Free New Mexico Notice to Enter

This New Mexico Notice to Enter gives a resident clear written notice before the owner enters the rental unit. NMSA 1978 §47-8-24 requires at least 24 hours written notice that states the purpose, the date, and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame – and the Owner-Resident Relations Act is non-waivable under §47-8-16. See our tenant screening laws by state hub and how to screen tenants guide to keep your New Mexico tenancies documented from the start.

Complete the fields below to generate a New Mexico Notice to Enter. Under NMSA 1978 Section 47-8-24, the owner must give the resident at least 24 hours written notice stating the purpose, the date, and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame of entry. The form records each required element – the date, the time-frame, the purpose, the persons entering, and how the notice is delivered.

Watch: New Mexico Notice to Enter explained

▶ Watch overview

New Mexico is a written-notice state for entry. The right of entry sits in NMSA 1978 Section 47-8-24, part of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act – the chapter that governs residential rentals statewide. What makes New Mexico distinctive is not just the timing but the form of the notice: under Section 47-8-24(A) the owner may enter the dwelling unit only after giving the resident twenty-four hours written notification of an intent to enter, and that written notice must state the purpose of the entry, the date, and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame during which entry is expected. A note that merely says twenty-four hours, with no purpose, date, or window, does not meet the statute.

There are narrow carve-outs in Section 47-8-24(A)(2) where advance written notice is not required: repairs or services the resident requested within the last seven days, and entries where the owner is accompanied by a public official conducting an inspection or a cable television, electric, gas, or telephone company representative. Separately, under Section 47-8-24(B), a genuine emergency lets the owner enter without the resident’s consent. New Mexico’s protections are non-waivable under NMSA Section 47-8-16, so a lease cannot strip the resident of the 24-hour written notice. The sections that follow walk through the purposes that justify entry, what keeps an entry reasonable, how the emergency and absence exceptions work, how showings and abandonment are handled, what the lease can and cannot do, and – most important for an owner managing risk – the remedies a New Mexico resident has when entry goes wrong under Section 47-8-24(F), and the symmetrical remedy an owner has under (E).

Section 47-8-24(A) frames entry around legitimate owner functions and actually lists them. The resident shall consent to the owner entering in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, prospective residents, workmen, or contractors. The unifying test is the one the no-abuse clause of subsection (C) implies: the owner must have a real property-management reason to be inside the unit, not a pretext for checking up on or pressuring the resident.

Repairs and maintenance are the most common reason an owner needs access. This includes responding to a resident’s repair request, performing scheduled upkeep, and addressing conditions the owner is obligated to fix under the Act. The requested-versus-unrequested distinction matters here because of the carve-out: work the resident requested within the last seven days needs no advance written notice, while owner-initiated maintenance the resident did not request still requires the full 24-hour written notice. 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, and the statute names them: exhibiting the unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, prospective residents, workmen, or contractors. An owner may need to show the unit to a prospective resident near the end of a tenancy, to a prospective buyer if the property is on the market, or to a mortgagee or appraiser during a sale or refinance. Each is a legitimate purpose, but each brings strangers into the resident’s home, so generous written notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here.

Building services and safety work round out the list: supplying necessary or agreed services, 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 residents welcome it when it is scheduled with notice. Across all of these purposes, the form lets the owner 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 the no-abuse clause of subsection (C) bites. Entering to check whether the resident is keeping the unit “well enough” with no maintenance reason, to look for lease violations on a hunch, to confront a resident over a dispute, or simply to remind a resident who controls the property are not property-management purposes; they are the pretextual entries that look like an abuse of access and can trigger the resident’s remedy in subsection (F). The discipline of writing down the purpose on a notice is itself a useful filter: if an owner cannot articulate a concrete, legitimate reason on paper, that is a strong signal the entry should not happen at all.

New Mexico fixes the floor at 24 hours written notice, but the words that do the rest of the work are reasonable times and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame. An owner who gives proper written notice and enters at a reasonable time for a legitimate purpose is on solid ground; an owner who gives a bare day’s heads-up with no purpose or window, or who shows up at odd hours, invites a dispute even when the underlying reason for entry was valid. The 24 hours is a minimum, not a target – more lead time for a planned inspection or showing is always defensible.

On the time-frame, the statute does not let the owner simply name a date; it requires a reasonable estimate of the window during which entry is expected. A notice that says an owner will enter “sometime Tuesday” gives the resident nothing to plan around and reads poorly against the statutory text. The better practice, which this form is built to capture, is a real window – an earliest and latest time – so the resident can secure pets, arrange to be present, or raise a conflict. Narrowing the window also reduces the chance that the entry itself drifts into an unreasonable hour.

On hours, “reasonable times” generally means normal daytime hours. Entry early in the morning, late at night, or on weekends is harder to defend as reasonable unless the resident has agreed to it or an emergency requires it. Section 47-8-24(A)(3) reinforces this cooperative posture: where the resident gives reasonable prior notice of an alternate time or date and accommodating it is practicable without economic detriment to the owner, the owner shall attempt to reasonably accommodate it. Offering a window rather than a single rigid time, and matching the entry to the resident’s schedule where practical, both signal that the owner is acting reasonably and within the access right the statute grants.

Reasonableness also has a frequency dimension that subsection (C) makes explicit through its no-abuse language and that subsection (F) backs with a remedy. A single, well-noticed entry to make a repair is plainly reasonable. Repeated demands for entry that unreasonably interfere with the resident’s quiet enjoyment can cross the line into an abuse of access even when each individual demand is technically lawful, because at some point the sheer volume of intrusions interferes with the resident’s possession regardless of how each one is announced. The safe practice is to consolidate work, enter no more often than the task genuinely requires, and document each visit.

How the notice is delivered feeds directly into whether it is reasonable, and New Mexico requires the notice to be written. A notice the resident never actually receives gives the owner little protection, even if it was technically “sent.” Personal delivery of the written notice to the resident 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 is reasonable where the lease allows electronic notice and the resident routinely uses that channel. Certified mail creates an excellent paper trail but is slow, so reserve it for situations where the schedule comfortably allows the full 24 hours. Whatever the method, the goal is the same: choose the channel most likely to reach this particular resident, and keep proof that you used it.

Section 47-8-24(A)(2) creates two situations in which the 24-hour written-notice requirement does not apply, and both are narrow. The first is entry to perform repairs or services within seven days of a request by the resident. The logic is the same one that runs through every well-drafted entry rule: if the resident asked for the work, the resident has already invited the entry, so a separate advance notice would be a formality. The practical line is whether the resident actually requested the specific work; an owner who notices a separate problem during a requested repair and wants to return to fix it should treat that follow-up as unrequested and give the normal 24-hour written notice.

The second carve-out covers entry where the owner is accompanied by a public official conducting an inspection or a cable television, electric, gas, or telephone company representative. This is a coordination exception: when a code inspector or a utility technician needs access and the owner is escorting them, the statute does not require the owner to layer a 24-hour notice on top of the third party’s visit. Even so, the better practice is to give the resident a heads-up whenever circumstances allow, because the carve-out removes a legal requirement, not the goodwill value of letting the resident know who will be in the home.

Neither carve-out is a license to skip notice generally. They are specific exceptions to a specific requirement, and an owner who stretches them – treating a stale month-old request as “within seven days,” or describing an ordinary maintenance visit as a utility-accompanied entry – is back in over-entry territory and exposed to the subsection (F) remedy. When in doubt, the conservative move is to give the full 24-hour written notice; doing so is never wrong, while skipping it on a misjudged carve-out can be.

The clearest situation in which a New Mexico owner may enter without advance notice is a genuine emergency. Section 47-8-24(B) provides flatly that the owner may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the resident in case of an 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.

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 owner is eager to confront, a repair the resident has been slow to schedule, or a desire to get ahead of a deadline are urgent to the owner but are not emergencies, and using the emergency label to cover them is exactly the kind of overreach that the no-abuse clause of subsection (C) is meant to stop.

