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 more often than the task genuinely requires, and document each visit.

How the notice is delivered feeds directly into whether it is reasonable. A notice the tenant never actually receives gives the landlord little protection, even if it was technically “sent.” Personal delivery to the tenant 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 tenant routinely uses that channel. Certified mail creates an excellent paper trail but is slow, so it suits situations where the landlord has time to plan. Whatever the method, the goal is the same: choose the channel most likely to reach this particular tenant, and keep proof that you used it.

The clearest situation in which a West Virginia landlord may enter without advance notice is a genuine 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. The emergency exception is not a loophole for routine access; it applies only when prompt entry is genuinely necessary to prevent or limit harm.

It is important to describe this exception accurately. The emergency right of entry in West Virginia is grounded in the lease and the common law, not in any West Virginia statute, and a notice or template should never claim that immediate emergency entry is permitted “as allowed by West Virginia statute,” because no such statute exists. The right flows from the basic principle that a possessor of property may act to prevent imminent harm and from the entry terms most leases include. Stating it as a statutory power is both inaccurate and the kind of overstatement that undermines a landlord’s credibility if a dispute reaches a courtroom.

Because an emergency entry happens without the usual notice, documentation is the landlord’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 tenant promptly afterward, explaining what happened and why immediate entry was necessary. Good after-the-fact documentation converts an unannounced entry from a potential trespass claim into an obviously justified emergency response.

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 to people or the building. A lease violation the landlord is eager to confront, a repair the tenant has been slow to schedule, or a desire to get ahead of a deadline are urgent to the landlord but are not emergencies, and using the emergency label to cover them is exactly the kind of overreach that turns an entry into a trespass. The honest test is whether waiting the ordinary notice period would risk real harm; if it would not, it is not an emergency, and the landlord should give notice. Scope matters too: an emergency justifies the entry needed to address the emergency, not a general search of the unit, so deal with the hazard and leave rather than taking the opportunity to look around.

Showings deserve their own treatment because they put the landlord’s legitimate business needs in the sharpest tension with the tenant’s right to be left in peaceful possession. When a lease is ending, the landlord may reasonably need to show the unit to prospective tenants so it does not sit vacant. When the property is for sale, the landlord may need to show it to prospective buyers, and a buyer’s lender or appraiser may need access as well. All of these are legitimate purposes, but every one of them brings outsiders into an occupied home.

The protection for both sides is, again, the lease plus reasonable notice. A well-drafted West Virginia lease will say whether and how the landlord may conduct showings near the end of the term, and a landlord should follow that clause to the letter. Where the lease addresses showings, deviating from its terms is a contract breach; where it is silent, the landlord should give the same reasonable, written notice that applies to any other entry and should be especially generous, because showings tend to cluster and to involve strangers.

Practical courtesy goes a long way during a sale or re-rental. Group showings into defined windows rather than scattering them, give the tenant as much lead time as possible, and offer a way to reschedule around the tenant’s commitments. A tenant who feels respected during a marketing period is far less likely to refuse access or to claim harassment, and the landlord keeps the dated notices that show every showing was properly announced.

Entry rules assume the tenant is still in possession. When a tenant abandons the unit or surrenders it, the possessory interest that entry law protects begins to dissolve, and the landlord’s ability to enter changes. This is the situation West Virginia’s section 37-6-6 actually addresses – desertion of leased property, the landlord’s reentry, and how a departed tenant’s belongings are handled – which is why that section is about abandonment, not advance notice before entering an occupied home. Abandonment, however, is a conclusion a landlord should reach carefully, because acting on a mistaken belief that a tenant has left can itself create liability.

Abandonment generally requires both that the tenant has actually left the premises and that the tenant intends not to return – shown by facts such as removed belongings, disconnected utilities, unpaid rent, and no response to contact. A tenant who is merely traveling, hospitalized, or temporarily away has not abandoned the unit, and treating an occupied home as abandoned can expose the landlord to a trespass or wrongful-eviction claim. Surrender is the cleaner case: the tenant affirmatively gives the unit back, by returning keys or by agreement, which ends the tenancy and the tenant’s possessory rights.

