Free Colorado Lead Paint Disclosure

A Colorado 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). Colorado imposes no separate lead paint disclosure statute — the duty here is purely federal. What Colorado does add is a Real Estate Commission form mandate that binds licensed brokers, and a lead abatement certification rule, Regulation Number 19. Neither creates a landlord disclosure duty, and both are explained below alongside our Colorado habitability laws guide. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly what the rule requires.

▶ Watch overview

Colorado 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 a Colorado 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.

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 Colorado 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.

No. Colorado has no state lead paint disclosure statute for landlords, and this page will not invent one. Unlike a handful of states that layer their own lead registry, testing, or certification-of-compliance regimes on top of the federal rule, Colorado does not. Every substantive disclosure requirement described on this page comes from federal law: 42 U.S.C. 4852d, 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F, and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A.

This is a claim worth proving rather than asserting, because “Colorado lead law” pages are abundant and vague. Three checks against the primary text:

• Title 38 of the Colorado Revised Statutes — the title containing the landlord-tenant provisions, the warranty of habitability, and the required lease disclosures — does not contain the phrase “lead-based paint” or “lead paint” anywhere. Not once. (The same title mentions mold dozens of times, which is how you know the absence is real and not an artefact of searching.)
• Title 12, Article 10 — the real estate broker licensing article — does not contain the phrase either. The Commission’s lead forms are Commission products, not statutory ones.
• Regulation Number 19, Colorado’s lead rule, never uses the word “disclosure” and never uses the words “landlord” or “lessor”.

So when a competing page tells you “Colorado requires landlords to disclose lead paint”, the accurate translation is: federal law requires it, and the landlord happens to be in Colorado. That is not a quibble. It tells you which text governs when there is a dispute, which agency enforces it, and which cite to give a tenant’s lawyer. What Colorado genuinely contributes is three adjacent things, each covered in its own section below:

• The Real Estate Commission’s LP forms. Colorado publishes mandatory lead disclosure forms — and they are a better argument for our reading of the federal rule than anything on the internet. See the next section.
• Regulation Number 19, 5 CCR 1001-23. A lead abatement and pre-renovation education rule administered by the Air Quality Control Commission. It certifies contractors. It is routinely mis-cited as a landlord duty.
• The warranty of habitability, C.R.S. 38-12-503 and 38-12-505. Applies to the condition of the premises independently of disclosure — though, as covered below, it does not name lead.

Because the obligation is federal rather than state-specific, the same disclosure applies to a rental in any state — our federal lead-based paint disclosure form is the generic version of the Colorado form on this page.

Here is the most useful thing on this page, and no competing Colorado page mentions it.

The Colorado Real Estate Commission publishes four lead-based paint forms, all marked Mandatory. They come in two matched pairs — one for sales, one for rentals — and the difference between the pairs settles the single most-disputed question in lead compliance.

Read that table again, because it is a controlled experiment. The same agency, in the same forms family, revised on the same date, drafted a seller’s obligations form that carries the 10-day duty and a landlord’s obligations form that does not. That is not an oversight. Colorado’s Real Estate Commission drew the line exactly where the Code of Federal Regulations draws it: 40 CFR 745.110(a) runs to purchasers, and the lessor rules at 40 CFR 745.113(b) contain no inspection item.

So when a Colorado property-management blog tells you to “offer tenants a 10-day period to conduct a lead-based paint inspection” — and the highest-ranking one for that query does, in those words — it is contradicted by the federal regulation and by the state’s own mandatory paperwork simultaneously.

This is the question every Colorado landlord actually has when they discover the Commission forms exist, and no ranking page answers it. The forms say “Mandatory”. Mandatory for whom?

The form mandate binds licensees, not owners. The duty comes from C.R.S. 12-10-403(4)(c): “A broker shall use a commission-approved form when such a form exists and is appropriate for the transaction.” The subject of that sentence is a broker. The Commission’s authority runs to the people it licenses; it does not regulate private property owners.

Is a landlord a broker? Follow the definition rather than guessing. C.R.S. 12-10-201(6)(a) defines a real estate broker as a person who, “in consideration of compensation by fee, commission, salary, or anything of value… engages in… any of the following acts”, the first of which is “selling, exchanging, buying, renting, or leasing real estate”. The hook is acting for compensation in someone else’s transaction. And the exemption list removes any doubt: C.R.S. 12-10-201(6)(b)(VII) provides that “real estate broker” does not apply to “a natural person acting personally with respect to property owned or leased by that person… except as provided in subsection (4) of this section.”

