duty. Where the renovation affects an occupied pre-1978 unit, the occupants must receive lead hazard information no more than 60 days before work begins — the EPA renovation pamphlet, delivered to the tenants in the unit. This duty runs to sitting tenants who already have a lease and already received their leasing disclosure years ago.

Common areas: each affected unit in writing, or posted signs. Where the work is in the common areas of a pre-1978 multi-unit building, 40 CFR 745.84(b) gives the renovation firm a choice, and most guides report only half of it. Either notify each affected unit in writing before the work starts — the notice describing the general nature and locations of the planned renovation activities, the expected starting and ending dates, and how the occupant can obtain the pamphlet and a copy of the required records at no cost — or post informational signs while the renovation is ongoing, describing the general nature and locations of the work and the anticipated completion date, sited where the occupants of all affected units are likely to see them, with the pamphlet posted or a no-cost route to it given. Note the scope word the regulation actually uses: affected units — not automatically every unit in the building. And under 745.84(b)(4), if you went the written route and the scope, locations, or dates then change, you owe a further written notice before working beyond what the original notice described.

Note also that entering an occupied unit to carry out that work is its own compliance question under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act — see our Arizona landlord entry laws guide for the notice a landlord owes before entering to renovate.

Why it matters in Arizona. Repainting between tenancies is the most routine task in the business, and Arizona’s intense sun and heat cycles chew through exterior paint faster than almost anywhere, so older Arizona stock gets repainted more often, not less. Scraping and repainting a 1958 Phoenix duplex’s window trim with in-house staff and no certification is an RRP violation with its own penalty exposure, entirely independent of a flawless leasing disclosure. And there is a second-order effect: work that disturbs paint can create the very hazard you then have to disclose to the next tenant, and it can generate the records that make “no knowledge” unavailable to you going forward.

Search this topic for Arizona and you will be told the penalty is a specific number per violation. You will see several different numbers, none dated, most copied from an old page — the Arizona results and AI summaries currently circulate at least three different figures for the same rule. Here is the accurate structure, which has two entirely separate limbs.

Limb one: the tenant’s private action, 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3). Any person who knowingly violates the section is jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee for three times the amount of damages that person incurred. This multiplier is written into the statute; it does not move with inflation. Section 4852d(b)(4) adds that a court may award court costs together with reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees to a prevailing plaintiff. The fee-shifting is what makes small disclosure violations economically worth suing over.

Limb two: government civil money penalties. These are assessed by EPA and HUD, and they are inflation-adjusted — annually, under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, with the operative amounts published in the table at 40 CFR 19.4 for EPA-assessed penalties. There is also a criminal limb, and the chain is worth knowing rather than asserting: 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(5) makes it a prohibited act under section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2689) to fail or refuse to comply with the section or any rule issued under it, which routes enforcement into TSCA’s penalty provision at 15 U.S.C. 2615 — the section carrying TSCA’s criminal exposure for knowing or wilful violations.

The asymmetry is what should drive behaviour. Completing this form correctly costs fifteen minutes. The downside is a treble-damages judgment with the tenant’s legal fees attached, plus an agency penalty, plus — if a child was actually poisoned — a tort claim in which the disclosure violation supplies a ready-made negligence theory.

EPA and HUD share enforcement of the disclosure rule. EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and HUD’s Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes run the programme jointly, and enforcement has historically concentrated on larger landlords and property managers, where a single practice failure replicates across hundreds of tenancies and produces a large per-violation multiplier. For Arizona, the relevant EPA office is Region 9.

What is different about Arizona is what is absent. There is no Arizona lead registry to file with, no state lead-safe certificate to obtain, no state rental lead inspection, and no state agency with a landlord lead-disclosure mandate. The Arizona Department of Health Services runs childhood lead screening and prevention work under the authority in A.R.S. 36-1672 and 36-1673 — but that is public-health surveillance addressed to the department and to physicians. It creates no filing duty for you.

How a case starts. Rarely with an inspector at the door. Usually one of four ways: a tenant reports a missing disclosure; a child’s elevated blood-lead result triggers a health-department investigation that works backwards to the paperwork — and in Arizona the physician blood-lead reporting regime that A.R.S. 36-1673 directs is precisely the mechanism that puts that result in front of the state; a private lawsuit’s discovery exposes a systemic gap; or an agency initiative targets a market and requests files from a portfolio owner.

Where violations get reported. Tenants can report a disclosure violation to EPA at epa.gov/lead/violation or to HUD at the lead regulations mailbox published on HUD’s enforcement pages. The National Lead Information Center, 1-800-424-LEAD, fields questions from both landlords and tenants. Nothing about the process requires the tenant to hire a lawyer first, which is precisely why a clean file matters more than a good argument.

What an inquiry asks for. Signed disclosures for the tenancies in scope, proof of pamphlet delivery, and the records you disclosed or certified you did not have. That is it. An owner who can produce the file usually ends the matter at the document-request stage; an owner who cannot is negotiating over the size of the penalty, not whether there is one.

Ask an AI assistant or read a search engine’s generated summary about Arizona lead paint disclosure today and you will be handed confident, specific, wrong answers. We checked each one against the Arizona Legislature’s own published statutes and against the regulation text itself. Here is what is circulating, and what is actually true.

