CIV § 1942.4

No Rent After 35 Days Unrepaired: CIV § 1942.4

Under CIV § 1942.4, landlords cannot demand rent if cited substandard conditions go unrepaired for 35 days. Special damages range from $100 to $5,000.

Official text CIV § 1942.4 — California
  • (a) A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:
  • (1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
  • (2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions.
  • (3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond the date of service of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail.
  • (4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2.
  • (b) (1) A landlord who violates this section is liable to the tenant or lessee for the actual damages sustained by the tenant or lessee and special damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000).
  • (2) The prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the suit in an amount fixed by the court.
  • (c) Any court that awards damages under this section may also order the landlord to abate any nuisance at the rental dwelling and to repair any substandard conditions of the rental dwelling, as defined in Section 1941.1, which significantly or materially affect the health or safety of the occupants of the rental dwelling and are uncorrected. If the court orders repairs or corrections, or both, the court’s jurisdiction continues over the matter for the purpose of ensuring compliance.
  • (d) The tenant or lessee shall be under no obligation to undertake any other remedy prior to exercising his or her rights under this section.
  • (e) Any action under this section may be maintained in small claims court if the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that court.
  • (f) The remedy provided by this section may be utilized in addition to any other remedy provided by this chapter, the rental agreement, lease, or other applicable statutory or common law. Nothing in this section shall require any landlord to comply with this section if he or she pursues his or her rights pursuant to Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1942.4 does something the rest of the habitability chapter does not: it removes the landlord's ability to ask for the money at all. Subdivision (a) says a landlord may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit, if four conditions all exist before the demand or notice. The dwelling substantially lacks a characteristic listed in § 1941.1 or violates Health and Safety Code § 17920.10, or has been declared substandard under § 17920.3 because conditions endanger life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare. A public officer responsible for enforcing housing law has inspected and notified the landlord in writing of the obligation to abate or repair. The conditions have gone unabated for 35 days beyond service of that notice, without good cause. And the conditions were not caused by the tenant in violation of § 1929 or § 1941.2.

The inspection requirement is the part people miss. This section is not triggered by the tenant's own complaint; it is triggered by a citation from a housing enforcement officer followed by 35 days of inaction. That is why calling code enforcement changes the legal position in a way that another letter to the landlord does not.

The consequences are set out in subdivision (b): actual damages plus special damages of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. Subdivision (c) lets the court order the nuisance abated and the substandard conditions repaired, and keep jurisdiction to ensure compliance. Subdivision (d) says the tenant need not try any other remedy first, and subdivision (e) allows the claim in small claims court within its limit. Whether a particular citation and timeline satisfy subdivision (a) is a question of documents and dates, and worth checking with a lawyer or a tenant service.

When it applies

  • A code enforcement officer has cited the building and nothing has been done for over a month
  • A three-day notice to pay rent or quit arrives while a citation is outstanding
  • A rent increase notice served on a unit that has been declared substandard
  • You want to know what calling the city inspector actually changes
  • The landlord says the repairs are held up and blames a contractor
  • You are considering small claims and want to know what the section is worth

What this section does not say

  • A tenant complaint is not enough to trigger it. Paragraph (a)(2) requires an inspection and written notice from a public officer responsible for enforcing housing law.
  • It does not cancel rent already owed for earlier periods. The section bars demanding, collecting, increasing or serving a pay-or-quit notice while the conditions persist; it is not a statutory rent forgiveness provision.
  • It does not apply where the tenant caused the conditions. Paragraph (a)(4) excludes conditions arising from a violation of § 1929 or § 1941.2.
  • The 35 days runs from service of the officer's notice, not from the tenant's first complaint, and the delay must be without good cause.
  • It is not the repair-and-deduct remedy. Section 1942 lets a tenant fix and deduct; this section is about what the landlord may not demand, and subdivision (f) says the two operate in addition to each other.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A city inspector cites a building for defective wiring and a leaking roof. Two months later nothing has been done, and a three-day notice to pay rent or quit arrives.

How the wording applies

Section 1942.4 bars a landlord from demanding or collecting rent, increasing it, or serving a notice to pay rent or quit where a public officer has issued a notice after inspection and 35 days have passed without repair, absent good cause. The facts that decide it are the date the officer's notice was served and whether the delay was without good cause, because a tenant's own complaint letter, however detailed, is not the trigger.

How the parties settled it

The landlord withdraws the notice and completes the cited works to a schedule signed by both, and the parties agree a figure for the affected months payable once the citation is cleared.

Illustrative example

A tenant reports damp to the city, an inspector serves a notice on the owner, and six weeks later a rent increase notice arrives.

How the wording applies

Increasing the rent is one of the four things the section forbids while the conditions persist, so the answer turns on the 35 days having run from service of the officer's notice with the conditions still in place. It also turns on cause, since paragraph (a)(4) takes the section away where the conditions arose from the tenant's own violation of section 1929 or section 1941.2.

How the parties settled it

The increase is withdrawn and not reinstated until 30 days after the cited work is signed off, and the landlord confirms the schedule of works in writing.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Active Properties, LLC v. Cabrera, 6 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 6 (2016)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

whether, to recover fees under section 1174.21, a landlord's violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 must be determined by the trier of fact at trial, or whether the statutory violation can be determined in the context of a posttrial motion based on evidence submitted in support of the motion

What it held

A landlord's Civil Code section 1942.4 violation can be determined by the trial court on noticed motion for purposes of deciding entitlement to attorney fees under section 1174.21, not necessarily at trial.

In the court's words
We hold that a landlord’s Civil Code section 1942.4 violation can be determined by the trial court on noticed motion for purposes of deciding entitlement to attorney fees under section 1174.21.

Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Did the red-tagging of a rental property automatically terminate the tenancy, thereby precluding a tenant from bringing a claim under Civil Code § 1942.4 against the new owner?

What it held

The red-tagging of a property does not automatically terminate the tenancy; the tenant's tenancy continues, and the tenant may maintain a claim under Civil Code § 1942.4 against the new owner.

In the court's words
In sum, we conclude that when Sierra bought the property at the foreclosure sale on November 12, 2010, appellant’s tenancy had not been terminated; appellant had paid rent to extend his tenancy through to the end of November.

Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Wolfriver was not the prevailing party for purposes of recovery of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1942.4.

What it held

The trial court did not abuse its discretion; a voluntary dismissal does not automatically make the defendant the prevailing party for attorney fees under section 1942.4, and the court may determine prevailing party on a practical level.

In the court's words
We conclude plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their action against Wolfriver did not confer prevailing party status upon Wolfriver for purposes of recovering attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1942.4.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1941.1 Untenantable Rental Standards: CIV § 1941.1 CIV § 1942 Deduct Up to One Month's Rent or Vacate: CIV § 1942 CIV § 1942.5 180-Day Retaliatory Eviction Ban | CIV § 1942.5 CIV § 1941 Landlords Must Keep Dwellings Fit to Live In: CIV § 1941

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1942.4 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages