Free Arizona Notice to Enter

This Arizona Notice to Enter gives a tenant clear written notice before the landlord enters the rental unit. Under A.R.S. §33-1343, except in an emergency the landlord must give at least two days’ notice of intent to enter and enter only at reasonable times. See our tenant screening laws by state hub and how to screen tenants guide to keep your Arizona tenancies documented from the start.

Complete the fields below to generate an Arizona Notice to Enter. A.R.S. §33-1343 requires at least two days’ notice of intent to enter, at reasonable times, so plan the date accordingly and deliver the notice clearly. The form records the date, time window, purpose, the persons entering, and how the notice is delivered.

Watch: Arizona Notice to Enter explained

▶ Watch overview

Arizona is a statutory-notice state. The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, at A.R.S. § 33-1343, sets the rule directly: except in case of emergency or where it is impracticable to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least two days’ notice of the landlord’s intent to enter and enter only at reasonable times. The statute counts in days, not hours, so two days is the floor for any planned, non-emergency entry. This is the single most important fact about Arizona entry law, and it is the same across the entire state regardless of what an individual lease says.

The same statute frames the bargain between the parties. In exchange for proper notice, the tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to a lawful entry at a reasonable time for a legitimate purpose. The landlord, for its part, may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. The result is a balanced rule: the landlord gets reliable access for genuine property-management needs, and the tenant gets advance warning and protection against entries that are too frequent, too sudden, or aimed at pressure rather than maintenance.

The clear exceptions are a genuine emergency and a situation where giving notice is impracticable. If there is a fire, a flood, a gas leak, or another immediate threat to life or property, an Arizona landlord may enter at once; document the emergency, the time, what was found, and what was done. For every routine entry, this form gives the tenant clear written notice that satisfies the two days’ notice required by A.R.S. § 33-1343 and leaves you a dated record that you provided it at a reasonable time. The sections that follow walk through the purposes that justify entry, how to count and deliver the two days’ notice, how the emergency exception works, showings and abandonment, what the lease can and cannot do, and – most important for a landlord managing risk – exactly what the statute and the common law give an Arizona tenant when an entry goes wrong.

The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act contemplates a recognizable list of legitimate reasons a landlord may need access, and the notice this form produces lets the landlord state exactly which one applies. The unifying test is simple: the landlord must have a real, property-management reason to be inside the unit, not a pretext for checking up on or pressuring the tenant. When the reason is genuine and the two days’ notice is given, entry is rarely controversial.

Repairs and maintenance are the most common reason a landlord needs access. This includes responding to a tenant’s repair request, performing necessary or agreed repairs and improvements, supplying services, and addressing problems the landlord is obligated to fix. Inspections – annual condition checks, move-out walkthroughs, and pre-renewal assessments – are equally routine, and a clear notice describing the inspection keeps it from feeling intrusive.

Showings are a frequent flashpoint. A landlord may need to show the unit to prospective or actual tenants near the end of a lease, to prospective buyers if the property is on the market, or to lenders, appraisers, workers, or contractors. Each of these is a legitimate purpose the Act expressly contemplates, but each also brings strangers into the tenant’s home, so generous notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here.

Building services and safety work round out the list: pest control treatment, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. Safety-device testing in particular protects both sides, and most tenants welcome it when it is scheduled with the proper two days’ notice. Across all of these purposes, the form lets the landlord state the exact reason, describe the work, and list everyone who will enter, which is the single most effective way to turn a potentially contested entry into a routine, documented visit.

It is worth being explicit about what is not a legitimate purpose, because that is where landlords get into trouble. Entering to check whether the tenant is keeping the unit “well enough” without any maintenance reason, to look for lease violations on a hunch, to confront a tenant over a dispute, or simply to remind a tenant who is in control of the property are not property-management purposes; they are the kind of pretextual entries that look like harassment. Under A.R.S. § 33-1343 the landlord may not abuse the right of access, and a pattern of such entries can trigger the remedy in § 33-1376(B). The discipline of writing the purpose on a notice is itself a useful filter: if a landlord cannot articulate a concrete, legitimate reason for the visit on paper, that is a strong signal the entry should not happen at all.