Because an emergency entry happens without the usual written notice, documentation is the owner’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 resident promptly afterward, explaining what happened and why immediate entry was necessary. Scope matters too: an emergency justifies the entry needed to address the emergency, not a general search of the unit. An owner who enters to stop a flood should deal with the water and leave, not take the opportunity to inspect the resident’s belongings, because an emergency entry that balloons into a broader, unconnected search can lose its protection and revert to an ordinary unauthorized entry.

Showings deserve their own treatment because they put the owner’s legitimate business needs in the sharpest tension with the resident’s right to be left in peaceful possession. When a tenancy is ending, the owner may reasonably need to show the unit to prospective residents so it does not sit vacant. When the property is for sale, the owner may need to show it to prospective or actual purchasers, and a mortgagee or appraiser may need access as well. Section 47-8-24(A) names all of these as legitimate purposes, but every one of them brings outsiders into an occupied home.

The protection for both sides is the same 24-hour written notice with a stated purpose and time-frame, applied with extra care because showings cluster and involve strangers. A well-drafted New Mexico lease will often address how showings near the end of the term are handled, and an owner should follow that clause while never falling below the statutory 24-hour written-notice standard. The no-abuse limit of subsection (C) applies with full force here: a flurry of poorly-noticed showings can itself become an abuse of access and an unreasonable interference with quiet enjoyment under subsection (F), even though no single one violated the bare hour count.

Practical courtesy goes a long way during a sale or re-rental. Group showings into defined windows rather than scattering them, give the resident as much lead time as the 24-hour floor allows or more, and offer a way to reschedule around the resident’s commitments – which Section 47-8-24(A)(3) already encourages. A resident who feels respected during a marketing period is far less likely to refuse access or to claim an abuse of access, and the owner keeps the dated written notices that show every showing was properly announced and reasonably timed.

The entry rules of Section 47-8-24 assume the resident is still in possession. Subsection (D) addresses what happens when that assumption breaks down: the owner has no other right of access except by court order, except as the section otherwise permits, or where the resident has abandoned or surrendered the premises, or has been absent from the premises more than seven days, as permitted in Section 47-8-34. A useful point of caution: the seven-day figure in subsection (D) is the extended-absence rule and is distinct from the seven-day requested-repair carve-out in subsection (A)(2); they share a number but solve different problems.

Abandonment is a conclusion an owner should reach carefully, because acting on a mistaken belief that a resident has left can itself create liability. It generally requires both that the resident has actually left and that the resident intends not to return – shown by facts such as removed belongings, disconnected utilities, unpaid rent, and no response to contact. A resident who is merely traveling, hospitalized, or temporarily away has not abandoned the unit, and treating an occupied home as abandoned can expose the owner to a trespass claim and to the abuse-of-access remedy. Surrender is the cleaner case: the resident affirmatively gives the unit back, by returning keys or by agreement, which ends the tenancy and the resident’s possessory rights.

The safe approach is to confirm abandonment or surrender before relying on it, and to use the court-order route the subsection itself names when the situation is genuinely ambiguous. New Mexico is strict about self-help: an owner who locks a resident out, removes belongings, or cuts utilities crosses into Section 47-8-36 territory, with its own daily rent abatement and the Section 47-8-48(B) civil penalty of two times the monthly rent. Until the owner is confident the resident has surrendered or abandoned possession, or has the court order the statute contemplates, the ordinary 24-hour written-notice rule continues to apply.

Even though New Mexico fixes the entry duty by statute, the lease still shapes the day-to-day mechanics of access, and a resident’s real-time consent still matters. The lease can spell out how showings, inspections, and maintenance visits are coordinated, can set notice practices more generous than the statutory 24-hour minimum, and can establish the written delivery channel the parties will use. What the lease cannot do is contract below the statutory floor, because Section 47-8-16 provides that no rental agreement may have the resident or owner waive or forego rights or remedies under the Act. A clause purporting to let the owner enter without the 24-hour written notice, or to strip the resident of the subsection (F) remedy, is unenforceable to that extent.