The invented Arizona statutes

One AI-generated answer states that Arizona lead disclosure law “references applicable A.R.S. statutes, including A.R.S. 33-1260.01 and A.R.S. 33-1806.01”. Both sections are real. Neither has anything to do with lead. A.R.S. 33-1260.01 is a Condominium Act section headed “Rental property; unit owner and agent information; fee; disclosure”, and it governs what a homeowners’ association may demand from a unit owner who rents out a unit — tenant names, lease dates, vehicle plates, a capped fee. A.R.S. 33-1806.01 is the identical section for planned communities. Neither contains the word “lead”. Neither contains the word “paint”. The pattern is easy to see once you know it: the engine matched the word “disclosure” in a section title and produced a citation that looks authoritative and is entirely hollow. If someone hands you an A.R.S. number for a lead disclosure duty, open it and read it.

The migrating 10-day window

Another generated summary advises that Arizona landlords “should offer tenants the opportunity to conduct a lead inspection” and tell them “they have the right to hire an inspector before signing the lease”. The courtesy is fine; the framing as a right is not. As covered above, 40 CFR 745.110 is scoped to purchasers, and EPA states expressly that landlords are not required to arrange an inspection by the Disclosure Rule. A voluntary offer is a voluntary offer. It is not a federal right, and it must never be documented as one on a form the tenant signs certifying accuracy.

The three different penalty numbers

Across the current Arizona results, one summary gives a five-figure maximum “per incident”, another gives a noticeably higher five-figure maximum “per violation”, and a live page in the top handful carries a third figure again. We are deliberately not reprinting the digits, because reprinting them is how they spread. None is dated; none names the authority it came from; they cannot all be right. In a regime where the operative table at 40 CFR 19.4 is adjusted every January, a bare undated number is not information — it is a number that was true once. This is why this page cites the table rather than a figure.

The state programme Arizona does not run

A ranking Arizona guide asserts that “in 2022, Arizona increased its enforcement of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule”. Arizona has no RRP programme to enforce. EPA’s published list of authorised RRP jurisdictions does not include Arizona, and EPA’s separate list of states where it administers the Lead-Based Paint Activities Program does. Both programmes here are federal.

The Arizona statute nobody mentions

The reverse error is just as common: because Arizona has no disclosure statute, page after page concludes Arizona has no lead law at all. It has one, it is called “Lead-Based Paint”, it lives at A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 13, Article 6, and one of its sections carries a class 1 misdemeanor. Not knowing about it is not the same as it not existing.

Federal disclosure is the compliance floor, not the whole picture. Arizona habitability law applies independently to the underlying condition of the paint.

A.R.S. 33-1324 requires the landlord to comply with applicable building codes materially affecting health and safety, to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition, and to keep all common areas in a clean and safe condition. Deteriorated lead-based paint — peeling, chipping, chalking, cracking, or damaged — can rise to a habitability defect on its own. Where children under six reside, even modest deterioration of pre-1978 paint supports a habitability claim. Note that 33-1324(C) and (D) let a landlord and tenant shift certain duties by written agreement, but expressly not where the work is necessary to cure noncompliance with the building-code and fit-and-habitable duties in subsection (A), paragraphs 1 and 2 — so a lease clause making the tenant responsible for deteriorated paint is unlikely to survive contact with the statute.

The distinction landlords miss: disclosure and habitability are independent. Disclosing a hazard does not licence you to leave it in place. A perfectly executed disclosure that says “known lead-based paint present, peeling in the second bedroom” is a complete defence to a disclosure claim and simultaneously a written admission in a habitability claim. Deteriorated paint in a pre-1978 Arizona unit should be remediated by a certified firm before re-rental — both to comply with the RRP rule and to remove the habitability exposure that disclosure does nothing to cure.

The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., adds one more edge. It prohibits familial-status discrimination, and a landlord who steers families with young children away from pre-1978 units to dodge lead obligations has swapped a disclosure problem for a fair-housing complaint — a considerably worse trade. See our Arizona tenant screening laws guide for where screening practice and familial status intersect.

Skipping disclosure on a pre-1978 unit

The most common violation, and the one with the worst risk-to-effort ratio. There is no penalty for over-disclosing and a severe one for guessing wrong. When the build year is uncertain, deliver the form.

Assuming Arizona stock is too new to matter

Arizona-specific, and the reason this rule gets forgotten here more than elsewhere. Most of the state’s rental inventory postdates 1978, so the habit never forms — and then one pre-1978 property enters the portfolio and gets processed on autopilot with the same lease packet as everything else. The compliance answer is per-unit, not per-portfolio.

Delivering it at signing instead of before

The disclosure must be delivered before the lessee is obligated under the lease. A disclosure produced with the lease packet at the signing table, signed in the same motion as the lease, does not give the tenant the pre-obligation information the rule exists to provide. Send it in advance and let the tenant read it.

Wrong build-year assumption

“Around 1980” is not a defence. The county assessor record, permit file, or certificate of occupancy establishes it. A 1976 building renovated in 1985 is still target housing.

