A South Carolina 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, and captures the acknowledgments of tenant and agent. The disclosure duty is entirely federal — South Carolina adds nothing to it. But South Carolina is not a state without a lead law, and the part it does have is the part nobody writes about: under S.C. Code s. 44-53-1440 a posted, unremediated unit may not be rented to families with children at all. Generate the completed PDF below, then read on for how both rules actually work here.

How the federal lead paint disclosure rule applies to pre-1978 South Carolina rentals.

The disclosure exists because of a simple, brutal piece of public-health arithmetic. Paint sold for homes in the United States contained lead in quantities that are now understood to cause permanent neurological injury in small children, and the housing that paint went onto is still standing and still being rented. Congress responded in 1992 with Section 1018 of Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4852d. EPA and HUD implemented it jointly, EPA’s half living at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F.

What the rule does not do is as important as what it does. It does not require you to test for lead. It does not require you to remove lead paint. It does not make lead paint illegal to have in a rental. It does not give a tenant a right to cancel the lease. It is an information-transfer rule: Congress decided that a tenant deciding whether to sign a lease on pre-1978 housing is entitled to know what the landlord knows, and to hold a standard federal pamphlet explaining the risk. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That distinction is worth holding onto through the rest of this page, because South Carolina’s own lead law sits on the other side of it. The federal rule governs information. South Carolina’s statute governs hazards. They trigger on different facts, they are enforced by different people, and complying with one tells you nothing about the other. Almost every page ranking for this topic collapses the two, in one direction or the other. If you also handle South Carolina habitability obligations and South Carolina landlord entry rules, treat the lead disclosure as a third, independent track.

Yes and no — and the two-part answer is the whole point. Search results and AI summaries answer this question in one sentence, and whichever sentence they pick, they are half wrong. Here is the honest version, verified against the statute text on the South Carolina General Assembly’s own site.

Half one: South Carolina adds nothing to your disclosure duty. We read the state’s entire lead statute — the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control Act, S.C. Code s. 44-53-1310 through s. 44-53-1495, about 2,200 words across sixteen sections — and searched it for the vocabulary of a disclosure regime. The word “disclosure” appears zero times. So do “landlord”, “lessor”, “lessee”, “tenant”, “pamphlet”, “target housing”, “registry”, and “1978”. The paperwork you owe a prospective tenant at lease-up is 100% federal, and this page’s form is the whole of it.

The negative control runs the same way. The South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Title 27 Chapter 40 — over ten thousand words, the statute that actually governs your tenancy — contains “lead-based paint” zero times, “lead paint” zero times, “lead poisoning” zero times, “1978” zero times, “pamphlet” zero times and “target housing” zero times. It never cites 42 U.S.C. 4852d or any part of 40 CFR 745. The one thing the RLTA does require a South Carolina landlord to disclose at lease-up, at s. 27-40-420, is the name and address of the owner or the person authorised to receive process. That is it. Lead is not on that list.

Half two: South Carolina is not a state without a lead law. This is where nearly every competing page, and every AI answer we tested, stops reading and gets it wrong. The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control Act is real, it has teeth, and its sharpest sections point directly at property owners. It simply is not a disclosure statute — it is a hazard-control statute, and it is keyed to a child and a condition rather than to a lease and a build year.

The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control Act dates to 1979 (Act No. 78) and was substantially rewritten by 2005 Act No. 142, effective 7 June 2005. It never uses the word “landlord”. It reaches you through three other words: person, property owner, and householder — the last of which, under s. 44-53-1320(8), expressly includes “the owner of an unoccupied dwelling unit or the owner’s agent”. If you own pre-1978 rental stock in South Carolina, this statute is about you.

What counts as a hazard, and for whom

Two definitions do the work. Under s. 44-53-1320(2), a “child” is a person under six years of age. Under s. 44-53-1320(10), a “lead-based hazard” is “a condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated paint, lead-contaminated dust, bare lead-contaminated soil, or other lead-based substance that is deteriorated in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects.”

