Normal Wear and Tear vs. Damage in California: Who Pays for What? (2026)

The wear-and-tear exclusion lives in subsection (e) of California Civil Code §1950.5. It’s a single sentence that does enormous work:

“The landlord may 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)

Three things in this sentence are crucial:

1. "Ordinary wear and tear" can never be charged to you, regardless of when it happened.
2. "Whether it preexisted the tenancy" — you do not inherit wear-and-tear liability from prior tenants. If the carpet was already matted from the previous renter, that’s on the landlord.
3. "Cumulative effects" — even when wear builds up across multiple tenancies, no single tenant can be charged for the cumulative result.

This is the broadest tenant protection in §1950.5. It’s also why landlords almost always re-label wear-and-tear charges as "damage" — the words matter, and "ordinary wear and tear" is the magic phrase that makes a deduction unenforceable.

Other subsections that work together with (e):

• §1950.5(b)(2) — authorizes deductions only for "damages to the premises, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear."
• §1950.5(g) — the 21-day rule. Itemized statement required within 21 days.
• §1950.5(g)(2) — the $125 receipt rule.
• AB 2801 (effective April 1, 2025) — landlords must now provide photographs supporting any deduction. Game-changer for wear-and-tear disputes.

California courts don’t apply a bright-line definition of wear and tear. Instead, they apply a reasonable-person standard: would a reasonable person, given the length of the tenancy and the typical use of the unit, expect this condition?

This is the same standard used throughout California civil law — familiar to every small-claims judge. The practical questions a court asks:

• How long was the tenant in the unit?
• How many people lived there?
• Was the use within the lease’s intended purpose (residential)?
• Is the condition consistent with what would happen if a reasonable family lived there for the same period?

If the answer is "yes, this is what residential use does over [N] years," it’s wear and tear. If the answer is "this is well beyond what reasonable residential use would cause," it’s damage.

The reasonable-person test is what makes wear-and-tear claims winnable in small claims court even without expert testimony. The judge already knows what an apartment looks like after a few years of residential use.

Normal wear and tear is the unavoidable deterioration of a property that occurs through everyday living. Think of it as the natural aging of the home — things that would happen no matter who lived there. The side-by-side comparison below is the standard reference for California renters:

Note: items in the right-hand column are potentially deductible, but they’re still subject to the useful-life proration (for paint, carpet, etc.), the $125 receipt rule, and AB 2801’s photo requirement.

The longer you lived in the unit, the more wear and tear is expected by a reasonable person. This is a sliding scale, and California courts apply it consistently:

A landlord who charges you to repaint an apartment you lived in for 5 years is almost certainly violating §1950.5(e). The cost of repainting a 5-year-old unit is the landlord’s normal maintenance expense — it would have to be done regardless of who lived there.

This is why long-tenancy deductions are so often invalid. After 3+ years, very little remains "the tenant’s fault" in a paint or carpet context.

As of April 1, 2025, California Assembly Bill 2801 fundamentally changed wear-and-tear disputes. The new law requires landlords to provide photographs supporting every deduction from a security deposit. Specifically:

• Photos taken at move-out showing the alleged damage in its as-found state.
• Photos taken after the repair for any deduction involving repair work.
• The photos must be included with the itemized statement sent within the 21-day window under §1950.5(g).

If your landlord did not provide photos, the deduction is presumptively invalid. The landlord cannot retroactively manufacture photographic evidence after a dispute arises.

What you should photograph at move-out (do this every single time)

1. Every wall in every room — wide shots showing the overall condition. Capture the date stamp on your phone.
2. Every floor — wide shots and close-ups of any wear areas.
3. Bathroom — toilet, tub/shower, sink, grout, walls.
4. Kitchen — cabinets (interior and exterior), countertops, sink, stove (with hood lifted), inside of fridge.
5. Appliances — each one, working.
6. Windows and blinds — condition of each.
7. Outlets, switches, smoke detectors, light fixtures — condition and function.

If you have move-in photos from when you arrived, even better — the side-by-side comparison is the strongest possible evidence in small claims.

If the landlord refuses to provide their AB 2801 photos

Request them in writing. If the landlord refuses or delays, that refusal alone is strong evidence in small claims court. AB 2801 doesn’t carry a statutory penalty — but it shifts the evidentiary burden. A judge presented with "the tenant requested photos and the landlord refused" is highly likely to find the deduction unsupported.

These deductions are frequently made by landlords but are not legal under California Civil Code §1950.5(e):

• Repainting for the next tenant. Paint has a 2-3 year useful life. After 2+ years of tenancy, repainting is the landlord’s cost. See our painting guide for the full proration math.
• Professional carpet cleaning. Unless you left the carpet significantly dirtier than normal use would produce, cleaning is normal turnover. See our carpet guide.
• Replacing worn fixtures. Faucets, handles, blinds, and other fixtures wear out from use. That’s the landlord’s responsibility.
• General "cleaning fee". Light cleaning between tenants is a normal business cost, not deductible from your deposit. See our cleaning guide.
• "Wall touch-up" charges. Minor scuffs are explicitly wear and tear under §1950.5(e). A landlord cannot charge for touch-up of normal wall marks.
• Light bulb replacement. Routine maintenance, not a tenant cost.
• Window screen repair for ordinary wear (frame sagging, mesh loosening). Only damage beyond ordinary use is chargeable.
• "Pet rent" or "pet fee" applied after the fact when the lease authorized pets without specific damage.

The following are illustrative scenarios showing how California Civil Code §1950.5(e) distinguishes ordinary wear and tear from chargeable damage. Names and specific facts are illustrative.

Scenario 1 — Deduction that would likely fail under §1950.5(e)

A tenant moves out of a Berkeley one-bedroom after 4 years. The landlord deducts $1,400 for "full repaint, wall touch-up, carpet cleaning, and general cleaning." The unit is broom clean. The marks are typical of 4 years of normal living: light scuffs along hallways, slight fading in the south-facing room, two small nail holes per room.

Why this would likely violate §1950.5(e): all of the cited conditions are explicitly ordinary wear and tear. After 4 years, the repaint is the landlord's maintenance cost. The carpet cleaning is normal turnover. The "general cleaning" was the landlord's normal turnover prep. None of it is chargeable under §1950.5(e).

Likely outcome under §1950.5: a demand letter citing §1950.5(e), the length-of-tenancy factor, and AB 2801 (if the landlord did not provide photos) would typically produce a full $1,400 refund.

Scenario 2 — Mixed: some chargeable, some not

A tenant moves out of a Pasadena 2-bedroom after 18 months. The landlord deducts $2,100: $800 for full repaint, $400 for cleaning, $600 for carpet shampooing, and $300 for "wall hole patches." The tenant had mounted a TV with anchor bolts that left 4 large holes when removed, and had painted the home office a shade of blue (not authorized). The unit was broom clean.

What §1950.5 allows here:

• $800 full repaint — partially supportable. Unauthorized paint color in the office is a real claim, but full-apartment repaint is overreach. Reasonable charge under the useful-life rule: roughly $200 (one room, prorated for 18 months of paint life consumed).
• $400 cleaning — would likely fail under §1950.5(b)(3). Unit was broom clean.
• $600 carpet shampoo — would likely fail under §1950.5(b)(2). Routine turnover cleaning.
• $300 anchor-bolt patches — supportable. Four anchor-bolt holes are damage beyond ordinary wear. Receipts confirm the charge is reasonable.

Likely outcome under §1950.5: a demand letter would typically produce a refund of roughly $1,600, with ~$500 in deductions accepted as legitimate ($200 office repaint + $300 wall patches).