Some purposes also carry their own follow-on courtesies. A repair that will shut off water or power should say so, so the tenant can plan around it. A pest-control treatment that requires the tenant to clear cabinets or keep pets out for a period should spell out those steps in advance. A move-out inspection is far smoother when the tenant is invited to attend, because a jointly observed walkthrough heads off later disputes about the unit’s condition. Tying each legitimate purpose to its practical logistics, right there in the notice, is what separates a professional Arizona operation from one that generates friction and complaints.

Because A.R.S. § 33-1343 sets a firm floor, the practical questions are how to count the two days and how to deliver the notice so it actually counts. Getting both right is what turns the statute from an abstract rule into a clean, defensible record for every entry.

On counting, the statute speaks in days, not hours, which is a meaningful difference. The safe practice is to count two full calendar days between delivery and entry rather than treating “two days” as a loose forty-eight-hour window. If the notice is delivered on a Monday, planning the entry for Thursday rather than Wednesday gives the tenant the clear, unambiguous two days the statute requires and removes any argument that the count fell short. Building in a small buffer costs the landlord almost nothing and eliminates a whole category of disputes about whether the notice was timely.

On reasonable times, the Act limits entry to reasonable times, which in practice means normal daytime hours rather than early mornings, late nights, or weekends unless the tenant agrees or an emergency requires it. Offering a time window rather than a single rigid moment, and matching the entry to the tenant’s schedule where practical, both reinforce that the landlord is acting reasonably and make it far less likely the tenant will object. Reasonableness is judged on the facts, so there is no single magic hour; the goal is to pick a time a neutral observer would call ordinary for the kind of work being done, and to avoid times that would predictably intrude on a household’s privacy or rest.

The two-day count and the reasonable-time choice work together. A landlord who gives the full two days’ notice but then shows up at an odd hour has satisfied one half of the statute and failed the other, and an entry can be challenged on either ground. The cleanest practice is to treat both as fixed parts of the same checklist: count two full days, pick a reasonable daytime window, state that window on the notice, and stick to it. A tenant who proposes a slightly different time that still works is offering cooperation the landlord should usually accept, because an agreed time is the most defensible time of all.

How the notice is delivered feeds directly into whether it satisfies the statute. A notice the tenant never actually receives offers little protection, even if it was technically sent. Personal delivery to the tenant is the strongest method, because it is hard to dispute. Posting on the door, especially when paired with an email or text, is a practical and widely used approach. Email or text alone works where the lease permits electronic notice and the tenant routinely uses that channel. Certified mail creates an excellent paper trail but is slow, so it suits situations where the landlord has time to let the full two days run. Whatever the method, choose the channel most likely to reach this particular tenant, and keep proof that you used it.

Frequency matters too. A single, properly noticed entry to make a repair is plainly reasonable. A pattern of frequent entries, even with notice, can cross into the “repeated demands for entry” that A.R.S. § 33-1376(B) treats as unreasonable harassment, because at some point the sheer volume of intrusions interferes with the tenant’s possession regardless of how politely each one is announced. The safe practice is to consolidate work, enter no more often than the task genuinely requires, give the full two days’ notice each time, and document every visit. Reasonable, well-counted notice protects the landlord precisely because it shifts the burden: once fair notice for a legitimate purpose is on the record, an entry dispute becomes the tenant’s problem to justify, not the landlord’s.

The clearest situation in which an Arizona landlord may enter without the two days’ notice is a genuine emergency. A fire, a flood, a gas leak, a burst pipe, or any other immediate threat to life, safety, or the property itself justifies immediate entry, because waiting to give notice could turn a containable problem into a catastrophe. A.R.S. § 33-1343 also excuses notice where giving it is impracticable. The emergency exception is not a loophole for routine access; it applies only when prompt entry is genuinely necessary to prevent or limit harm.