Read that carefully, because it is structurally different from the federal trigger. There is no build year in it. There is no bedroom count. It turns on deterioration, on the type of surface (accessible surfaces a child can mouth or chew, friction surfaces like windows and stair treads, impact surfaces like doors and jambs — each separately defined at s. 44-53-1320(1), (7) and (9)), and on adverse human health effects. A 1985 building is outside the federal disclosure rule entirely and still inside this definition if the conditions are met.

South Carolina’s threshold is stricter than the federal one

Here is a fact we could not find on a single competing page. Section 44-53-1320(11) defines a “lead-base substance” as “paint, lacquer, glaze, or other material containing more than six hundredths of one percent (0.06 percent) lead by weight, or seven-tenths or more milligrams per square centimeter (0.7 mg/cm2) of lead in the dried paint film applied.”

Now compare the federal definition at 40 CFR 745.103: “Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.”

South Carolina’s loading threshold is 30% lower than the federal one, and its weight threshold is lower by a factor of roughly eight. Paint that is not “lead-based paint” for federal purposes can still be a “lead-base substance” in South Carolina. The state expressly pins dust and soil standards to EPA’s, which makes the deliberate divergence on the paint number all the more pointed.

Be precise about what that divergence does and does not do, because it is easy to overstate. The stricter South Carolina number does not change your federal disclosure duty by one word: what you must disclose, and when, is fixed by 40 CFR 745.107 and 745.113, and those turn on the federal definition and the pre-1978 construction date. The two regimes run on different axes. The state number decides whether material is a “lead-base substance” feeding the s. 44-53-1320(10) hazard definition — and therefore whether DHEC can post a unit and order it remediated — and nothing in subpart F displaces a state’s power to run a hazard-control programme of that kind on its own terms.

One caution on the provision usually reached for here. 40 CFR 745.119 says: “Nothing in this subpart shall relieve a seller, lessor, or agent from any responsibility for compliance with State or local laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations governing notice or disclosure of known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.” Read the italicised words. That section preserves state notice-or-disclosure requirements — and, as half one of this page establishes, South Carolina has none to preserve. So 745.119 is not the hook for the state threshold above, and we are not going to pretend it is; it earns its place here for the opposite reason, as confirmation that if South Carolina ever did enact a lead disclosure requirement, the federal rule would be a floor and not a ceiling.

How a South Carolina unit comes to DHEC’s attention

The state regime is reactive. It starts with a poisoned child, not with an inspection sweep, and the chain is worth knowing because you will not be the first to hear.

• s. 44-53-1380(A) — a physician, hospital, public health nurse or other diagnosing person who knows or has reason to believe a child has or is suspected of having lead poisoning must notify the department within seven days.
• s. 44-53-1380(B) — any laboratory doing business in the state must report the results of blood lead analyses on children under six within thirty days of completing the analysis.
• s. 44-53-1360(B) — once notified of a case, the department “shall examine or refer for examination within thirty days all other children under six years of age … residing or recently residing in the household of the victim or in all other dwelling units in the dwelling of the victim“. One affected child in one unit can pull an entire building into scope.
• s. 44-53-1390 — on notification of a case, the department may enter the dwelling, with credentials and with the householder’s consent, to conduct a lead-based hazard investigation and remove samples. If the householder refuses admission, it may obtain an administrative warrant. The section reaches secondary residences and any other premises routinely occupied by the child.
• s. 44-53-1400 — warrant mechanics. Probable cause exists “when the circumstances indicate there is reason to believe a child has been exposed or is at risk of being exposed to a lead-based hazard at the premises”. The warrant must be executed and returned within ten days of issuance.