The safe approach is to confirm abandonment before relying on it. Document the indicators, attempt to reach the tenant, and, when the situation is genuinely ambiguous, use the legal process rather than self-help – West Virginia bars self-help eviction and channels disputed possession through the summary wrongful-occupation procedure in Chapter 55, Article 3A for good reason. Until the landlord is confident the tenant has surrendered or abandoned possession, the ordinary entry rules – lease authority plus reasonable notice, with emergencies excepted – continue to apply, and a notice of entry remains the right tool for any access the landlord needs.

Because West Virginia leaves entry to the agreement of the parties, the lease can shape entry rights in ways a statute-based state cannot. The lease is the controlling document, and within broad limits the parties can define the notice period, the permitted purposes, the hours of entry, and the method of delivering notice. A landlord and tenant can agree to more notice than the 24-hour custom or, in principle, to less, and they can spell out exactly how showings, inspections, and emergencies are handled.

A tenant’s consent also matters in real time. Even where the lease is silent or restrictive, a tenant who agrees to a specific entry has waived any objection to that entry. The cleanest practice is to memorialize consent – a text or email confirming the date, time, and purpose – so that an agreed-upon visit cannot later be recast as an intrusion. Standing consent for routine maintenance can be built into the lease, and one-off consent can be documented as it is given.

There is a limit, however, that landlords should not lose sight of. A lease clause that purports to let the landlord enter at any time without notice may be enforceable on its face as a matter of contract, but it cannot be used as a shield for harassment. A landlord who relies on a broad no-notice clause to enter repeatedly, at unreasonable hours, or to pressure a tenant is not merely exercising a contract right; that conduct can support a common-law trespass claim, an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim where it is highly offensive, or – if it makes the home untenantable and the tenant vacates – a constructive-eviction claim, regardless of what the clause says. In other words, a permissive clause expands the landlord’s ordinary access; it does not license abuse. One limit also bears on habitability: under Teller v. McCoy and section 37-6-30, the implied warranty of habitability cannot be waived away by lease, so a clause cannot strip the tenant of fit-and-habitable conditions even though that warranty is a condition remedy rather than an entry rule.

For that reason, the smarter drafting choice is usually a clause that is clear rather than maximal. A clause that grants entry on about 24 hours’ notice, for stated purposes, at reasonable hours, with an emergency carve-out, gives the landlord everything a normal operation needs while signaling good faith to a court. An “any time, no notice” clause buys very little real-world freedom – the harassment limit caps it anyway – and it reads badly if the tenancy ever turns adversarial, because it looks like a landlord who wanted unchecked access to someone else’s home. A balanced clause is both more enforceable in spirit and more persuasive evidence that the landlord respected the tenant’s possession.

This is the heart of West Virginia entry law and the part most often gotten wrong. Because West Virginia has no entry statute, a tenant’s remedies for an unlawful or excessive entry come from the common law and from contract, and they are measured by actual damages, not by any statutory entry penalty. A landlord who understands these remedies will see immediately why a clear lease clause and reasonable notice are not just good manners but genuine risk management. The remedies below are presented roughly in the order a West Virginia tenant in possession would consider them.

Common-law trespass – the primary theory

Trespass is the main remedy. A landlord who enters a unit the tenant lawfully possesses without a contractual right of reentry and without legal process can be liable to the tenant in trespass, because possession – not title – founds a trespass action, which is exactly why a tenant, who holds possession, can sue a landlord, who holds title. The remedy is the tenant’s actual damages flowing from the unauthorized entry. This is the workhorse theory for a tenant who stays in the home and simply wants compensation for entries that should never have happened, and it does not require proving that the entry was outrageous – only that it was unauthorized.