Because an emergency entry happens without the usual notice, documentation is the landlord’s protection. Record the date and time, the nature of the emergency, what was found on entering, what was done, and who entered, and keep any photographs. Notify the tenant promptly afterward, explaining what happened and why immediate entry was necessary. Good after-the-fact documentation converts an unannounced entry from a potential statutory violation or trespass claim into an obviously justified emergency response.

It helps to draw a bright line between a true emergency and mere urgency. A burst pipe actively flooding the unit, a gas smell, a fire alarm, or a report of a medical crisis behind a locked door are emergencies that justify immediate entry, because every minute of delay risks serious harm. A lease violation the landlord is eager to confront, a repair the tenant has been slow to schedule, or a desire to get ahead of a deadline are urgent to the landlord but are not emergencies, and using the emergency label to cover them is exactly the kind of overreach that turns an entry into a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1343. The honest test is whether waiting the two days’ notice period would risk real harm; if it would not, it is not an emergency, and the landlord should give notice.

Scope matters too. An emergency justifies the entry needed to address the emergency, not a general search of the unit. A landlord who enters to stop a flood should deal with the water and leave, not take the opportunity to inspect the tenant’s belongings or look for other, unconnected problems. An emergency entry that balloons into a broader, unconnected search can lose its protection and revert to an ordinary unauthorized entry – precisely the kind of “lawful entry in an unreasonable manner” that A.R.S. § 33-1376(B) reaches. Keeping the response proportionate to the emergency – in and out, focused on the hazard, documented – is what keeps the exception clean.

Showings deserve their own treatment because they put the landlord’s legitimate business needs in the sharpest tension with the tenant’s right to be left in peaceful possession. When a lease is ending, the landlord may reasonably need to show the unit to prospective tenants so it does not sit vacant. When the property is for sale, the landlord may need to show it to prospective buyers, and a buyer’s lender or appraiser may need access as well. The Arizona Act expressly contemplates entry to exhibit the unit to prospective or actual tenants, buyers, lenders, workers, and contractors, but every one of these still brings outsiders into an occupied home.

The protection for both sides is the same as for any other entry: the two days’ notice and reasonable times required by A.R.S. § 33-1343. The statute does not create a lighter notice rule for showings, so a landlord should give the full two days’ notice for each showing and should be especially generous, because showings tend to cluster and to involve strangers. A lease may set out additional procedures for end-of-term showings, and a landlord should follow any such clause, but the lease cannot drop below the statutory two days’ notice floor.

Practical courtesy goes a long way during a sale or re-rental. Group showings into defined windows rather than scattering them, give the tenant as much lead time as possible beyond the statutory minimum, and offer a way to reschedule around the tenant’s commitments. A tenant who feels respected during a marketing period is far less likely to refuse access or to claim the entries amounted to harassment, and the landlord keeps the dated notices that show every showing was properly announced under the statute.

Entry rules assume the tenant is still in possession. When a tenant abandons the unit or surrenders it, the possessory interest that entry law protects begins to dissolve, and the landlord’s ability to enter changes. Abandonment, however, is a conclusion a landlord should reach carefully, because acting on a mistaken belief that a tenant has left can itself create liability under the same statutes that govern entry.

Abandonment generally requires both that the tenant has actually left the premises and that the tenant intends not to return – shown by facts such as removed belongings, disconnected utilities, unpaid rent, and no response to contact. A tenant who is merely traveling, hospitalized, or temporarily away has not abandoned the unit, and treating an occupied home as abandoned can expose the landlord to a claim. Surrender is the cleaner case: the tenant affirmatively gives the unit back, by returning keys or by agreement, which ends the tenancy and the tenant’s possessory rights.

The safe approach is to confirm abandonment before relying on it. Document the indicators, attempt to reach the tenant, and, when the situation is genuinely ambiguous, use the legal process rather than self-help. Until the landlord is confident the tenant has surrendered or abandoned possession, the ordinary entry rules – the two days’ notice and reasonable times of A.R.S. § 33-1343, with emergencies excepted – continue to apply, and a notice of entry remains the right tool for any access the landlord needs.

