Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.3
California Civil Code
Operative Text
(a) In any unlawful detainer action by the landlord to recover possession from a tenant, a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the landlord has breached the habitability requirements in Section 1941 is created if all of the following conditions exist: (1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1, is deemed and declared substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code, or contains lead hazards as defined in Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law has notified the landlord, or an agent of the landlord, in a written notice issued after inspection of the premises which informs the landlord of his or her obligation to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard or unsafe conditions identified under the authority described in paragraph (1). (3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 60 days beyond the date of issuance of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. (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) The presumption specified in subdivision (a) does not arise unless all of the conditions set forth therein are proven, but failure to so establish the presumption shall not otherwise affect the right of the tenant to raise and pursue any defense based on the landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. (c) The presumption provided in this section shall apply only to rental agreements or leases entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 1986.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.3 establishes a rebuttable presumption — a legal inference that shifts the burden of producing evidence — that a landlord has violated habitability requirements when specific conditions are all met at once in an eviction proceeding. Those conditions include a documented substandard or hazardous condition, a written government notice to the landlord requiring correction, the landlord's failure to fix the problem within 60 days of that notice without good cause, and the condition not being the tenant's fault. Even if a tenant cannot establish all four conditions to trigger the presumption, the statute preserves the tenant's separate right to raise a habitability defense on other grounds, and the rule applies only to rental agreements entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 1986.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.3, a compliant property operator generally treats written notices from housing code enforcement officers as time-sensitive obligations, documenting repair efforts and timelines carefully. When a government inspection results in a written notice identifying substandard or hazardous conditions, operators typically track the 60-day window and maintain records showing either completed abatement or a documented good-cause reason for any delay. In an unlawful detainer action, the existence of unresolved code violations that meet all four statutory conditions can shift the evidentiary burden in ways that complicate the proceeding, making proactive maintenance and thorough recordkeeping central to standard property management practice.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.3 gives tenants a potential evidentiary tool in eviction proceedings: if a government officer issued a written notice to the landlord about substandard or hazardous conditions, those conditions remained unaddressed for more than 60 days without good cause, and the tenant did not cause them, a rebuttable presumption of a habitability breach can arise. Tenants may raise this presumption as a defense in an unlawful detainer action, and even if all four conditions cannot be established, the statute expressly preserves the right to pursue a habitability defense through other means. Tenants who believe these circumstances apply to their situation may benefit from contacting a local tenant-rights organization, a legal aid office, or a housing court self-help center to understand how this provision might interact with their case.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated September 3, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation