Free North Carolina Lead-Based Paint Disclosure

A North Carolina lead-based 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). North Carolina imposes no lead paint disclosure statute of its own — the disclosure duty here is purely federal. What North Carolina does add is real and worth knowing: a childhood lead poisoning response regime at N.C. Gen. Stat. 130A-131.5 through 130A-131.9H, a voluntary maintenance standard carrying a statutory liability protection, and state-run renovation and abatement certification programs that operate in place of EPA’s. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly what the rule requires.

▶ Watch overview

North Carolina lead-based paint disclosure overview

The lead-based paint disclosure — often called the Section 1018 disclosure, after the 1992 statute that created it — is the formal federal notice a North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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. If you are assembling the rest of the tenancy file at the same time, our North Carolina lease agreement generator is the natural companion to this form.

This is the question the entire North Carolina search gets wrong, and the answer has two halves.

Half one: North Carolina imposes no lead paint disclosure duty of its own, and this page will not invent one. There is no North Carolina lead disclosure statute, no state lead disclosure form, no state registry to file with, and no state addendum a landlord must attach to a lease. Every 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. If you are hunting for the North Carolina statute number that governs lead disclosure, there isn’t one to find, and the pages implying otherwise are describing the federal rule with a state name attached.

Half two — and this is where nearly every competing page stops short: North Carolina absolutely does have a lead statute. It is just not a disclosure statute. North Carolina’s lead law lives at N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 130A, Article 5, Part 4, titled “Lead Poisoning in Children”, running from 130A-131.5 through 130A-131.9H. It is the statute the secondary sources are gesturing at when they mention the “Childhood Lead Exposure Control Act” without ever citing a section number.

The distinction matters enormously in practice, because the two regimes fire at different moments:

So the honest headline for a North Carolina landlord is this: your paperwork duty is entirely federal, and your remediation exposure is entirely state. The federal rule will never order you to remove lead. North Carolina’s Part 4 will — but only after a child has been poisoned, which is precisely the outcome the whole scheme exists to prevent. The three sections that follow unpack Part 4, because the North Carolina pages that rank for this query describe it without a single citation, and one of them is nine years old.

The liability-defining fact: North Carolina’s lead remediation duty is triggered by a poisoning, not by a lease. Nothing in Part 4 obliges you to do anything about lead paint in the ordinary course of renting. The machinery starts when a child gets hurt.

The sequence runs like this. Laboratories report blood-lead results to the state under G.S. 130A-131.8. G.S. 130A-131.7 supplies the definitions that make the numbers operative: a “confirmed lead poisoning” is a blood lead concentration of 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater, determined by the lower of two consecutive blood tests within a 12-month period, and an “elevated blood lead level” is a concentration of five micrograms per deciliter or greater on the same two-test basis. Those two thresholds do different work, and conflating them is a common error.

When a confirmed poisoning surfaces, G.S. 130A-131.9A authorises an investigation to identify lead poisoning hazards in the unit. If hazards are found, G.S. 130A-131.9B requires written notification — and note who receives it: not only the owner and managing agent, but all persons residing in, attending, or regularly visiting the unit or facility. Then G.S. 130A-131.9C imposes the duty with the teeth.

Two definitions from G.S. 130A-131.7 shape what compliance looks like. “Remediation” is the elimination or control of lead poisoning hazards by methods approved by the Department — note “or control”, which is why remediation is not the same as abatement. “Abatement” is the harder set: removing lead-based paint, replacing painted components, enclosing or encapsulating painted surfaces, or another Commission-approved measure to eliminate the hazard permanently. Remediation may be satisfied by control measures; abatement means elimination.

The statute also defines a “residential housing unit” broadly — a dwelling, dwelling unit, or other structure, all or part of which is designed or used for human habitation, including the common areas, the grounds, any outbuildings, or other structures appurtenant to it. The yard and the shed are in scope. And G.S. 130A-131.7 sets hazard thresholds that make the trigger concrete rather than impressionistic: lead-based paint at 1.0 milligrams of lead per square centimetre or 0.5% lead by weight; lead dust at 10 micrograms per square foot on floors; soil at 400 parts per million in play areas and 1,200 parts per million elsewhere; and drinking water at 10 parts per billion. Round out the picture with G.S. 130A-131.9G, which addresses resident responsibilities, and G.S. 130A-131.9E, the certificate evidencing compliance.

The practical reading for a landlord: the cheapest moment to deal with lead in a pre-1978 North Carolina rental is before Part 4 ever engages, because once it does, you are on a 14-day plan clock with a poisoned child in your unit and a private treble-damages claim forming in parallel under the federal statute.

This is the single biggest financial reason a North Carolina landlord should care about lead, and the North Carolina pages that rank for this query mention it without a citation or skip it entirely.

