Free Nevada Lead Paint Disclosure

A Nevada 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). Nevada imposes no separate lead paint disclosure statute — we checked the primary text, and NRS Chapter 118A does not contain the words “lead paint” at all. What Nevada adds is an independent habitability duty at NRS 118A.290, covered in our Nevada habitability laws guide. What Clark County adds is an entire local lead regulation that almost nobody writing about this topic mentions. Generate the form below, then read on.

▶ Watch overview

Nevada 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 Nevada 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 included as an attachment to or 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 Nevada 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. Nevada has no state-specific lead paint disclosure statute, and this page will not invent one. We did not take that on trust from another website — we pulled the chapters from the Nevada Legislature’s own server and searched the text. NRS Chapter 118A, the landlord-and-tenant chapter that governs Nevada dwellings, runs to roughly 131,000 characters and contains zero occurrences of “lead paint”, “lead-based paint”, or even “1978”. The same search came back empty for NRS 113 (sales of real property and seller disclosures), NRS 118, NRS 439, NRS 444, NRS 618, NRS 645, and NRS 40, and for the administrative code at NAC 439 and NAC 444.

That is the honest answer, and it is more useful than a fabricated one. If you are searching for the Nevada lead paint statute number, there isn’t one to find. Every substantive 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. 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 Nevada form on this page.

What Nevada does contribute is two adjacent things worth knowing, and one of them turns out to matter a great deal:

• Habitability — NRS 118A.290. The landlord’s duty to maintain the dwelling in a habitable condition applies independently of disclosure. Deteriorated lead paint can be a habitability defect on its own, whether or not you disclosed it. Disclosure does not cure a hazard; it only discloses one. This is covered in detail below, because the precise wording of 118A.290 does something on this topic that most habitability statutes do not.
• Local health-district regulation. Nevada’s public health work is done by regional health districts created under NRS 439, and those districts can adopt binding regulations for their own territory. In Clark County, that power has been exercised on lead paint specifically. This is local law, not state law, and the distinction matters if your property is in Reno rather than Las Vegas.

Here is the single most under-reported fact on this topic. If your pre-1978 rental is in Clark County — Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Mesquite, or Laughlin, which together hold the large majority of Nevada’s population — there is a second rulebook sitting on top of the federal one, and it has teeth the federal disclosure rule does not.

The Southern Nevada Health District is the public health entity for Clark County under NRS 439. Its governing body, the Southern Nevada District Board of Health, is authorised by NRS 439.366 to adopt regulations to prevent and control public health hazards within the health district. Using that power, together with NRS 439.479 (regulations on the condition of rental dwelling units, including regulations “to recover all costs incurred by the district board of health relating thereto”) and NRS 439.490 (a health officer may “order the abatement or removal of any nuisance detrimental to the public health”), the Board adopted the Regulations Governing Lead Paint Hazard Prevention and Control. The regulations order compliance “within Clark County, Nevada”.

What Section 4 does: restates the disclosure duty locally

Section 4 of the SNHD regulations mirrors the federal disclosure rule almost clause for clause. The purpose paragraph requires a seller or lessor of target housing to disclose known lead-based paint and hazards, provide available records and reports, provide the lead hazard information pamphlet, “give purchasers a ten (10)-day opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection”, and attach the disclosure and warning language before the purchaser or lessee is obligated. Section 4.3.1.4 goes out of its way to say that the records duty “includes records or reports regarding common areas” and records covering “other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing” where they form part of a building-wide evaluation.

Note that the local regulation gets the 10-day question right: its Section 4.4.1 is purchaser-scoped word for word, matching 40 CFR 745.110(a). The practical effect of Section 4 is not to add a new form — it is to make the same failure enforceable by a local health inspector who can be at your property this week, rather than only by a federal agency in another time zone.

The divergence worth checking: the 100-day exemption

There is one difference between Section 4 and the federal rule that a careful Clark County landlord should notice. 40 CFR 745.101 lists four exceptions to the disclosure subpart: foreclosure sales, leases of certified lead-free housing, short-term leases of 100 days or less where no renewal or extension can occur, and qualifying lease renewals. SNHD Section 4.2 lists only three: foreclosure sales (4.2.1), certified lead-free leases (4.2.2), and qualifying renewals (4.2.3). The words “100 days” do not appear anywhere in Section 4.

We are telling you what the text says, not what it means, because we could not verify from the regulation itself whether that omission is deliberate policy or a drafting artefact, and we are not going to guess on your behalf. The conservative reading is obvious enough: if you run short-term or vacation lets in a pre-1978 Clark County building and you have been relying on the federal 100-day exemption, the local regulation as written does not appear to carry that exemption forward. Delivering the disclosure anyway costs you nothing and removes the question entirely.

Section 2: the part that is genuinely beyond the federal rule

The federal disclosure rule is an information-transfer rule. It never makes you fix anything. SNHD Section 2 does.

Under Section 2.1, the Health Authority performs a lead hazard screening or risk assessment whenever it learns of potentially hazardous paint conditions through any of three routes: an elevated blood-lead investigation at a child’s residence or anywhere the child spends time; a referral from a federal, state or local entity that identified a renter-occupied residence constructed before 1978 with a possible lead hazard; or an observation made by an environmental health specialist while investigating some unrelated complaint. That third route deserves a moment’s thought: a routine complaint about something else entirely can become a lead investigation because of what the inspector notices on the way in.

