Normal Wear and Tear vs. Damage in California: What a Landlord Can Deduct
A California security deposit can never be used to cover ordinary wear and tear, yet the statute that says so never defines the term. Here is what Civil Code § 1950.5 actually codifies, what official guidance adds (clearly labeled as guidance), and examples by category, each labeled by its source. Statutes verified July 4, 2026.
There is no statutory definition, and this page will not invent one
Section 1950.5 uses "ordinary wear and tear" at least five times, in subdivisions (b)(2), (b)(4), and throughout (e)(2), and never defines it. No cross-referenced definition applies either; the term is genuinely left undefined. Texas defines the term by statute. California does not, so any write-up presenting a "California statutory definition" of wear and tear is quoting law that does not exist.
What California did codify, when AB 2801 took effect on January 1, 2025, are the outer bounds: three flat prohibitions and two limits, all in § 1950.5(e)(2), quoted in full below. Inside those bounds, the wear-versus-damage judgment on any particular item is not made by statute, and it is not made by this page.
The triple prohibition: § 1950.5(e)(2)(A)
The landlord shall not assert a claim against the tenant or the security for damages to the premises or any defective conditions that preexisted the tenancy, for ordinary wear and tear or the effects thereof, whether the wear and tear preexisted the tenancy or occurred during the tenancy, or for the cumulative effects of ordinary wear and tear occurring during any one or more tenancies. Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(e)(2)(A)
Three separate bars, each of which decides real disputes:
- Preexisting conditions. Damage or defects that predate the tenancy cannot be claimed against the tenant or the deposit, whoever caused them. The DRE guide's example: cigarette burns left by a prior tenant.
- Ordinary wear, whenever it arose. The bar covers wear that preexisted the tenancy and wear that occurred during it. "It happened on this tenant's watch" does not convert wear into damage.
- Cumulative wear across tenancies. Wear that built up over one or more tenancies cannot be rolled into a charge against the last tenant to leave.
None of these has a Texas analogue. They entered the code with AB 2801, effective January 1, 2025, and they are prohibitions on the claim itself, not factors to weigh.
The restoration limit: no upgrades on the tenant's deposit
Claims against the tenant or the security for materials or supplies and for work performed by a contractor, the landlord, or the landlord's employee shall be limited to a reasonable amount necessary to restore the premises back to the condition it was in at the inception of the tenancy, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear. Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(e)(2)(B)
The ceiling is the unit's condition at the inception of the tenancy, exclusive of wear. Replacing a worn item with a better one, or charging full new-item cost for something that was already old, runs past that ceiling. AB 2801's enacted intent section says the purpose out loud: the Legislature acted "to ensure that landlords do not subsidize improvements to their rental properties with a former tenant's security deposit" (AB 2801, SEC. 1).
The professional-cleaning gate: § 1950.5(e)(2)(C)
The landlord shall not require a tenant to pay for, or assert a claim against the tenant or the security for, professional carpet cleaning or other professional cleaning services, unless reasonably necessary to return the premises to the condition it was in at the inception of tenancy, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear. Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(e)(2)(C)
A professional carpet-cleaning or professional-cleaning charge must clear a necessity test measured against the unit's move-in condition. A routine, automatic, or lease-mandated charge fails it; the charge is lawful only when professional cleaning is reasonably necessary in the particular case. Civil Code § 1953(a)(1) separately voids lease clauses that modify or waive § 1950.5 rights, so a lease cannot contract around this gate.
Quoted exactly, quirk included. The enacted text reads "at the inception of tenancy," with no "the" before "tenancy." That is the statute's own drafting, reproduced character for character, not a transcription error on this page. And over all of subdivision (e) sits § 1950.5(e)(1): only those amounts "reasonably necessary" for the statute's four permitted purposes may be claimed. No flat fees, no percentages, no padding.
The cleanliness standard is comparative, not absolute
The cleaning of the premises upon termination of the tenancy necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancy. Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(b)(3)
The benchmark is the unit's own cleanliness at move-in, not "professionally cleaned," not "make-ready standard," not spotless. A unit handed over immaculate supports more cleaning than one handed over merely average, and a unit that started average cannot be cleaned up to immaculate at the tenant's expense; that is the (e)(2)(B) restoration limit working in parallel. States and leases that use absolute make-ready standards work differently, and importing that framing into California misstates the statute. One practical consequence: move-in condition evidence matters twice, once for damage and once for cleanliness.