North Carolina’s Preventative Maintenance Program is built from two statutory pieces. G.S. 130A-131.7 defines the “maintenance standard”, and G.S. 130A-131.9D — titled “Effect of compliance with maintenance standard” — gives compliance its legal consequence. The section provides that an owner who meets the standard and satisfies its documentation conditions “shall not be deemed liable” for an occupant’s injuries from lead exposure.

That is a statutory liability protection, and it is unusual. Read the conditions carefully rather than assuming the shield: the section conditions protection on demonstrating compliance — through annual certificate documentation where a child under six occupies the unit, through documentation of ongoing compliance, or by showing the unit contained no lead hazards during the period of the alleged injury. The protection follows the documentation, not the good intentions. An owner who does the work and keeps no record has done the work and kept no shield.

Participation is not compelled. No provision of Part 4 orders an owner into the maintenance standard; the statute creates an incentive rather than a mandate. That is what people mean when they call the program voluntary — and it is why it deserves a decision rather than a shrug. For an owner holding pre-1978 stock in Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Asheville, or the older Raleigh and Charlotte neighbourhoods, an affirmative liability defence written into a statute is worth more than most insurance riders.

What the standard itself requires, per the G.S. 130A-131.7 definition, is unglamorous and repetitive:

• Using safe work practices whenever paint is disturbed.
• Repairing and repainting areas of deteriorated paint inside the unit — the core obligation, checked on a recurring basis. For single-family and duplex dwellings built before 1950, the duty reaches exterior surfaces too.
• Cleaning interior dust using specialised methods; ordinary sweeping redistributes lead dust rather than removing it.
• Adjusting doors and windows to minimise the friction that grinds painted surfaces into dust. Friction surfaces are where lead dust is actually generated.
• Cleaning any carpets appropriately — expressly subject to the occupant’s approval, which is the one element of the standard that needs the tenant’s cooperation rather than just yours.
• Taking the steps necessary to ensure all interior surfaces on which dust might collect are readily cleanable, so that cleaning works at all.
• Providing the occupant all information required under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act — which is to say, the federal disclosure and pamphlet documented on this page.

Here is a genuinely North Carolina-specific fact with immediate operational consequences: North Carolina certifies your renovator, not EPA.

EPA authorises states to administer the federal lead programs in lieu of EPA, and North Carolina is on the list. EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting program page names the authorised states directly — Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe-Boise Forte. North Carolina’s RRP authorisation dates from 2010, and North Carolina holds abatement-program authorisation as well. Both are administered by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Health Hazards Control Unit.

What this changes for a landlord:

• Certification is a North Carolina credential. The renovator or firm you hire to disturb paint in your pre-1978 unit needs North Carolina certification through the Health Hazards Control Unit. An EPA certificate from another state is not automatically the answer, and “we’re EPA certified” is a claim to check rather than accept.
• Your questions go to the state, not to EPA. Certification status, requirements, and the applicable state rules sit with the Health Hazards Control Unit. Landlords who call EPA about a North Carolina renovation get routed back.
• Abatement is likewise state-run. If Part 4 remediation escalates to abatement work, you are inside the North Carolina program, with North Carolina-certified inspectors, risk assessors, and abatement firms.
• The substantive federal standard still governs. Authorisation means the state administers a program at least as protective as the federal one — it does not mean the RRP rule stopped applying. The lead-safe work practices and the pre-renovation information duty travel with the work.

This is the piece of North Carolina lead compliance most likely to bite a landlord who has read only national guidance, because the national guidance says “hire an EPA-certified renovator” and in North Carolina that sentence is subtly wrong.

Search “North Carolina lead based paint disclosure form” and the results are dominated by form 2A9-T. It is a sales instrument. Do not use it for a tenancy.

Form 2A9-T is the Lead-Based Paint or Lead-Based Paint Hazard Addendum, jointly approved by the North Carolina Bar Association and North Carolina Realtors for use with the Offer to Purchase and Contract. It is a well-drafted document and it is completely correct — for a sale. The North Carolina Real Estate Commission’s lead resource, the uslegalforms result explicitly titled “for Sales Transaction”, and the pdfFiller and formspal 2A9-T pages that crowd this search are all pointed at buyers and sellers.

The problem is what a landlord imports by adapting it. A sales disclosure must carry a purchaser’s inspection election, because 40 CFR 745.110(a) gives purchasers a 10-day risk-assessment window and 40 CFR 745.113(a)(5) requires the sales form to record that the purchaser received or waived that opportunity. Those items belong on 2A9-T. They do not exist in the lessor rules at all.

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.

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. In North Carolina the remediation duty exists — but it comes from G.S. 130A-131.9C and a poisoning, never from this form.