Arizona is different from a lease-only state precisely because the statute sets a floor the lease cannot undercut. A.R.S. § 33-1315 bars rental-agreement provisions that waive or forgo rights or remedies under the Act, so a clause purporting to let the landlord enter at any time without notice, or to shorten the two days’ notice, is unenforceable. The lease can add procedure on top of the statute – more notice, specified showing windows, agreed methods of delivery – but it cannot drop below the two days’ notice and reasonable-times protection.

A tenant’s consent still matters in real time. A tenant who agrees to a specific entry has waived any objection to that particular entry, and the cleanest practice is to memorialize the agreement – a text or email confirming the date, time, and purpose – so an agreed-upon visit cannot later be recast as an intrusion. The key distinction is between a one-off, knowing consent to a specific entry, which is fine, and a blanket lease clause that tries to surrender the statutory protection in advance, which A.R.S. § 33-1315 will not enforce.

There is a hard limit landlords should not lose sight of. Even a tenant who has been cooperative cannot be subjected to entries that abuse the right of access. A landlord who relies on a broad clause – or on a pattern of past consent – to enter repeatedly, at unreasonable times, or to pressure a tenant is not merely exercising a contract right; that conduct can trigger A.R.S. § 33-1376(B), which treats repeated demands for entry that unreasonably harass the tenant as actionable, and can also support common-law privacy and constructive-eviction claims. A permissive course of dealing expands the landlord’s ordinary access; it does not license abuse.

For that reason, the smarter drafting choice is usually a clause that is clear rather than maximal. A clause that grants entry on at least two days’ notice, for stated purposes, at reasonable times, with an emergency carve-out, gives the landlord everything a normal operation needs while staying squarely inside the statute. An “any time, no notice” clause buys nothing in Arizona – § 33-1315 voids it – and it reads badly if the tenancy ever turns adversarial, because it looks like a landlord who tried to contract around a protective statute. A balanced clause is both enforceable and persuasive evidence that the landlord respected the tenant’s possession.

This is the heart of Arizona entry law, and it is where the state’s statutory approach really shows. Because Arizona codified the access rule, it also codified a remedy with teeth: a tenant’s recovery for an unlawful or abusive entry is not limited to whatever actual damages a court might find – the statute sets a floor of one month’s rent. A landlord who understands these remedies will see immediately why the two days’ notice and reasonable-times discipline are not just good manners but genuine risk management. The remedies below are presented roughly in the order an Arizona tenant in possession would consider them.

The statutory remedy – A.R.S. § 33-1376(B)

This is the centerpiece. The statute provides that if the landlord makes an unlawful entry, or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner, or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages not less than an amount equal to one month’s rent. Three points matter. First, the tenant has a choice: stop the conduct by injunction, or end the lease entirely. Second, the remedy is not limited to a single unlawful entry – a lawful entry carried out unreasonably, or a pattern of harassing demands, also qualifies. Third, and crucially, the tenant does not have to move out to recover; unlike common-law constructive eviction, the §33-1376(B) damages floor of one month’s rent is available even to a tenant who chooses an injunction and stays in the home.

Constructive eviction

If a landlord’s entry conduct goes so far that it renders the premises untenantable, the tenant may also treat it as a constructive eviction. Arizona recognizes the doctrine in Purvis v. Silva, 381 P.2d 596 (Ariz. 1963), which frames it in terms of a substantial and intentional interference with the tenant’s use and enjoyment. The critical condition is that the tenant must actually vacate the premises within a reasonable time to claim it; a tenant who stays put is treated as having waived the constructive eviction. A tenant who does vacate is relieved of the obligation to pay further rent. Constructive eviction is therefore a powerful but demanding remedy – and one an Arizona tenant may not even need, given that § 33-1376(B) lets the tenant terminate and recover damages without proving the higher untenantability standard.

Intrusion upon seclusion – the privacy tort

For entries that are intentional, highly offensive, and usually repeated, an Arizona tenant may also have a privacy claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Arizona adopted the four-tort privacy framework in Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989), and applies the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B intrusion standard, as in Hart v. Seven Resorts, 947 P.2d 846 (Ariz. App. 1997). Whether an intrusion is “highly offensive” is fact-dependent, so this theory targets the most egregious conduct – a landlord who repeatedly invades the privacy of the home in a way a reasonable person would find highly offensive – and it can coexist with the statutory remedy arising from the same entries.