The order, the posting, and the rental prohibition

This is the core, and it is the reason this page exists in a form no competitor matches. Under s. 44-53-1430(A), if a child resides in a dwelling or dwelling unit (or is routinely present at a childcare facility) in which a lead-based hazard has been identified, the department shall do three things:

1. Post the property. Notice of the existence of the hazard goes up “in or upon the dwelling, dwelling unit, or childcare facility, in a conspicuous place”, and it “must not be removed until the department determines that the identified lead-based hazard has been remediated.”
2. Notify the householder in writing of the existence of the hazard.
3. Notify the property owner in writing and “order that the hazard be remediated within a reasonable period of time.”

Under s. 44-53-1430(B), the property owner “has the right to appeal the order of the department as a contested case.” That is your procedural protection, and it runs through the state’s Administrative Procedures Act rather than through the landlord-tenant courts.

Then comes s. 44-53-1440, which is short enough to quote in full and important enough to deserve it:

Two operative rules in two sentences. The first takes a posted, unremediated unit off the market for families with children — and note that it prohibits offering for occupancy, not just renting, so the advertisement is caught along with the lease. The second anticipates the obvious landlord response to an expensive remediation order (remove the children rather than the lead) and forecloses it: the hazard becoming known is not a ground for eviction.

Note also what the section does not say, because overreading it would be its own error. It does not bar renting the unit to a household without children. It does not require testing before you rent. And it does not operate on the mere presence of lead paint — the trigger is that the department has actually identified a hazard, posted the unit, and ordered remediation under s. 44-53-1430.

Penalties, private rights, and the funding caveat

South Carolina backs the article three ways, and then attaches a caveat that no summary of it should omit.

Under s. 44-53-1480, a person who knowingly violates a provision of the article or a department order is guilty of a misdemeanour and, on conviction, “must be fined or imprisoned not more than the maximum allowed by the magistrates’ courts in this State.” The statute deliberately sets no figure of its own, so we print none. Each day’s violation constitutes a separate offence, and isolated lead-based hazard violations in a dwelling are counted as separate violations — two multipliers stacked on the same conduct.

Under s. 44-53-1485, a person who violates the article or a final determination or order “is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars a day.” That is a fixed statutory amount written into the state code in words, which is why we are willing to state it when we refuse to state the federal figure — the federal penalty is inflation-adjusted annually by regulation and any number we printed would be stale within the year.

Under s. 44-53-1490, the liability picture is subtler than it first looks, and both halves matter. Subsection (A): “A violation of this article does not give rise to a private cause of action.” A tenant cannot sue you on the statute. But the same subsection preserves actions “for damages or injunctive relief pursuant to other law”, and subsection (B) is the sting: “This section does not prohibit the introduction of evidence of failure to comply with the provisions of this article in establishing the appropriate standard of care in the other action.” So the article creates no claim and simultaneously supplies the negligence standard for a claim brought under ordinary tort law. A DHEC order you ignored is not itself a cause of action; it is exhibit A in someone else’s.

Finally, s. 44-53-1495, which every honest account of this statute has to include: “The provisions of this article are contingent upon the appropriation of state general funds or the availability of financial support from other sources.” South Carolina wrote its own lead programme subject to being funded. That is a real caveat about how vigorously the regime operates in practice, and it is not a reason to assume the sections above are dead letters — they are on the books, and s. 44-53-1440 is a prohibition on you that does not require the department to spend a dollar to be violated.

A common confusion in this family of pages is to find a state’s lead-contractor certification programme and present it as a landlord duty. In South Carolina there is a cleaner answer: the state does not run one.

South Carolina’s lead article contains “certification” zero times and “licence” zero times — it delegates no certification programme at all. We also checked the professions title where such a programme would live if it existed: Title 40 Chapter 1 (general provisions), Chapter 11 (Contractors), Chapter 22 (Engineers and Surveyors), Chapter 59 (Residential Home Builders) and Chapter 82. Lead hits: zero in every one.

EPA fills the gap directly. On its own lead-abatement page, EPA states that it “administers the lead-based paint activities program only where Tribes, states or territories are not authorized by EPA to operate their own programs”, and lists the jurisdictions where it does so — a list that includes South Carolina. So if you need an inspection, a risk assessment or an abatement in South Carolina, the certification behind that professional is federal, not a state credential.

