Free West Virginia Notice to Enter

This West Virginia Notice to Enter gives a tenant clear written notice before the landlord enters the rental unit. West Virginia has no statute setting a notice period and never adopted URLTA, so entry is governed by the lease; absent a lease term, about 24 hours of notice at reasonable hours is the common custom. See our tenant screening laws by state hub and how to screen tenants guide to keep your West Virginia tenancies documented from the start.

Complete the fields below to generate a West Virginia Notice to Enter. West Virginia sets no statutory notice period, so give reasonable written notice – about 24 hours is customary – at reasonable hours, and deliver it per the lease. The form records the date, time window, purpose, the persons entering, and how the notice is delivered.

Watch: West Virginia Notice to Enter explained

▶ Watch overview

West Virginia is one of the states with no statute governing landlord entry. West Virginia never adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, and its landlord-tenant law – Article 37-6 of the West Virginia Code, sections 37-6-1 through 37-6-30 – contains no section that sets a notice period, a list of permitted purposes, or reasonable hours for entering an occupied unit. The article covers notice to terminate a tenancy, desertion and abandonment, distress for rent, reentry and unlawful detainer, and the landlord’s habitability duty – but nothing about advance notice before entry. That makes the lease the controlling document: whatever the entry clause says about notice and access is what binds both sides.

Two sections of Article 37-6 are sometimes misread as entry rules, and neither is. Section 37-6-30 is West Virginia’s habitability statute – it requires the landlord to deliver and maintain a fit and habitable unit and to make necessary repairs – and section 37-6-6 deals with desertion and abandonment of premises and the disposition of belongings a departed tenant leaves behind. Neither governs advance notice before entering an occupied home. Because no section addresses occupied-unit entry, a West Virginia landlord works from the lease and from the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment that the state’s courts read into every tenancy.

Because the Code is silent, the lease does the work a statute would do elsewhere. Most West Virginia leases include a right-of-entry clause, and a well-drafted one states the notice period – often 24 hours – the permitted reasons for entry, and the hours during which the landlord may come in. If the lease grants that right and the landlord follows its terms, entry is authorized. If the lease grants no entry right at all, a tenant in possession may generally refuse entry except in a genuine emergency, because the tenant who signed for possession is entitled to control who comes into the home. The background limit on every entry is the common-law covenant of quiet enjoyment, which is tied to constructive eviction and so is best understood as a backstop against conduct that drives the tenant out rather than a free-standing remedy for an ordinary over-entry.

The one clear exception is a genuine emergency. If there is a fire, a flood, a gas leak, or another immediate threat to life or property, a West Virginia landlord may enter at once without advance notice under the lease and the common law – never “as permitted by West Virginia statute,” because no such statute exists; document the emergency and what was done. For every routine entry, this form gives the tenant clear written notice that satisfies a reasonable-notice lease clause and leaves you a dated record that you provided it. The sections that follow walk through the purposes that justify entry, the timing that keeps an entry reasonable, how the emergency exception works, how showings and abandonment are handled, what the lease can and cannot do, and – most important for a landlord managing risk – exactly what remedies a West Virginia tenant has if entry goes wrong.

Even though West Virginia does not list permitted purposes by statute, a workable list comes straight from the kinds of property-management tasks that courts and leases treat as legitimate. The unifying test is simple: the landlord must have a real, property-management reason to be inside the unit, not a pretext for checking up on or pressuring the tenant. When the reason is genuine and the notice is reasonable, entry is rarely controversial.

Repairs and maintenance are the most common reason a landlord needs access. This includes responding to a tenant’s repair request, performing scheduled upkeep, and addressing the conditions the landlord must keep fit and habitable under section 37-6-30 – which is a duty to repair, not an independent right to enter at will. 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. A landlord may need to show the unit to a prospective tenant near the end of a lease, to a prospective buyer if the property is on the market, or to a lender or appraiser during a refinance. Each of these is a legitimate purpose, but each also brings strangers into the tenant’s home, so generous notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here.

Building services and safety work round out the list: 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 tenants welcome it when it is scheduled with notice. Across all of these purposes, the form lets the landlord 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 landlords get into trouble. Entering to check whether the tenant is keeping the unit “well enough” without any maintenance reason, to look for lease violations on a hunch, to confront a tenant over a dispute, or simply to remind a tenant who is in control of the property are not property-management purposes; they are the kind of pretextual entries that look like harassment and that a court will treat as unauthorized. The discipline of writing down the purpose on a notice is itself a useful filter: if a landlord cannot articulate a concrete, legitimate reason for the visit on paper, that is a strong signal the entry should not happen at all. A purpose that reads “inspect HVAC condenser and replace filter” is defensible; a purpose that reads “check on tenant” is not.

With no statutory notice period, the word that does the real work in West Virginia is reasonable. A landlord who gives reasonable notice and enters at reasonable hours for a legitimate purpose is on solid ground; a landlord who gives little or no notice, or who shows up at odd hours, invites a dispute even if the underlying reason for entry was valid. Reasonableness is judged on the facts, but a few practical benchmarks make it concrete.

On notice, about 24 hours of advance, written notice is the widely accepted custom and the range most West Virginia leases adopt. It is enough time for a tenant to prepare, secure pets, or raise a scheduling conflict, while still letting a landlord manage the property efficiently. Giving notice in writing – rather than a verbal heads-up – matters because it creates the dated record that proves the notice was reasonable if the entry is ever questioned. That window is custom, not a statutory deadline, but it is the figure a court is most likely to treat as obviously reasonable.

On hours, “reasonable” generally means normal daytime hours, commonly understood as roughly 8am to 6pm on weekdays. Entry early in the morning, late at night, or on weekends is harder to defend as reasonable unless the tenant has agreed to it or an emergency requires it. Matching the entry to the tenant’s schedule where practical, and offering a window rather than a single rigid time, both reinforce that the landlord is acting reasonably.

Reasonableness also has a frequency dimension. A single, well-noticed entry to make a repair is plainly reasonable. A pattern of frequent entries, even with notice, can cross the line into harassment and expose the landlord to liability, because at some point the sheer volume of intrusions interferes with the tenant’s possession regardless of how politely each one is announced. The safe practice is to consolidate work, enter no m