Trespass

A landlord who enters a unit the tenant lawfully possesses without the right to do so – no proper notice, no consent, no emergency, and no legal process – can be liable to the tenant in common-law trespass. The tort protects the tenant’s possession rather than title, which is precisely why a tenant, who holds possession, can sue a landlord, who holds title: during the tenancy the landlord has parted with possession, and reclaiming access mid-lease requires the tenant’s consent, a contractual right exercised within the statute, or a legal process. The remedy is the actual damages flowing from the unauthorized entry. In practice an Arizona tenant will usually lead with the statutory remedy of § 33-1376(B), because it adds the one-month-rent damages floor and does not require the tenant to vacate, but trespass remains available as an additional theory for an entry made with no right at all, and the two claims can be pleaded together out of the same set of entries.

A note on quiet enjoyment

The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment protects a tenant’s right to use and possess the premises without substantial interference, but in the entry context it is largely subsumed into the constructive-eviction analysis: the conduct serious enough to breach quiet enjoyment is generally the same conduct that supports a constructive-eviction or § 33-1376(B) claim. The practical advice is to anchor an Arizona entry claim in the statute and in the recognized torts – trespass, intrusion upon seclusion, and constructive eviction – rather than treating quiet enjoyment as a separate, free-standing remedy for ordinary over-entry.

Attorney’s fees and retaliation

Two further provisions can come into play. A.R.S. § 12-341.01 lets a court award reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful party in an action arising out of contract, and a residential lease is a contract – but the award is discretionary, not automatic. Do not look to A.R.S. § 33-1377 for fees in an entry dispute, because that section is part of the special detainer and eviction procedure, not a fee hook for an entry claim. Separately, A.R.S. § 33-1381 prohibits retaliation after a protected tenant action, with remedies that cross-reference A.R.S. § 33-1367 and a six-month presumption of retaliation; if a landlord uses entry to retaliate after such an action, the retaliation statute can apply on top of the entry rules.

Arizona entry law is anchored in a single statute – A.R.S. § 33-1343 – and backed by a clear statutory remedy in A.R.S. § 33-1376(B), supplemented by a few common-law torts and the no-waiver and retaliation provisions of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The table below collects the authorities that actually govern entry and the consequences of getting it wrong, so a landlord can see at a glance that the exposure here is concrete: a statutory damages floor of one month’s rent on top of the common-law theories.

Read together, these authorities tell a clear and consistent story. Arizona did legislate landlord entry, and it backed the access rule with teeth: a landlord who enters unlawfully, enters in an unreasonable manner, or harasses the tenant with repeated demands does not merely risk a vague common-law claim – the tenant has a statutory path to an injunction or termination plus actual damages with a one-month-rent floor. A landlord who gives the two days’ notice, enters at reasonable times, and confines entry to legitimate purposes operates squarely inside every one of these authorities. A landlord who cuts the notice short, enters at odd hours, or uses entry to pressure a tenant steps outside A.R.S. § 33-1343 and into the reach of § 33-1376(B), the privacy torts, and constructive eviction.

A word on using this reference responsibly. The code sections and cases here are the genuine load-bearing authorities for Arizona entry disputes, and they are cited because they are real and on point – the access duty of § 33-1343, the remedy of § 33-1376(B), the no-waiver rule of § 33-1315, the retaliation rule of § 33-1381, the discretionary fee statute § 12-341.01, the constructive-eviction standard of Purvis v. Silva, and the intrusion-upon-seclusion line from Godbehere through Hart. Just as important is what is deliberately absent. Do not look to A.R.S. § 33-1377 for attorney’s fees in an entry dispute, because that section governs the special detainer and eviction procedure, not a fee award for an entry claim. And there is no Arizona case called “Murphy v. Allen” on landlord entry; any template that cites it is citing a fiction. Building the page on real authority, and naming the traps, is what keeps it accurate.