Wear or damage? Examples by category, with their sources
California's statute gives outer bounds, not examples, so this table gives examples, and every entry is labeled by its source. Codified means the § 1950.5(b)(3) or (e)(2) text itself. DRE guidance means the 2026 edition of California Tenants: A Guide to Residential Tenants' and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities (RE 26 Rev. 1/1/26), published by the California Department of Real Estate; it is official state guidance, not statute, and the guide says of its own suggestions that "they are not necessarily the law in this area." (Older editions came from the Department of Consumer Affairs; the DRE has published it since 2020.) Our illustration means our own example, with no California statute or official guidance behind it; read it as an example, not as settled law. Nothing in this table classifies any particular deduction; that judgment belongs to the person making it, and to a court in a dispute.
| Category | Usually not chargeable (ordinary wear, or barred outright) | May be chargeable (tenant-caused damage, or cleaning needed to restore move-in condition) |
|---|---|---|
| Walls & paint | Paint faded by sun and time, or worn where a sofa rubbed against it; a few small nail holes from hanging pictures DRE guidance / our illustration | Gouges in the wall; so many patched nail holes that repainting is needed; unauthorized paint colors; smoke staining DRE guidance / our illustration |
| Carpet & flooring | Carpet worn thin by ordinary foot traffic, including a ten-year-old carpet near the end of its life even if some of that wear happened during this tenancy; a prior tenant’s cigarette burns (preexisting, barred outright) DRE guidance / codified (e)(2)(A) | Burns, permanent stains, or pet-urine saturation caused during the tenancy; flooring damaged beyond repair DRE guidance / our illustration |
| Appliances & fixtures | Wearing out from age or ordinary use; dulled or dusty fixtures Our illustration | Breakage from misuse, like a disposal jammed with objects or a cooktop cracked by impact Our illustration |
| Doors, windows & surfaces | Loose handles and hinges; worn counters, finishes, and tub enamel Our illustration | A door jamb chewed by the tenant’s dog; broken windows; missing hardware DRE guidance / our illustration |
| Cleaning | Routine professional cleaning that is not reasonably necessary, even when the lease requires it; cleaning the unit to a higher standard than it had at move-in Codified (e)(2)(C) / (b)(3) | Cleaning reasonably necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it had at the inception of the tenancy Codified (b)(3) |
| Keys, pets & misc. | Wear that accumulated across one or more tenancies (the cumulative-effects bar); shedding-level wear from an authorized pet Codified (e)(2)(A) / our illustration | Unreturned keys or garage remotes; pet-chewed trim or doors Our illustration / DRE guidance |
Useful life and proration: one approach, not a rule
Two layers, kept honest. What the statute commands: repair claims are limited to a reasonable amount necessary to restore the unit to its move-in condition, exclusive of wear (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(B)), and every claim is limited to what is reasonably necessary (§ 1950.5(e)(1)). Nothing in § 1950.5 mentions useful life, depreciation, or proration. What guidance suggests: the DRE guide calls proration “one common method” of working out the deduction when an aged item is damaged beyond repair:
One common method of calculating the deduction for replacement prorates the total cost of replacement so that the tenant pays only for the remaining useful life of the item that the tenant has damaged or destroyed. For example, suppose a tenant has damaged beyond repair an eight-year-old carpet that had a life expectancy of ten years and that a replacement carpet of similar quality would cost $1,000. The landlord could properly charge only $200 for the two years' worth of life (use) that would have remained if the tenant had not damaged the carpet. DRE, California Tenants guide, 2026 ed., p. 84
For repainting, the guide offers a separate schedule, keyed to how long the tenant stayed and assuming interior paint lasts two years (it notes that some landlords assume three years or more). It is a step table rather than the carpet arithmetic, and the guide adds that a charge for painting is generally allowable only when damage beyond normal wear and tear, or soiling that cannot reasonably be cleaned, makes repainting necessary. Presented as the guide's example, not as a statutory table:
| Length of the tenant’s stay | Share of the repaint cost under the guide’s approach |
|---|---|
| Less than 6 months | Full repaint cost |
| 6 months to 1 year | Two-thirds |
| 1 to 2 years | One-third |
| 2 years or more | Nothing |
The guide flags its own status in as many words: "While these suggestions are consistent with the law, they are not necessarily the law in this area." No California statute requires proration, sets a carpet lifespan, or fixes a paint life. What the statute does say is that charging full replacement cost for an item that was already near the end of its life collides with the (e)(2)(B) restoration limit, because new-for-old is betterment.
What California law does not say
- No statutory definition of "ordinary wear and tear."
- No fixed repaint interval.
- No statutory carpet lifespan.
- No automatic or standard cleaning fee at move-out.
- No proration requirement; the useful-life arithmetic above is guidance.
And what it does prohibit, which surprises landlords used to pre-2025 practice:
- Charging for damage or defects that preexisted the tenancy (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(A)).
- Charging the last tenant for wear that accumulated across one or more tenancies (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(A)).
- Routine professional-cleaning charges, including lease-mandated ones, absent reasonable necessity (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(C)).
Documentation: the photographs are both a duty and a shield
AB 2801 made photographs a statutory duty with two date gates (§ 1950.5(g)): a move-in set for tenancies that begin on or after July 1, 2025, and, whenever possession comes back on or after April 1, 2025, a set taken after possession is returned but before any repair or cleaning that will be charged to the deposit, plus another set after that work is completed. When a repair or cleaning deduction is made and the documentation package applies (repair and cleaning deductions over $125, or a tenant's 14-day request), the photographs must be provided along with the itemized statement, by mail, email, computer flash drive, or an online link (§ 1950.5(h)(2)(D)). At or under $125 that attachment is excused (our reading), but taking the photographs under (g) is still required and including them anyway is the safe course.