If the screening finds a lead paint-related hazard, Section 2.2 requires the Health Authority to treat it as a substantial hazard to public health and to require correction through interim controls or abatement. Section 2.4 requires areas deemed a substantial public health hazard to be removed from public access immediately. The listed hazards include lead-based paint in fair or poor condition, dust-lead hazards, and soil-lead hazards.

Sections 6 and 7: the enforcement machinery

Section 6 sets out the Notice of Violation and Order for Abatement. It identifies the property and the owner, describes the hazard, states which sections were violated, requires remediation or abatement by a certified firm within a specified period, requires clearance testing by a stated date, and tells the owner about the right to appeal. It may be served personally, by mail to the last known address, and additionally by posting on the property. Where corrective work cannot be finished in time, the owner must file a written Request for Extension before the compliance date, with a statement of intent and a work plan; the Health Authority may accept or deny it.

Section 7 gives the appeal route: a written request for an administrative hearing, with a minimum of ten business days allowed to file it, a hearing date set no later than 60 days from the request, a hearing before a Health Authority Hearing Officer with counsel permitted, witnesses, subpoenas, and a verbatim record. Judicial review runs under NRS 233B.130(2) and NRS 233B.131 through 233B.150. Section 7.3 adds that where an owner does not comply, the Health Authority may seek relief in court and must notify licensing, building, and code-enforcement authorities — and the EPA — of the continued non-compliance.

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 agency, and no obligation to remediate. The federal 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. (In Clark County, as set out above, the remediation piece arrives from a different direction entirely.)

“Target housing” is the federal term for property subject to the rule. The definition at 40 CFR 745.103 is housing constructed prior to 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, 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 Nevada. The county assessor’s record is the fastest authoritative source, and Clark County and Washoe County both publish theirs 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.

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. 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.

Nevada context, and why the exemption gets assumed wrongly here. Nevada is an unusually young housing market. The overwhelming majority of Clark County’s rental stock was built well after 1978, and in a market where nearly everything postdates the trigger it becomes a habit to assume the rule never applies. The pre-1978 inventory that does exist is concentrated and easy to name: the historic Las Vegas core and the older neighbourhoods near downtown, the established parts of Reno and Sparks, Carson City, and the old railroad and mining towns — Elko, Ely, Winnemucca, Boulder City’s original townsite. Portfolio landlords with mixed-vintage holdings are the ones who get caught, because the compliance answer differs unit by unit and the habit says “no”. When in doubt, verify against the assessor record rather than relying on the vintage of the neighbourhood.

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.
• 0-bedroom dwellings (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. As amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416), this exclusion is conditional: it lifts when a child under six resides or is expected. See the callout below, because this is the single most misstated point in the rule.
• Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (40 CFR 745.103, definitional) — unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside there. “Housing for the elderly” has its own definition in 745.103: retirement communities or similar housing reserved for households with one or more persons 62 or older at initial occupancy.
• Short-term leases of 100 days or less (40 CFR 745.101(c)), where no lease renewal or extension can occur. A month-to-month tenancy does not qualify, because it renews. Clark County landlords: see the Section 4.2 divergence discussed above before relying on this one.
• Certified lead-free housing (40 CFR 745.101(b)). Property inspected by a certified inspector and found free of lead-based paint. 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 already made every disclosure required by 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.
• 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 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. The Clark County regulation restates the same duty at Section 4.3.1.1.

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 elements must be provided in the language of the contract. An English lease takes the English pamphlet; a Spanish lease takes the Spanish edition. In a market like Las Vegas, where a large share of tenancies are negotiated in Spanish, this is not a hypothetical: match the pamphlet to the lease language, not to the conversation you had at the viewing.

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. EPA states this plainly: the disclosure 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 Clark County regulation carries the same rule at Section 4.3.1: “Nothing in this Section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities.” That is not independent local drafting — it is the federal sentence at 40 CFR 745.107(a) reproduced word for word, which is a useful tell for how closely SNHD’s Section 4 tracks the federal rule (and makes the places where it departs more significant).

The standard is actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge and not a duty to investigate. “Available” is defined at 40 CFR 745.103 as in the possession of or reasonably obtainable by the lessor at the time of the disclosure. 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 received a health-district notice or screening result on the property.
• 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 a Clark County wrinkle worth naming: once the health district has screened your property, the results exist. From that day forward “no knowledge” is gone for that unit and every future tenancy in it.

This is the most widespread error on the lead-disclosure internet, 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 agrees: 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C) frames the opportunity as one given to the purchaser.

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. Compare the two versions of the form directly and you can see it: the sales version carries an item where the purchaser states they either received or waived the 10-day opportunity; the lessor version simply has no such line, because there is no such right to receive or waive.

Even Clark County gets this right. SNHD Section 4.4.1 reproduces the federal sentence exactly — “Before a purchaser is obligated under any contract to purchase target housing, the seller shall permit the purchaser a 10-day period…” — and Section 4.5.1.5, the item recording that the opportunity was received or waived, sits in the seller requirements at 4.5.1, not in the lessor requirements. The local regulation is more careful about this than most of the national form industry.

What this means for you. A Nevada 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 Nevada 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)(1) requires the lessor, and any agent, to retain a copy of the completed attachment or lease contract containing the required information for no less than three years from the commencement 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 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.
• In Clark County: any health-district correspondence, screening result, or clearance test on the property.

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 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. 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 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