None of this is a substitute for advice on a specific situation. The authorities here describe the general shape of Arizona entry law, but the outcome of any actual dispute turns on the exact lease language, the facts of the entries, and how a particular court reads them. The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, published by the Arizona State Legislature at azleg.gov, is the best free starting point for both sides, and a qualified Arizona landlord-tenant attorney is the right resource when a real conflict is on the table. Used alongside disciplined, well-documented notice, this form gives an Arizona landlord a clean, defensible record for every entry – which is the most reliable protection the law actually allows.

An Arizona Notice to Enter is the written notice a landlord or property manager gives a tenant before entering the rental unit. Arizona is one of the states that has codified the rule: under A.R.S. §33-1343(D) of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord must give at least two days’ notice of intent to enter and may enter only at reasonable times. Giving clear, dated notice is therefore both a legal requirement and the best protection against a dispute.

Because the statute controls, the standard is the same across Arizona regardless of what a lease says: at least two days’ notice. The lease cannot shorten it – A.R.S. §33-1315 prohibits provisions that waive or forgo rights under the Act, so any clause purporting to cut the two days’ notice or the reasonable-times limit is unenforceable. A landlord who plans entry should count at least two days from delivery of the notice to the date of entry, and choose a time of day that is reasonable.

What counts as a legitimate purpose tracks the Act: inspecting the unit, making necessary or agreed repairs and improvements, supplying services, and showing the unit to prospective or actual tenants, buyers, lenders, workers, or contractors. Routine tasks like pest control, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors fit within these. This form lets you state the exact purpose, describe the work, list who will enter, and note whether the tenant’s presence is requested or required – spelling out who will be in the home, and how pets should be handled, removes most of the friction that makes tenants resist access.

Timing and delivery matter under the statute. Count the two days carefully and enter only at reasonable times rather than early mornings, late evenings, or weekends unless the tenant agrees. Choose a delivery method the tenant will actually see – personal delivery, posting on the door, email where the lease allows it, or a combination. The form records the delivery method and a contact for rescheduling, which signals good faith and gives the tenant a clear way to raise a conflict instead of refusing entry outright. In return, the tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to a properly noticed, reasonable-time entry.

The risk an Arizona landlord is managing is a statutory violation with a defined price tag, and naming that price tag precisely is what makes the discipline worthwhile. Entry without the required two days’ notice, at unreasonable times, or to harass the tenant violates A.R.S. §33-1343, and the remedy is set out in A.R.S. §33-1376(B): the tenant may obtain an injunction to stop the conduct or terminate the rental agreement, and in either case recover actual damages of not less than one month’s rent. That one-month-rent floor is the feature that distinguishes Arizona from a lease-only state – the exposure is not a vague, hard-to-prove common-law figure but a statutory minimum that attaches the moment the entry is found unlawful or abusive. A tenant does not even have to move out to collect it, because the statute lets the tenant choose an injunction and stay.

Arizona also layers common-law theories on top of the statute, and a landlord should understand them because they can be pleaded together. A landlord whose conduct makes the home untenantable can face a constructive-eviction claim under Purvis v. Silva, which requires a substantial and intentional interference and that the tenant actually vacate. A landlord whose repeated, highly offensive entries invade the privacy of the home can face an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, a tort Arizona recognizes under the four-part privacy framework of Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers and the Restatement §652B standard applied in Hart v. Seven Resorts. A landlord who simply walks into a possessed unit with no right at all can face common-law trespass. And A.R.S. §12-341.01 lets a court, in its discretion, award attorney’s fees to the successful party in a contract action such as a lease dispute. The point is not that every entry generates litigation – the overwhelming majority do not – but that an escalating pattern of bad entries can ripen several claims at once.