The same photographs are the shield. In any action under the section, the landlord has the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed (§ 1950.5(m)), and dated move-in, pre-repair, and post-repair photographs are the evidence that carries it. The full statement package, receipts, photographs, and the written cost explanation, is covered step by step in the California return-letter guide.
The cost of getting it wrong
Charging for wear is a claim § 1950.5(e)(2) prohibits, and the section attaches two distinct consequences to bad faith. Bad-faith claim or retention of the security exposes the landlord to "statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages" (§ 1950.5(m)); the award is discretionary, "may" plus "up to," never automatic, and the court can make it even when the tenant did not request it. Separately, a landlord who in bad faith fails to comply with the return-and-accounting subdivision is not entitled to keep any of the deposit (§ 1950.5(h)(7), new for conduct from January 1, 2025). Either way, the reasonableness burden sits with the landlord in every action. For a genuinely contested wear-versus-damage question (mold, settling cracks, disputed causes), the right move is a licensed California attorney, not a guess.
Frequently asked questions
How does California define ordinary wear and tear?
It does not. Civil Code § 1950.5 uses the term at least five times and never defines it, and no cross-referenced definition applies. What the statute does codify, since AB 2801 took effect on January 1, 2025, are outer bounds: no claims for preexisting damage or defects, for ordinary wear and tear whenever it arose, or for cumulative wear across tenancies (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(A)); a limit of a reasonable amount necessary to restore the unit to its move-in condition (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(B)); and a necessity requirement for professional cleaning charges (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(C)). Any page presenting a "California statutory definition" of wear and tear is quoting something that does not exist.
Can a landlord charge for painting in California?
Only for damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, and only a reasonable amount to restore the unit to its condition when the tenancy began. The statute bars claims for ordinary wear and tear whenever it arose (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(A)) and limits repair claims to that restoration amount (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(B)); it sets no repaint interval and no paint life. The Department of Real Estate's tenant guide treats paint worn where a sofa rubbed against it as the landlord's cost and large marks or gouges as generally the tenant's, and it says enough patched holes to need repainting could justify a charge, more likely if the unit was recently painted. Its repainting schedule, keyed to how long the tenant stayed, is an example, not a rule, and the guide itself says its suggestions are not necessarily the law.
Can a landlord charge for professional carpet cleaning in California?
Only when it is reasonably necessary. Section 1950.5(e)(2)(C) provides that a landlord shall not require a tenant to pay for, or claim against the deposit for, professional carpet cleaning or other professional cleaning services "unless reasonably necessary to return the premises to the condition it was in at the inception of tenancy, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear." A routine or automatic professional-cleaning charge fails that standard.
My lease requires professional cleaning at move-out. Is that clause enforceable?
A lease clause cannot make the charge lawful by itself. Section 1950.5(e)(2)(C) prohibits requiring the tenant to pay for professional cleaning services unless reasonably necessary to return the unit to its move-in condition, and Civil Code § 1953(a)(1) makes lease provisions that modify or waive rights under § 1950.5 void as contrary to public policy. The necessity standard governs regardless of what the lease says.
Does ordinary wear and tear include damage that existed before the tenancy?
Preexisting conditions get their own prohibition. Section 1950.5(e)(2)(A) bars claims for damage or defective conditions that preexisted the tenancy, for ordinary wear and tear whether it preexisted the tenancy or occurred during it, and for the cumulative effects of wear across one or more tenancies. A prior tenant's cigarette burns, the DRE guide's own example, cannot be charged to the current tenant.
Who has to prove a deduction was proper in California?
In any action under the section, the landlord has the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed (§ 1950.5(m)). That is why the AB 2801 photograph duties double as protection: dated move-in, pre-repair, and post-repair photographs (§ 1950.5(g)) are the evidence that carries that burden.
How long does a landlord have to return a deposit in California?
No later than 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises (§ 1950.5(h)(1)), with personal delivery and first-class mail as the statutory methods. The clock runs from vacating whether or not a forwarding address is on file. The free California tool computes the exact deadline from the dates entered and generates the itemized statement the statute requires.
Work out the deposit return
The free California deposit tool computes the 21-day deadline from the dates entered, totals the deductions the user selects, and generates the itemized statement that § 1950.5(h)(1) requires, with the documentation checklist that travels with it. No sign-up, and nothing entered leaves the browser.
Open the California tool → Get the return letter
About this page
Every statutory quotation above is rendered verbatim from Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5 as amended by AB 414, effective January 1, 2026, including the enacted drafting quirks, and every rule is pin-cited to its subdivision. Statutes verified July 4, 2026. Primary sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5 (official, leginfo) and the DRE California Tenants guide, 2026 edition, which is guidance, not statute, and is labeled that way wherever it appears here. Read how we verify the law. This page is general information for landlords, not legal advice, and it never classifies a specific deduction; that judgment belongs to the person making it, and to a court in a dispute. Deposit Record is not a law firm.