That trailing cross-reference is worth chasing rather than skipping, because it is the sort of thing that reverses a conclusion. Subsection (4) of C.R.S. 12-10-201 is the definition of “option dealer.” It is not a general carve-back on the owner exemption; it simply means the exemption does not shelter someone using options to deal in real estate. For an ordinary owner renting out their own house, it does not bite. A neighbouring exemption at 12-10-201(6)(b)(XII) covers “a regularly salaried employee of an owner of an apartment building or complex who acts as an on-site manager”.

The practical result:

• You self-manage your own Colorado rental. You are not a broker, the Commission’s form mandate does not reach you, and you may use any disclosure that carries all six elements of 40 CFR 745.113(b) — including the one generated on this page. LP46 is a perfectly good form and you are welcome to use it; you are simply not compelled to.
• A licensed property manager or broker handles your lease. They are a licensee, and 12-10-403(4)(c) requires them to use LP46, because a Commission-approved form exists and is appropriate for the transaction. If your manager hands your tenant something else, that is their licensing problem — but it is your federal compliance problem if the substance is defective.
• Either way, the federal elements are the floor. Whichever form is used, it must carry the six elements. LP46 does. So does the form below.

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. 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 — and, as it happens, the structure LP46 follows item for item.

Note what is not in that list: no inspection window, no testing requirement, no filing with any 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.

Compare that with the sales side, where 40 CFR 745.113(a) runs to seven elements. The extra one is 745.113(a)(5), the purchaser’s statement that they have either “Received the opportunity to conduct the risk assessment or inspection required by § 745.110(a)” or “Waived the opportunity”. Every other element has a lease counterpart: the warning statement, the knowledge item, the records list, the acknowledgment, the agent statement, and the signatures all appear on both sides. That single element is the entire difference between the two regimes, and it is why LP45 has two more items than LP46.

“Target housing” is the federal term for property subject to the rule. The definition at 40 CFR 745.103 is residential dwellings constructed before 1978, subject to the narrow exclusions 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. 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 1978 onward sits outside the disclosure regime entirely.

How to verify the build year in Colorado. The county assessor’s record is the fastest authoritative source, and Colorado’s populous counties — Denver, El Paso, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Pueblo — all publish property records online. 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, and Colorado has a great deal of it.

Common areas in multi-unit buildings. If the building predates 1978, the disclosure scope reaches the common areas as well as the leased unit — hallways, stairwells, porches, laundry rooms, and shared storage. LP48 makes this explicit for Colorado landlords: the records requirement “includes records and reports regarding common areas” and “records and reports regarding other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing, provided that such information is part of an evaluation or reduction of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the building as a whole.”

Colorado context. Colorado’s pre-1978 stock is concentrated in the older cores — Denver’s Capitol Hill, Baker, and Five Points; older Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Trinidad, Leadville, and the historic mountain towns — while most Front Range suburban development postdates the trigger. Pueblo and the older mining towns have some of the state’s oldest housing. Portfolio landlords with mixed-vintage holdings are the ones who get caught, because the compliance answer differs unit by unit. When in doubt, verify against the assessor record rather than relying on the exemption.

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 units (40 CFR 745.103, definitional). A dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area — the definition expressly includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings. This exclusion is now conditional: since 40 CFR 745.103 was amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416), read it as it now stands: target housing means housing constructed prior to 1978, “except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing).” The child parenthetical now sits at the end and governs both limbs, so a 0-bedroom dwelling is target housing when a child under six resides or is expected there. 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), where the housing is designated as such — unless a child under six resides or is expected to reside there. Since the 13 January 2025 amendment this 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. Colorado’s short-term rental market makes this one live — a ski-season let structured as a fixed 90-day term with no renewal qualifies; a month-to-month tenancy does not, because it renews.
• Certified lead-free housing (40 CFR 745.101(b)). Leases of target housing found to be lead-based paint free by an inspector certified under the federal programme or a federally accredited state or tribal 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. 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.

None of the four exemptions at 745.101 carries a child condition. The two definitional exclusions at 745.103 do: since the 13 January 2025 amendment (89 FR 89416), both the 0-bedroom limb and the elderly-and-disabled limb are withdrawn when a child under six resides or is expected. Any page telling you the 745.101 exemptions evaporate when a child under six moves in has misparsed the scheme; the child condition lives in the 745.103 definition.

Federal law requires the lessor to give the prospective lessee the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home before any lease obligation attaches. 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. Colorado’s LP48 lists it as the landlord’s second obligation, immediately after the warning statement.

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. An English lease takes the English pamphlet; a Spanish lease takes the Spanish edition. This matters more in Colorado than in most states: the Colorado legislature now requires certain habitability notices in every rental agreement to appear in both English and Spanish, which tells you something about the tenant population the state expects landlords to be communicating with. 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 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 this on our word, or EPA’s: the regulation says so itself, in the same breath as it imposes the duty. The final sentence of 40 CFR 745.107(a) reads: “Nothing in this section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities.” Evaluation means a risk assessment or inspection; reduction means abatement or interim controls. It is a disclosure rule, not an abatement rule. Colorado’s own LP48 form says the same in its opening paragraph, in almost the same words.

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 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.

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.

There is one Colorado-specific wrinkle worth flagging. If a child residing in your building has been identified with an elevated blood lead level, that fact does two things at once: it is knowledge you must now disclose under the federal rule, and it withdraws the owner exemption in Regulation 19 that would otherwise let you perform lead work on your own property. Both are covered below.

This is the most widespread error on the lead-disclosure internet, it is repeated by the highest-ranking Colorado landlord page for this topic, 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. The statute behind it, 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C), is scoped the same way.

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. EPA’s own page lists the duty as “provide homebuyers a 10-day period to conduct a paint inspection or risk assessment”, and the word is homebuyers.

Now read Colorado’s forms. LP45 (sales) has the item. LP46 (rentals) does not. LP47 (seller obligations) has the duty. LP48 (landlord obligations) does not. The state agency that regulates the licensees who handle Colorado leases drew the same line the CFR draws.

What this means for you. A Colorado 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.

Complete the fields below to generate a federally compliant Colorado 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. Colorado’s LP46 restates the identical period, and LP48 repeats it a third time. 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 agency database to consult; nothing gets filed anywhere. 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, 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, not a statement about how long you can be sued. The tenant’s treble-damages right is expressly unaffected by the retention clock running out. 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. Colorado’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 — where, incidentally, it becomes the seller’s 745.113(a) disclosure material.

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 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.

Search “Colorado lead law landlord” and you will be told that “under Colorado Regulation 19, all individuals conducting lead-based paint activities must be trained and certified”, usually presented as though it were a landlord compliance duty sitting alongside the disclosure. That sentence is true in isolation and misleading in placement. Here is what Regulation 19 actually is.

Regulation Number 19, “The Control of Lead Hazards”, 5 CCR 1001-23, is an Air Quality Control Commission rule administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. It has two operative parts. Part A, Lead-Based Paint Activities, accredits training programmes, certifies the individuals and firms who perform lead-based paint activities, and sets work practice standards for them. Part B, Pre-Renovation Education, governs information distribution before renovations of target housing and child-occupied facilities.

Two facts settle its character. The word “disclosure” does not appear anywhere in Regulation 19. And the words “landlord” and “lessor” do not appear anywhere in it either. It is a rule about the qualifications of people who disturb lead paint for a living. It is not, and does not purport to be, a source of any landlord disclosure duty. Conflating a contractor certification regime with a disclosure regime is the single most common error in this state’s lead content.

That said, it reaches landlords in one specific and important way. Part A, Section I.B applies the certification requirement to all individuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint activities, “except persons who perform these activities within residential dwellings that they own, unless the residential dwelling is occupied by a person or persons other than the owner or the owner’s immediate family while these activities are being performed, or unless a child residing in the building has been identified as having an elevated blood lead level.”

Parse that carefully, because it is the one place Regulation 19 bites a Colorado landlord:

• Owner-occupied, family only: you may perform lead-based paint activities in your own home without certification.
• Tenant-occupied: the exemption withdraws. A rental occupied by a tenant is, by definition, “occupied by a person… other than the owner or the owner’s immediate family”. A Colorado landlord may not self-perform abatement in an occupied pre-1978 rental — it must be done by certified individuals and firms.
• Elevated blood lead level: the exemption withdraws regardless of who occupies the unit if a child residing in the building has been identified with an elevated blood lead level.

Two limits keep this narrower than it first appears. Part A, Section I.D provides that Part A “does not apply to renovation, remodeling, landscaping, or other activities when such activities are not intended nor designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards but instead are intended to repair, restore or remodel a given structure or dwelling.” So ordinary repainting is not abatement; abatement means work designed to permanently eliminate the hazard. And Part A, Section I.F is emphatic that “nothing in this Regulation Number 19, Part A requires that the owner or occupant undertake any particular lead-based paint activity.” Regulation 19 says how the work is done if you do it. It never says you must do it.

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

The federal 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 a 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.