One Arizona-specific discipline is worth internalizing: count in days, not hours. Because the statute says ‘at least two days’ notice’ rather than a number of hours, the safe practice is to count two full calendar days from delivery to entry and to resist the temptation to treat it as a loose forty-eight-hour clock. A small buffer – delivering on Monday for a Thursday entry rather than a Wednesday one – costs almost nothing and forecloses any argument that the notice was short. Equally important, the protection cannot be waived: A.R.S. §33-1315 voids any lease clause that tries to surrender the two days’ notice or the reasonable-times limit, so a landlord cannot rely on an ‘enter at any time’ clause the way a landlord in a lease-only state might attempt. The statute is the floor, the lease can only add to it, and a tenant’s after-the-fact consent to a specific entry is the only thing that lowers the bar for that one visit.

The risk an Arizona landlord is managing is, in the end, a documentation problem layered on a statutory rule. A dated, signed notice for every routine entry is the simple, durable record that shows you gave the required two days’ notice, chose a reasonable time, and entered for a legitimate purpose. That record is what defeats a §33-1376(B) claim before it gains traction, and it is exactly what this form is built to produce. Pair a consistent entry practice with disciplined tenant screening and a documented screening process so your Arizona tenancies are well-run from application through move-out.

• Give at least two days’ notice of intent to enter (A.R.S. §33-1343).
• Count in days, not hours – two full calendar days from delivery to entry, with a buffer when you can.
• Enter only at reasonable times for a legitimate purpose.
• Legitimate purposes track the Act: inspection, necessary or agreed repairs, supplying services, and showings to prospective or actual tenants, buyers, lenders, workers, or contractors.
• Do not abuse the right of access or use repeated demands for entry to harass the tenant.
• The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to a properly noticed entry.
• A genuine emergency, or where notice is impracticable, allows immediate entry.
• The right cannot be waived by the lease (A.R.S. §33-1315) – any clause cutting the notice is unenforceable.
• An unlawful or abusive entry exposes the landlord to A.R.S. §33-1376(B): injunction or termination, plus actual damages of not less than one month’s rent.

• Personal delivery to the tenant – the strongest method, because it is hard to dispute.
• Posting on the door, alone or combined with email, so the notice is both physical and time-stamped.
• Email or text where the lease permits electronic notice and the tenant routinely uses that channel.
• Certified mail for a documented record when timing allows the full two days to run.
• Whatever the method, keep dated proof you sent it – the record is what shows the two days’ notice was actually given.

• Giving less than the two days’ notice A.R.S. §33-1343 requires for a routine entry.
• Counting hours instead of days, then entering too soon after delivery.
• Entering at unreasonable times – early mornings, late nights, or weekends – without the tenant’s agreement.
• Entering repeatedly even with notice, until the volume of intrusions becomes the harassing pattern A.R.S. §33-1376(B) reaches.
• Stretching the emergency exception to cover a routine entry the landlord simply wanted to make sooner.
• Letting an emergency entry balloon into a general search of the unit instead of addressing the hazard and leaving.
• Relying on a lease clause that purports to waive the notice – A.R.S. §33-1315 makes it unenforceable.
• Looking to A.R.S. §33-1377 for attorney’s fees – that section is special-detainer and eviction procedure, not a fee hook for an entry claim.
• Treating a unit as abandoned on thin evidence and entering, when the tenant is merely away.
• Keeping no dated copy, leaving no record that the two days’ notice was given.

• Count at least two full calendar days from delivery to entry, and add a buffer when you can.
• State the exact purpose, the time window, and the persons entering on every notice.
• Enter only at reasonable times and no more often than the task genuinely requires.
• Confirm a tenant’s real-time consent in writing – a text or email noting date, time, and purpose – for any variation from the standard notice.
• For emergencies, document the time, the nature of the emergency, what was found, and what was done, and tell the tenant promptly afterward.
• For showings, group visits into defined windows and give the tenant generous lead time beyond the statutory minimum.
• Offer a clear way to reschedule so the tenant has an alternative to refusing entry.
• Confirm abandonment with real evidence before relying on it; when in doubt, use legal process, not self-help.
• Draft a clear entry clause – two days’ notice, stated purposes, reasonable times, emergency carve-out – rather than an unenforceable ‘any time’ clause.
• Keep every signed notice on file for the life of the tenancy.

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.