A resident’s consent also matters in real time. Even where written notice would otherwise be required, a resident who agrees to a specific entry has invited it – a resident-requested repair within the last seven days is the clearest example, needing no advance written notice at all under subsection (A)(2). The cleanest practice is to memorialize consent – a text or email confirming the date, time, and purpose – so an agreed-upon visit cannot later be recast as an intrusion. Standing arrangements for routine access can be built into the lease, and one-off consent can be documented as it is given.

There is a limit, however, that owners should not lose sight of, and in New Mexico it is statutory rather than merely prudential. The no-abuse clause of subsection (C), read with the anti-waiver rule of Section 47-8-16, means an owner cannot use even a broadly worded lease as a shield for harassment. An owner who relies on a permissive clause to enter repeatedly, at unreasonable hours, or to pressure a resident is not merely exercising a contract right; that conduct can trigger the subsection (F) remedy – an injunction or termination plus damages – regardless of what the clause says. A permissive clause expands the owner’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 tracks the statute – 24 hours written notice stating purpose, date, and time-frame, the emergency carve-out, the requested-repair and inspector/utility carve-outs, and a stated delivery method – gives the owner everything a normal operation needs while signaling good faith to a court. An “any time, no notice” clause buys very little real-world freedom, because the statutory duty and the anti-waiver rule cap it anyway, and it reads badly if the tenancy ever turns adversarial. A balanced clause is both more enforceable in spirit and more persuasive evidence that the owner respected the resident’s possession.

This is the heart of New Mexico entry law, and the distinctive thing about it is that the remedy sits in the same section as the duty. Section 47-8-24(A) states the duty; Section 47-8-24(C) caps it; and Section 47-8-24(F) supplies the resident’s remedy when the owner crosses the line. The remedies below are presented roughly in the order a New Mexico resident in possession would consider them, starting with the statute written for exactly this problem.

Section 47-8-24(F) – the dedicated entry remedy

This is the primary, purpose-built remedy. Section 47-8-24(F) provides that if the owner makes an unlawful entry, or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner, or makes repeated demands for entry that are otherwise lawful but that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the resident’s quiet enjoyment of the dwelling unit, the resident may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct or may terminate the rental agreement, and in either case may recover damages. The subsection thus reaches all three failure modes – the entry with no right, the entry made the wrong way, and the campaign of harassing demands – and gives the resident a real choice between stopping the conduct and exiting the lease, with damages available on top.

Section 47-8-24(E) – the owner’s mirror remedy

It is worth understanding the companion remedy, because the two are symmetrical and clarify how the section is built. Section 47-8-24(E) provides that if the resident refuses to allow lawful access, the owner may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or terminate the rental agreement, and in either case recover damages. The structure is deliberate: subsection (E) protects the owner’s right to a properly-noticed, legitimate entry, and subsection (F) protects the resident against abuse of that same right. An owner who has given correct 24-hour written notice for a legitimate purpose is on the (E) side of the line; an owner who skips notice or enters abusively hands the resident the (F) remedy.

Injunctive relief to stop a pattern

When the problem is not a single past entry but a pattern of continuing or threatened unlawful entries, the resident’s strongest tool is an injunction – and subsection (F) supplies it expressly, naming injunctive relief “to prevent the recurrence of the conduct” as a remedy in its own right. An injunction does not undo past entries, but it can put a stop to an owner who keeps coming back or who keeps demanding entry to harass, which is often what a resident facing an abusive access pattern most needs.

Termination of the rental agreement

Subsection (F) also lets the resident terminate the rental agreement outright in response to an abusive entry, and recover damages on the way out. Termination is the right tool when the relationship has broken down past repair – when the resident no longer trusts that the owner will respect the unit and wants to end the tenancy rather than police it. Because termination is a statutory remedy here, a resident who properly invokes it for a genuine abuse of access is relieved of the lease, in contrast to a resident who simply walks out without a legal basis.