The lease disclosure has exactly six required elements. They are set out at 40 CFR 745.113(b), and they must appear “as an attachment or within the contract, … in the language of the contract”. No competing page we measured enumerates all six.

Notice what is not in that list: any inspection item. There is no 10-day window, no “received the opportunity”, no waiver — every one of those belongs to the sales disclosure at 745.113(a)(5), and none of them applies to a lease. The lessor limb of 745.113 contains no reference to 745.110 at all. We will come back to why that matters so much.

The Lead Warning Statement, and a one-word wrinkle

Element (b)(1) is fixed language you do not draft, paraphrase or modernise. As codified at 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1), it reads:

There is a genuine, small discrepancy here that is worth naming because it explains a difference you may notice between this page and the PDF it generates. EPA’s own Sample Disclosure Format for Target Housing Rentals and Leases — printed at 61 FR 9075 in the 1996 joint rulemaking, and the ancestor of nearly every lead paint template in circulation — inserts one word the codified text omits, reading “the presence of known lead-based paint”. The regulatory text as enacted omits it, in both EPA’s 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) and HUD’s identically worded 24 CFR 35.92(b)(1).

Nothing of substance turns on it. The sentence is a warning, not the operative duty, and the duty at (b)(2) is limited to known paint and hazards either way. But note exactly where the extra word lives: in EPA’s illustrative sample, and nowhere else. Both codified regulations introduce the statement with the words “with the following language” and then set it out without known. So the generator on this page prints the codified wording, word for word, rather than the sample’s variant — where a regulation prescribes language verbatim for a document your tenant signs, the regulation is the text to follow, and a published sample is an illustration of it, not a substitute for it. Be aware that most lead paint templates in circulation descend from that sample and so carry the extra word. If your counterparty’s form does, that is a cosmetic difference in a warning sentence rather than a defect in the disclosure.

The whole federal rule hangs on one defined term. Under 40 CFR 745.103, as amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416), “Target housing means any 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).”

Three things follow, and each of them is routinely got wrong.

First, the trigger is construction, not condition. If the building went up before 1 January 1978, the duty attaches. It does not matter whether the property has ever had lead paint, whether it has been stripped to the studs and rebuilt, or whether every surface was repainted last spring. A 1974 house that a certified inspector has never visited is target housing. Verify the original construction date against the county assessor or register of deeds record, the certificate of occupancy, or the permit file — not against a listing description, and not against a renovation date.

Second, the ban date and the trigger date are different facts. The reason 1978 matters historically is the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s ban at 16 CFR 1303.1, which reaches paint manufactured after 27 February 1978. That is a manufacturing rule with its own date. The disclosure rule’s trigger is 745.103’s “constructed prior to 1978”. Summaries that say the duty applies to “properties built before 1978, when lead paint was banned” are welding two different facts into one sentence. Use the construction date; it is the operative one.

Third, read the except-clause structurally. This is the single most misreported sentence in the entire rule, so it deserves slow treatment of its own.

The exception clause in the target housing definition has two limbs, and since the 2025 amendment the child-under-six condition attaches to both of them:

• Limb one — “housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities”. Designated elderly or disabled housing is outside the rule unless a child under six resides or is expected to reside there.
• Limb two — “or any 0-bedroom dwelling”. Before the 2025 amendment this was a separate, unconditional exclusion, and older charts still show it that way. The amendment moved the trailing parenthetical to the end of the except-clause so it now reaches this limb too: a 0-bedroom dwelling is outside the rule only when no child under six resides or is expected. A studio with a young child is target housing.