“Target housing” is the federal term for property subject to the rule. The definition at 40 CFR 745.103 is residential dwellings constructed before 1 January 1978, subject to the narrow exclusions 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 North Carolina. The county tax administration or property records office is the fastest authoritative source, and North Carolina counties publish parcel data online; the register of deeds, the original certificate of occupancy, and the building permit file 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 North Carolina 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. 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. Note that North Carolina’s own definition of a residential housing unit at G.S. 130A-131.7 runs the same way, expressly including common areas, grounds, and outbuildings.

North Carolina context. North Carolina’s pre-1978 stock is concentrated in the older urban cores and the mill and downtown neighbourhoods — substantial parts of Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Asheville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, and the historic Raleigh and Charlotte districts — while the vast suburban expansion of the Triangle and Charlotte metro postdates the trigger. Portfolio landlords with mixed-vintage holdings are the ones who get caught, because the compliance answer differs unit by unit. Note also that North Carolina’s maintenance standard draws a second vintage line: for single-family and duplex dwellings built before 1950, the G.S. 130A-131.7 standard extends the repair-and-repaint duty to exterior surfaces as well as interior ones. It is a narrow provision — it does not reach pre-1950 apartment buildings — but it is worth knowing if your stock is genuinely old. When in doubt, verify against the county record rather than relying on an 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. Verify against the current rule before relying on any of them.

• 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 — efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms. This exclusion was unconditional before the 2025 amendment, and older charts still show it that way. But 40 CFR 745.103 as amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416) moved the child parenthetical to the end of the clause, so it is now conditional: a 0-bedroom dwelling is target housing where a child under six resides or is expected to reside, exactly like the elderly/disabled limb. Relevant around North Carolina’s university towns.
• Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (40 CFR 745.103, definitional), where the housing is specifically designated as such — unless a child under six resides or is expected to reside there.
• Short-term leases of 100 days or less (40 CFR 745.101(c)), where no lease renewal or extension can occur. Vacation and short-term rentals typically qualify; a month-to-month tenancy does not, because it renews. This matters on the Outer Banks and in the mountain rental markets.
• 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. In North Carolina that inspector is credentialled through the state program.
• Qualifying lease renewals (40 CFR 745.101(d)). A renewal of an existing lease where the lessor has previously disclosed all information required under 40 CFR 745.107 and where no new information described in 745.107 has come into the lessor’s possession. Note the cross-reference is to 745.107 — the disclosure duty itself (pamphlet, known paint and hazards, records) — not to the 745.113 certification attachment. If anything new reached you, the exemption is gone.
• Foreclosure sales (40 CFR 745.101(a)). Exempt — but note this is a sales exemption, and it is the one most often misread on rental pages. A purchaser at foreclosure who then leases the pre-1978 property owes the tenant the full disclosure.

Federal law requires the lessor to give the prospective lessee 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.

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. North Carolina landlords marketing to the state’s substantial Spanish-speaking renter population should match the pamphlet to the lease language, not to the conversation.

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

Existing tenants. The leasing disclosure duty attaches to new leases, not to sitting tenants mid-term. There is one important exception, and it is the renovation rule: if you disturb paint in an occupied pre-1978 unit, the occupants must receive the lead hazard information regardless of when their lease started. That is covered in the renovation section below. Remember too that if you have opted into North Carolina’s maintenance standard, supplying this information is a component of the standard itself.

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 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 — in North Carolina, exactly the event that starts the G.S. 130A-131.9A investigation.
• A code-enforcement notice, insurance report, or contractor flagged deteriorated paint.
• You received a Part 4 hazard notification under G.S. 130A-131.9B at any point in your ownership.
• 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 North Carolina wrinkle worth sitting with. If you opt into the maintenance standard, you will be conducting annual visual assessments and, for the certificate route, dust sampling. That generates knowledge — and knowledge is disclosable. This is not an argument against the program; the G.S. 130A-131.9D protection is worth considerably more than the discomfort of having something to disclose. It is an argument for understanding that the two choices are linked, and for making them together rather than stumbling into the second one.

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 behind it reads the same way: 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C) frames the duty as permitting the purchaser a 10-day period to conduct a risk assessment or inspection.

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 current fact sheet lists the duty as “provide homebuyers 10 days to conduct a lead-based paint inspection or risk assessment”, and the word is homebuyers.

Where the fake item comes from. It has a precise address: 40 CFR 745.113(a)(5). That is the sales disclosure provision, and it requires a statement that the purchaser has received the opportunity to conduct the risk assessment or inspection, or has waived it. The received-or-waived language exists — it just lives in the sales subsection. Copy 745.113(a) when you meant 745.113(b), or adapt a sales addendum like 2A9-T for a tenancy, and the waiver rides along.

What this means for you. A North Carolina 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 North Carolina lead-based 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.