Common-law trespass

An owner who enters a unit the resident lawfully possesses, without a right of access and without legal process, can also be liable to the resident in common-law trespass. Possession, not title, founds a trespass action, which is exactly why a resident in possession can sue an owner who holds title but has entered unlawfully. Trespass is a doctrinal backstop that runs alongside the statutory remedy; in most New Mexico entry disputes the subsection (F) claim does the heavy lifting, with trespass available as an additional common-law theory for an entry made with no right at all.

Breach of quiet enjoyment

Subsection (F) itself is framed around the resident’s quiet enjoyment of the dwelling unit, and the implied common-law covenant of quiet enjoyment stands behind it. An owner whose entries substantially interfere with the resident’s beneficial use and enjoyment of the home breaches that covenant, and the statutory remedy and the common-law principle point the same direction. For a New Mexico over-entry, subsection (F) is the cleaner statutory hook, with quiet enjoyment available as the background principle that an abusive entry violates.

Retaliation is a separate protection that can also touch entry. Section 47-8-39 prohibits an owner from retaliating against a resident who is in compliance with the lease for a protected action taken within the previous six months – such as complaining to a housing-code agency, joining a residents’ organization, making a good-faith written repair request under Section 47-8-20, filing a fair-housing complaint, or prevailing in or having a pending lawsuit against the owner. If an owner weaponizes entry to retaliate after such an action, Section 47-8-39 applies on top of the entry remedy, entitling the resident to the Section 47-8-48 remedies and giving the resident a defense to any action for possession.

New Mexico entry law sits inside the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, and what is unusual about it is how much it packs into a single section. The duty to give 24 hours written notice, the abuse-of-access prohibition, the owner’s remedy when access is refused, and the resident’s remedy when access is abused all live inside NMSA 1978 § 47-8-24 itself, separated only by subsection. Other access-adjacent protections – the anti-waiver rule, the lockout statute, and the retaliation bar – live in their own sections, and pointing to the wrong one is the most common error in generic landlord-tenant content. The table below collects the authorities that actually govern entry in New Mexico so an owner can see where each rule comes from and which subsection does the work.

Read together, these authorities tell a story that is easy to get wrong if you grab the first plausible-looking section. New Mexico did legislate entry, and unlike the patchwork some states use, it put the whole structure in one place: the duty to give 24 hours written notice in § 47-8-24(A), the no-abuse cap in (C), the owner’s remedy for a refused entry in (E), and the resident’s remedy for an abusive entry in (F). An owner who reads only subsection (A) sees the obligation but misses the teeth in (F); a resident who reads only (A) may not realize a dedicated remedy sits two subsections down. The access-adjacent rules each keep their own lane: anti-waiver in § 47-8-16, the lockout statute in § 47-8-36, and retaliation in § 47-8-39.

None of this is a substitute for advice on a specific situation. The authorities here describe the general shape of New Mexico 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 official statute text is the best free starting point for both sides, and a qualified New Mexico landlord-tenant attorney is the right resource when a real conflict is on the table. Used alongside disciplined, well-documented notice, this form gives a New Mexico owner a clean, defensible record for every entry – the most reliable protection the law actually allows.

A New Mexico Notice to Enter is the written notice an owner or property manager gives a resident before entering the rental unit. New Mexico’s residential tenancies are governed by the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, and the right of entry lives in NMSA 1978 Section 47-8-24. The Act uses the terms owner and resident rather than landlord and tenant, but they describe the same parties, and the statute sets a clear, distinctive rule: the owner must give the resident at least 24 hours written notice of an intent to enter, and that notice must state the purpose, the date, and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame of the entry.

That written-and-specific requirement is what sets New Mexico apart from states whose statutes ask only for twenty-four hours. Here the notice is not complete unless it tells the resident why the owner is coming, when, and roughly how long the window will be. A casual text that simply gives a day’s heads-up does not satisfy Section 47-8-24. The point of the statute is to let the resident plan around a known purpose and time-frame, so the more precise the notice, the better protected the entry. This form is built around those three elements – purpose, date, and time-frame – so the notice you generate is complete by design.