That parse is not a stylistic preference; it is what the amended sentence says. The trailing parenthetical “(unless any child … resides or is expected to reside in such housing)” now closes the whole except-clause, so it qualifies the 0-bedroom limb as well as the elderly-and-disabled limb — the citable point most pages and stale charts still get wrong. The same regulation defines the second limb generously: a “0-bedroom dwelling means any residential dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area”, and “the term includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings.” Renting a single room inside a house is outside the federal disclosure rule only where no child under six resides or is expected.

Beyond the definition, 40 CFR 745.101 carves four transactions out of the subpart. None of the four carries a child condition either.

Under 40 CFR 745.107(a)(1), you “shall provide the purchaser or lessee with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet”, naming Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA document 747-K-94-001) “or an equivalent pamphlet that has been approved for use in that State by EPA”. The statutory hook is 15 U.S.C. 2696.

Three practical points. The pamphlet is a separate obligation from the disclosure form — a signed disclosure with no pamphlet delivered is still a violation, and the tenant’s own acknowledgment at (b)(4) covers both, which means a tenant who initials that item is confirming something you had better actually have done. It gets revised, so hand over the current edition and note which edition you delivered alongside the signed form. And it must reach the tenant on the same timeline as the disclosure: before obligation, not at move-in.

One error to avoid, because it is circulating in AI summaries about this exact state: the pamphlet duty does not come from the Fair Housing Act. We have seen it attributed there in summaries answering “landlord lead paint requirements South Carolina”. It comes from 40 CFR 745.107(a)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. The Fair Housing Act is a different statute doing a different job, and citing it here would send a landlord looking in the wrong place.

40 CFR 745.107(a) contains the sentence that answers the most common landlord question on this topic, and it is worth quoting exactly because it is frequently paraphrased into its opposite: “Nothing in this section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities.”

You are not required to test. You are not required to remediate. You are required to be honest about what you already know and to hand over what you already have.

The word doing the work in (b)(2) is known. Known means actually known — not suspected, not statistically likely given the age of the building. For most owners of pre-1978 South Carolina housing, “no knowledge” is both the truthful answer and a complete one.

But it is not a hiding place, and this is where landlords get hurt. “Available” is defined at 745.103 as “in the possession of or reasonably obtainable by the seller or lessor at the time of the disclosure” — that reaches beyond your filing cabinet. Under 745.107(a)(4), the records duty explicitly “includes records or reports regarding common areas” and “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 target housing as a whole”. If you had a building-wide assessment done on a Charleston fourplex, it belongs in the disclosure for every unit in that building — not only the unit that was sampled.

And note the South Carolina overlay: if DHEC has ever posted the unit or sent you a notice under s. 44-53-1430, you plainly have knowledge, and a “no knowledge” tick over the top of a departmental order is not an ordinary violation. It is the fact pattern that makes a violation knowing, which is precisely where the federal treble-damages limb lives.

This is the most persistent error in this entire topic, it is on law firm websites and in AI answers, and it survives because almost every deep, well-optimised page about South Carolina lead paint is written for home sales and then read by landlords.

The 10-day evaluation opportunity lives at 40 CFR 745.110(a), and the text is unambiguous: “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. The words “lessee” and “tenant” do not appear anywhere in that section. The statutory hook at 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C) is scoped the same way. And 745.113 confirms the structure from the other direction: the sales disclosure at 745.113(a)(5) requires “a statement by the purchaser that he/she has either: (i) Received the opportunity to conduct the risk assessment or inspection required by s. 745.110(a); or (ii) Waived the opportunity”. The lease disclosure at 745.113(b) has no such item at all — no inspection element, no cross-reference to 745.110, nothing.

If you are also selling South Carolina property, the 10-day rule is real and it applies to you as a seller. Just do not carry it across to your leases, and be careful with templates that were built for a sales transaction — the majority of “South Carolina lead based paint disclosure” forms that rank in search are sales forms.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a completed, federally compliant lease disclosure as a PDF, formatted for signature. Nothing is uploaded — the PDF is built in your browser. Print it, deliver it with the current EPA pamphlet before the tenant is obligated, collect the initials and signatures, and file it.