Colorado’s pre-renovation education rule, and the timing everyone reports backwards. Regulation 19, Part B applies to “all renovations of target housing or child-occupied facilities performed for compensation”. Section III.A provides that, no more than 60 days before beginning renovation activities in a dwelling unit, the renovator must provide the owner with the pamphlet and either obtain a written acknowledgment of receipt or obtain a certificate of mailing at least 7 days prior to the renovation.

Read that phrase precisely, because the AI answers and the aggregator pages get it exactly backwards. They say tenants must receive lead hazard information “at least 60 days before the renovation begins”, as though 60 days were a waiting period you must observe. It is the opposite: it is a maximum lookback window. The pamphlet must be no more than 60 days stale when work starts. There is no minimum 60-day delay, and a landlord who reads it as one will postpone repairs for two months for no legal reason whatsoever. The only minimum in the provision is the 7-day certificate-of-mailing alternative.

The tenant-specific item. Section III.A.2 is the one that matters most to landlords: “if the owner does not occupy the dwelling unit, provide an adult occupant of the unit with the pamphlet”, and either obtain a written acknowledgment or certify in writing that the pamphlet was delivered and acknowledgment could not be obtained — recording the address, date and method of delivery, who delivered it, and why no acknowledgment was signed. Non-owner-occupied means rental. This duty runs to sitting tenants who received their leasing disclosure years earlier.

What is outside Part B. Section I.B excludes minor repair and maintenance — activities disturbing 2 square feet or less of interior painted surface per room, or 20 square feet or less of exterior painted surface, where no prohibited work practices are used and the work does not involve window replacement or destruction of painted surface areas. Jobs other than emergency renovations performed in the same room within the same 30 days count as one job for that threshold, so you cannot serialise a big job into small ones. Emergency renovations are excluded, as are renovations where a certified inspector or risk assessor has made a written determination that the affected components are free of lead-based paint.

Common areas trigger building-wide notice. Where work affects common areas of multi-family target housing, Section III.B requires the renovator either to notify each unit in writing — describing the general nature and locations of the work, the anticipated start and completion dates, and how to obtain the pamphlet and records at no cost — or to post informational signs where occupants of all affected units are likely to see them. Every unit, not merely the ones adjacent to the work.

Why it matters in Colorado. Repainting between tenancies is the most routine task in the business, and Colorado’s older Denver and Pueblo stock turns over constantly. Scraping and repainting a 1958 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. Entering an occupied unit to carry out that work is its own compliance question — see our Colorado landlord entry laws guide for the notice a landlord owes before entering to renovate.

Search this topic 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, and some of them differing from each other by thousands. 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. Knowing violations can also carry criminal exposure.

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.

One thing the rule does not do: it does not void your lease. EPA states that the disclosure rule does not cancel leasing or sales contracts. Non-disclosure is a violation with damages and penalties attached; it is not a rescission right, and a tenant who reads it as an exit from the lease has misread it.

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. Colorado sits in EPA Region 8, headquartered in Denver.

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; 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 or to HUD through the reporting channels published on their enforcement pages. The National Lead Information Center, 1-800-424-LEAD, fields questions from both landlords and tenants. Colorado’s own lead programme sits with CDPHE, but note what it does and does not do: it administers Regulation 19 certification, not disclosure enforcement. A tenant complaining that they never got a disclosure is a federal matter, not a CDPHE one. 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.

Federal disclosure is the compliance floor, not the whole picture. Colorado habitability law applies independently to the underlying condition of the paint — but it is worth being accurate about how, because this is another place where it is easy to overclaim.

C.R.S. 38-12-503 establishes the warranty of habitability: every rental agreement carries an implied warranty that the landlord will maintain the premises fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. C.R.S. 38-12-505 then lists the conditions that make a premises uninhabitable.

Lead is not on that list. The enumerated items are mold and dampness; functioning appliances; waterproofing and weather protection; plumbing and gas; running and hot water; heating; electrical; clean common areas and extermination; extermination throughout the premises; refuse receptacles; floors, stairways, elevators and railings; locks and window security devices; code compliance; environmental cleanup standards; methamphetamine remediation; compliance with the radon disclosure requirements of C.R.S. 38-12-803; and cooling devices. Deteriorated lead paint appears nowhere by name, and any page telling you Colorado’s habitability statute covers lead paint as a listed defect is inventing it.