Intrusion upon seclusion – a recognized privacy tort

For entries that are intentional, highly offensive, and usually repeated, a tenant may also have a privacy claim for intrusion upon seclusion. West Virginia adopted the four traditional invasion-of-privacy torts in Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (1983), and unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another is the first of them. An intrusion claim requires conduct a reasonable person would find highly offensive, so it targets the most egregious conduct – a landlord who repeatedly invades the privacy of the home – rather than an ordinary, well-noticed over-entry, and it can coexist with a trespass claim arising from the same entries. A landlord should not overstate the tort – it is reserved for genuinely abusive conduct – but West Virginia does recognize it, which gives a tenant a real second theory for the worst cases.

Constructive eviction

If a landlord’s entry conduct goes so far that it renders the premises untenantable, the tenant may treat it as a constructive eviction. The critical condition is that the tenant must actually vacate the premises within a reasonable time to claim it; a tenant who stays put is treated as having waived the constructive eviction. A tenant who does vacate within a reasonable time is relieved of the obligation to pay further rent. Constructive eviction is therefore a powerful but demanding remedy: it ends the lease and the rent obligation, but only for a tenant willing to leave the home, which makes it a poor fit for the common case of a tenant who simply wants the intrusions to stop. In West Virginia the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is closely tied to this doctrine, so a free-standing “quiet enjoyment” claim for an over-entry the tenant endures is generally not the right fit – trespass and, in the worst cases, intrusion upon seclusion are.

Breach of the lease

Where the lease sets the terms of entry – the notice period, the permitted purposes, the hours – a landlord who violates those terms has simply breached the contract. This is the most straightforward theory of all, because it does not require proving a tort; it requires only showing that the lease said one thing about entry and the landlord did another. A tenant can raise the breach as a defense in other disputes and can pursue contract damages that flow from it. The contract theory has a useful flip side for landlords: a lease that clearly authorizes entry, on stated notice and for stated purposes, is not just a restriction on the landlord; it is the landlord’s authority to enter in the first place. When the landlord follows that clause to the letter, the contract a tenant might otherwise invoke as a sword becomes the landlord’s shield, because the entry was exactly what both parties agreed to.

Injunctive relief

When the problem is not a single past entry but a pattern of continuing or threatened unlawful entries, a tenant in possession can ask a court of equity for an injunction to stop them under the general equity rules. Equity may restrain a continuing or repeated trespass or intrusion where money damages after the fact cannot fully cure the harm, and a stream of future intrusions is precisely that kind of ongoing harm. An injunction does not undo past entries, but it can put a stop to a landlord who keeps coming back, which is often what a tenant most needs.

West Virginia entry law is not found in a single code section. It is assembled from the lease, a handful of common-law torts, and a few statutes that frame the landlord-tenant relationship and the way possession disputes are resolved. The table below collects the authorities that actually bear on entry and the consequences of getting it wrong, so a landlord can see at a glance that the real exposure is common-law and contractual, not a statutory entry penalty – and that the Article 37-6 sections people reach for are about other things entirely.

Read together, these authorities tell a consistent story. West Virginia chose not to legislate landlord entry, so it left the subject to the agreement the parties signed and to the old tort and equity rules that protect anyone in lawful possession of property. A landlord who drafts a clear entry clause, gives reasonable notice, and confines entry to legitimate purposes is operating squarely inside every one of these authorities. A landlord who enters without a contractual right, at unreasonable hours, or to pressure a tenant steps outside the lease and into the reach of trespass, the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort, and – where the conduct is continuing – an injunction.

A word on using this reference responsibly. The two Article 37-6 sections people most often misread – § 37-6-30 (habitability) and § 37-6-6 (desertion and abandonment) – are about the condition of the premises and about what happens after a tenant leaves, not about notice before entering an occupied home. Teller v. McCoy is the habitability case, a repair remedy, not an entry case; Crump v. Beckley Newspapers is the privacy case that gives a tenant an intrusion claim against a genuinely abusive entry. None of this should be inflated into a West Virginia entry statute or a statutory entry penalty, because none exists – and any template that fills those gaps with invented authority is making the page wrong, not stronger. The honest, durable statement of the law is that the lease and the common law govern, and a dated, signed notice for every entry is the landlord’s best record.