What counts as a legitimate purpose is broad and familiar: inspecting the unit, making necessary or agreed repairs and supplying services, and showing the unit to prospective or actual purchasers, residents, workers, or contractors, along with pest control, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. This form lets you state the exact purpose, describe the work, list who will enter, and note whether the resident’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 residents resist access. The statute also commands that the owner shall not abuse the right of access, which in practice means entering at reasonable times and reasonably accommodating an alternate time the resident proposes.

New Mexico recognizes narrow carve-outs where the 24-hour written notice is not required. The owner may enter without advance notice to perform repairs or services the resident requested within the last seven days, and when the owner is accompanied by a public inspector or a representative of a cable, electric, gas, or telephone utility. A genuine emergency – fire, flood, gas leak, or another immediate threat to life or property – lets the owner enter at once without the resident’s consent. For every other entry, written notice with the three required elements is the rule, and a dated copy is the proof you followed it.

The protections of the Owner-Resident Relations Act, including the entry-notice right, are non-waivable under NMSA Section 47-8-16, so a lease clause that tries to eliminate the 24-hour written notice is unenforceable. Skipping notice or entering for harassment exposes the owner to remedies under the Act and undercuts the trust a tenancy depends on. A written, signed notice for every routine entry – one that states the purpose, the date, and a reasonable time-frame – is the simple, durable record that shows you complied with Section 47-8-24. Pair a consistent entry practice with disciplined tenant screening and a documented screening process so your New Mexico tenancies are well-run from application through move-out.

• The owner may enter only after giving the resident at least 24 hours written notification under NMSA §47-8-24(A).
• The written notice must state the purpose of entry, the date, and a reasonable estimate of the time-frame.
• Permitted purposes include inspection, repairs and improvements, supplying services, and showings to purchasers, mortgagees, prospective residents, workmen, or contractors.
• Enter only at reasonable times; §47-8-24(C) commands that the owner shall not abuse the right of access.
• No advance notice under §47-8-24(A)(2) for repairs the resident requested within the last 7 days, or when accompanied by a public official conducting an inspection or a cable/electric/gas/telephone representative.
• A genuine emergency allows immediate entry under §47-8-24(B); the notice right is non-waivable under NMSA §47-8-16.
• The resident’s remedy for an abusive entry – injunction, termination, and damages – is in §47-8-24(F); the owner’s remedy for a refused lawful entry is in §47-8-24(E).

• Personal delivery of the written notice to the resident – the strongest, hardest-to-dispute method.
• Posting on the door, alone or combined with email, so the written notice is received.
• Email or text where the lease permits electronic notice, kept as a written record.
• Certified mail for a documented written record when timing allows the full 24 hours.
• Whatever the channel, keep proof of delivery – the notice the resident never received protects no one.

• Giving a bare twenty-four-hour heads-up that omits the purpose, date, or time-frame §47-8-24(A) requires.
• Delivering notice verbally instead of in writing, leaving no record the notice was complete.
• Entering at unreasonable times or repeatedly, abusing the right of access §47-8-24(C) forbids.
• Stretching a carve-out – treating a stale request as “within seven days” or an ordinary visit as utility-accompanied.
• Citing the lockout statute §47-8-36, or §47-8-4, instead of the real entry remedy in §47-8-24(F) and anti-waiver in §47-8-16.
• Assuming a lease clause can waive the notice right – it is non-waivable under Section 47-8-16.
• Keeping no dated copy, leaving no proof the written notice with all three elements was given.

• Deliver written notice at least 24 hours ahead that states the purpose, date, and a reasonable time-frame.
• Use the time fields to give a clear window rather than an open-ended day.
• Reasonably accommodate an alternate time the resident proposes, as §47-8-24(A)(3) encourages, and offer a contact to reschedule.
• Consolidate work into fewer visits so repeated entries never look like an interference with quiet enjoyment.
• Before scheduling, sort each entry: emergency (B) – enter and document; a (A)(2) carve-out – no separate notice but a heads-up is wise; everything else – full 24-hour written notice.
• Keep every signed, dated notice on file for the life of the tenancy as proof of compliance.

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.