That radon item is worth pausing on, because it is the sharpest available proof of what Colorado did and did not do. At 38-12-505(1)(b)(XV) the legislature made a disclosure failure a habitability defect: a premises is deemed uninhabitable if it substantially lacks compliance with the radon disclosure statute. Colorado therefore knows exactly how to wire a disclosure duty into the warranty of habitability, and it did so for radon. It created no lead counterpart — which is consistent with the rest of the picture on this page: the lead disclosure duty in Colorado is federal, and the state has legislated around it rather than on top of it. Our Colorado radon gas disclosure covers that separate state duty.

Nor does lead appear in the statute’s other list. 38-12-505(4) sets out the conditions that are rebuttably presumed to materially interfere with a tenant’s life, health, or safety — weatherproofing, gas hazards, water, heat, electrical hazards, locks, plumbing and sewage, infestation, blocked fire egress, chimney and venting defects, and inoperable elevators for tenants who need them. Lead is not among those either, so a tenant alleging a lead hazard carries the ordinary burden rather than arriving with a presumption.

It can still get there through the general limbs, which is the accurate way to state it. 38-12-505(1)(b)(XII) makes a premises uninhabitable where it substantially lacks “compliance with all applicable building, housing, and health codes, the violation of which would constitute a condition that materially interferes with the life, health, or safety of the tenant” — and deteriorated paint in a pre-1978 unit can violate a local housing code. 38-12-505(1)(c) is the catch-all: a premises is uninhabitable if “it is otherwise unfit for human habitation.” Separately, C.R.S. 38-12-503(2)(a)(II) makes a landlord liable where a condition “materially interferes with the tenant’s life, health, or safety” and the landlord fails to act after notice. Peeling lead paint where a young child lives is a strong candidate for that language even though the statute never says “lead”.

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 Colorado unit should be remediated by a certified firm before re-rental — both to comply with Regulation 19 and the RRP rule and to remove the habitability exposure that disclosure does nothing to cure. Our Colorado habitability laws guide covers the notice and remedy timelines in full, and the state now requires a habitability statement in every rental agreement, which we cover in the Colorado warranty of habitability disclosure.

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 Colorado 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.

Believing the “10-day tenant inspection” myth

It is not a rental rule. Worse than merely believing it is printing it: a checkbox asserting the tenant received or waived a 10-day right puts a false statement on a document every party signs certifying accuracy. Colorado’s own LP46 has no such item.

Assuming LP46 is compulsory for every landlord

It binds licensees under C.R.S. 12-10-403(4)(c). A self-managing owner is not a broker and may use any compliant form. The converse error is worse: a licensed manager who hands the tenant a generic form has a licensing problem on top of everything else.

Treating Regulation 19 as a disclosure duty

It certifies contractors. It contains no disclosure requirement and never mentions landlords. Citing it to a tenant as the source of your disclosure obligation signals you have not read either rule.

Reading the 60-day pre-renovation rule backwards

Regulation 19 Part B says “no more than 60 days before” — a maximum staleness window for the pamphlet, not a minimum waiting period. Landlords who invert it delay repairs for two months for no reason; the actual risk is delivering a pamphlet too long before work starts, or not at all.

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.

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.

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.

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. LP48 spells this out for Colorado landlords, and owners still routinely disclose the unit-specific file while sitting on the building report.

Self-performing abatement in an occupied rental

Regulation 19 Part A, Section I.B lets owners do lead work in dwellings they own — until a tenant lives there. In an occupied pre-1978 rental, the exemption is gone and certified individuals and firms are required.

Tenants of Colorado 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 add costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees. The knowing standard is broad enough to reach reckless disregard.

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.

What tenants do not have: a 10-day inspection right

Stated here for completeness, because tenants read the myth too and sometimes demand it. A prospective Colorado tenant has no federal right to a 10-day inspection window. A landlord who declines to offer one is not violating anything. A tenant who wants the unit tested is free to arrange it, and a landlord who agrees is doing something sensible and voluntary.

The right to a habitable unit

Independent of disclosure, C.R.S. 38-12-503 entitles Colorado tenants to a unit fit for human habitation. Deteriorated lead paint is not a named condition in C.R.S. 38-12-505, but it can reach the statute through the code-compliance limb at (1)(b)(XII) or the “otherwise unfit for human habitation” limb at (1)(c), and it can support the “materially interferes with the tenant’s life, health, or safety” standard in 38-12-503.

The right to the pamphlet before renovation

Under Regulation 19 Part B, an adult occupant of a non-owner-occupied unit must receive the pamphlet before renovation activities begin. This right belongs to sitting tenants, entirely apart from the leasing disclosure they received when they moved in.

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 ready to fill the unit, start a tenant screening and compare the available report options before you sign anyone.

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.