A West Virginia Notice to Enter is the written notice a landlord or property manager gives a tenant before entering the rental unit. This form is built for the lease-governed reality the sections above explain: rather than cite a statute that does not exist, it gives you a clean, dated record of the one thing West Virginia law actually rewards – reasonable notice for a legitimate purpose.

What the form captures is the practical core of a defensible entry – the date and the time window, the specific purpose and a description of the work, exactly who will enter, whether the tenant’s presence is requested or required, how pets should be handled, and the delivery method with a rescheduling contact. Filling those fields turns an informal heads-up into documentation that shows you acted reasonably and gave fair warning, which in a no-statute state is what decides a dispute.

You do not need to master the deeper law above to use this form well: keep entries lease-compliant, give about 24 hours of written notice at reasonable hours, document each one, and pair that discipline with sound tenant screening and a documented screening process so your West Virginia tenancies are well-run from application through move-out.

• Entry is lease-governed: follow the lease’s right-of-entry clause for notice period, permitted purposes, and hours.
• Where the lease is silent, give about 24 hours of written notice as the common custom (custom, not a statutory mandate).
• Enter at reasonable hours (commonly 8am-6pm) for a legitimate, property-management purpose.
• If the lease grants no entry right, a tenant in possession may generally refuse entry except in an emergency.
• A genuine emergency allows immediate entry without advance notice, under the lease and common law – never “as permitted by West Virginia statute.”
• The covenant of quiet enjoyment is tied to constructive eviction (which requires the tenant to vacate); it is not a free-standing over-entry remedy.
• A landlord may never use self-help to lock out or force out a tenant; possession is taken through the courts under Chapter 55, Article 3A.

• Personal delivery to the tenant.
• Posting on the door, alone or combined with email.
• Email or text where the lease permits electronic notice.
• Certified mail for a documented record when timing allows.

• Misreading the authorities – citing section 37-6-30, section 37-6-6, or the Teller habitability rule as an entry-notice rule, or calling emergency entry “statutorily permitted” when it rests on the lease and common law.
• Entering with little or no notice for routine, non-emergency reasons, exposing the landlord to a common-law trespass claim.
• Entering at unreasonable hours – early mornings, late nights, or weekends – without the tenant’s agreement.
• Entering repeatedly even with notice, until the sheer volume of intrusions looks like harassment or a Crump-style intrusion.
• Relying on a broad no-notice lease clause as a shield for pressuring or harassing a tenant.
• Treating “quiet enjoyment” as the over-entry remedy; in West Virginia it is tied to constructive eviction, which requires the tenant to vacate.
• Using self-help – locks, utilities shutoff, or forced removal – instead of the Chapter 55, Article 3A court process.
• Treating a unit as abandoned on thin evidence and entering, when the tenant is merely away.
• Giving vague notice that omits the purpose, the time window, or who will enter, and keeping no dated copy.

• Put a clear right-of-entry clause in every lease: notice period, permitted purposes, and hours.
• Default to about 24 hours of written notice even when the lease asks for less.
• State the exact purpose, the time window, and the persons entering on every notice.
• Enter only at reasonable hours and no more often than the task genuinely requires.
• Offer a time window rather than a single rigid moment, and match it to the tenant’s schedule where you can – a window the tenant can plan around reads as reasonable and heads off a refusal.
• Confirm a tenant’s real-time consent in writing – a text or email noting date, time, and purpose.
• For emergencies, document the time, the nature of the emergency, what was found, and what was done.
• For showings, group visits into defined windows and give the tenant generous lead time.
• Offer a clear way to reschedule so the tenant has an alternative to refusing entry.
• Choose the delivery channel this particular tenant actually uses, and keep proof you sent it – personal delivery is hardest to dispute, certified mail builds the strongest paper trail.
• Confirm abandonment with real evidence before relying on it; when in doubt, use legal process, not self-help.
• Keep every signed notice on file for the life of the tenancy.

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.