Misreading the studio exemption

Since the 13 January 2025 amendment (89 FR 89416) the 0-bedroom exclusion carries the same child-under-six condition as the elderly and disabled limb, so a genuine studio rented to a family with a child under six is target housing and needs the disclosure. The separate architectural trap remains: a small one-bedroom marketed as a “studio” was never a 0-bedroom dwelling, because the test is whether the living area is separated from the sleeping area, not the listing copy.

Over-claiming the 100-day exemption

Arizona’s winter-visitor market makes this the state’s signature error. The exemption requires a lease of 100 days or less where no lease renewal or extension can occur. A five-month seasonal lease blows the day count. A month-to-month arrangement blows the renewal condition. Both are common here; both are outside the exemption.

Failing to provide the EPA pamphlet

The form alone is not compliance. The pamphlet is a distinct requirement and a distinct violation, and substituting your own lead handout does not satisfy it. Match the language to the lease, which in Arizona frequently means the Spanish edition.

Verbal or implied disclosure

Disclosure must be written, signed, and retained. Conversations, text messages, and oral assurances do not satisfy 40 CFR 745.113 — and cannot be produced three years later when an inquiry asks for the file.

Rewriting the lead warning statement

The language at 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) is prescribed. Tightening it, modernising it, or folding it into your lease’s own warranty language can defeat the disclosure. Reproduce it as written.

Pre-ticking the tenant’s acknowledgments

A landlord cannot acknowledge, on the tenant’s behalf, that the tenant received the pamphlet. Forms that invite you to do this create a false statement on a document certified for accuracy by every signatory. The acknowledgment items belong to the lessee and are completed by the lessee.

Printing a 10-day waiver on a rental form

The tenant has no 10-day right to waive. A waiver line documents a fiction on a certified document, and it is on Arizona rental templates in circulation right now.

Treating “no knowledge” as a place to hide

Honest when nothing is known; fraud when something is. A landlord aware of prior peeling paint, a prior report, or a child’s elevated blood-lead result cannot check “no knowledge” and expect it to hold.

Failing to disclose to every lessee

If multiple tenants sign the lease, each must receive the disclosure and pamphlet and each must sign the acknowledgment. One signature on a four-tenant lease leaves three undisclosed tenancies.

Forgetting the records for the rest of the building

A building-wide evaluation covering common areas or other units is disclosable to this tenant. Owners routinely disclose the unit-specific file and sit on the building report.

Renovating without the RRP rule

Compliance with the leasing disclosure says nothing about compliance when your maintenance crew sands pre-1978 window trim. Separate rule, separate certification, separate penalty — and in Arizona, a federal certification, because the state runs no programme.

Tenants of Arizona pre-1978 rentals hold meaningful rights under federal and state law. Landlords benefit from understanding them, because they define the consequences of a defective form.

The right to the disclosure before being obligated

Delivery must precede the lessee’s obligation under the lease. A disclosure produced afterwards does not satisfy 40 CFR 745.113, and the timing violation stands on its own even where the substance was accurate.

The right to the EPA pamphlet

Independent of the form. Non-delivery is a separate violation supporting separate damages.

The right to triple damages plus fees

Under 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3) a tenant injured by a knowing violation recovers three times actual damages, and under (b)(4) the court may award court costs to the party commencing the action, together with reasonable attorney fees and any expert witness fees, if that party prevails. Both limbs turn on the statutory word knowingly, and (b)(3) liability is joint and several.

The right to report to EPA or HUD

Tenants may report violations to either agency without filing suit. Agency action can bring civil penalties, consent decrees, injunctive relief, and ongoing compliance monitoring across a portfolio. In Arizona there is no state alternative to route to; the federal agencies are the forum.

The right to a habitable unit

Independent of disclosure, A.R.S. 33-1324 entitles Arizona tenants to a unit that is fit and habitable and that complies with building codes materially affecting health and safety. Deteriorated lead paint can support a habitability claim under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

The protection of Arizona’s criminal application ban

Genuinely Arizona-specific. A.R.S. 36-1674 makes applying lead-based paint where children under seven have ready access a class 1 misdemeanor. A tenant who watches a landlord’s crew apply salvaged lead paint to a porch rail is watching a criminal act, not merely a bad maintenance decision.

The right to tort damages for actual exposure

Where a child or pregnant tenant suffers lead exposure, ordinary tort remedies apply — medical costs, pain and suffering, future treatment, and lost earning capacity. A disclosure violation supplies a ready foundation for a negligence theory, which is why the paperwork failure and the injury claim tend to arrive together.

The right to fair-housing protection

The Fair Housing Act prohibits familial-status discrimination. Avoiding families with young children to sidestep lead obligations is itself actionable.

The bottom line for landlords. Compliance is cheap and mechanical. The failure mode is a treble-damages judgment with the tenant’s fees attached, an agency penalty that rises every January, and — in the worst case — a poisoned child and a tort claim your own file helps prove. The form above handles the mechanics; the rest of this page is what the form cannot do for you. When you are choosing who moves into a pre-1978 unit, our Arizona screening guide and the rental application form handle the front of the process.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.