PM Requiring Lead Test & Dropping Lead-Positive Homes

PM Requiring Lead Test & Dropping Lead-Positive Homes

Member since 2022 · 10 posts · 6 votes

I own a 1952 rental in Atlanta. My property manager just announced a new policy for all pre-1978 properties they manage:

Their new requirements:

A mandatory $699 lead-based paint test on the entire property.

If the test finds any lead-based paint, they will terminate management immediately and will not manage the property again until full abatement and clearance are completed.

They say this is due to increased EPA enforcement and new expectations that property management companies be EPA-certified and keep extensive compliance records.

Their position is that a negative test minimizes future compliance obligations and repair costs.

What I’m trying to understand:

Is this type of policy reasonable or common for property managers curretly?

For a 1950s home where lead is statistically likely, is there any benefit to voluntary testing, given that a positive test becomes a permanent, documented condition?

In general, is testing older rentals considered smart risk management, or does it create more exposure if lead is found?


I'd appreciate your input and advice.  

1Reply
120 views

Most Popular Reply

Drew SygitBusiness Member
Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
10mo

@Seth Quade this is probably a company decision -> probably due to a recent lawsuit from a tenant that cost them thousands to defend, and maybe lost.

Recommend you ask them what Atlanta or Georgia laws are driving their decision. 
Also ask about any specific court case(s) for same.

Regardless, with lead-paint issues (and mold!) our attorneys always tell us we're better off NOT knowing as we can then plead ignorance. Once you know of a problem, your potential liability only INCREASES:(

See this reply in the discussion

8 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10mo
    Quote from @Seth Quade:

    I own a 1952 rental in Atlanta. My property manager just announced a new policy for all pre-1978 properties they manage:

    Their new requirements:

    A mandatory $699 lead-based paint test on the entire property.

    If the test finds any lead-based paint, they will terminate management immediately and will not manage the property again until full abatement and clearance are completed.

    They say this is due to increased EPA enforcement and new expectations that property management companies be EPA-certified and keep extensive compliance records.

    Their position is that a negative test minimizes future compliance obligations and repair costs.

    What I’m trying to understand:

    Is this type of policy reasonable or common for property managers curretly?

    For a 1950s home where lead is statistically likely, is there any benefit to voluntary testing, given that a positive test becomes a permanent, documented condition?

    In general, is testing older rentals considered smart risk management, or does it create more exposure if lead is found?


    I'd appreciate your input and advice.  

    Totally reasonable. Given the life-long damage lead does as a neurotoxin to young children, thinking that willful ignorance is a valid course of action is not appropriate. Would you want your child exposed to lead because someone willfully refused to test for lead so he could avoid exposure?

    Do the right thing:

    Test.

    Remediate.
  • Member since 2022 · 10 posts · 6 votes
    10mo

    Thank you John.  I do not have actual safety concerns.  The house has recently been painted over completely (with lead paint precautions followed).  There are no kids in the house.  My understanding is that the tests check for lead at any depth.  It could cost tens of thousands to "fully remediate" any lead found in internal paint layers.  It would be a massive disruption for the tenant and there would be a good chance of losing the tenant.  This could make sense to do between tenants but I'm not sure it makes sense to opt for an invasive test of the house when again I don't suspect actual safety risk.  I have gone through myself previously and checked the the paint on interior walls and they have been negative. 

  • Drew SygitBusiness Member
    Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    10mo

    @Seth Quade this is probably a company decision -> probably due to a recent lawsuit from a tenant that cost them thousands to defend, and maybe lost.

    Recommend you ask them what Atlanta or Georgia laws are driving their decision. 
    Also ask about any specific court case(s) for same.

    Regardless, with lead-paint issues (and mold!) our attorneys always tell us we're better off NOT knowing as we can then plead ignorance. Once you know of a problem, your potential liability only INCREASES:(

  • Real Estate Broker · Atlanta · Member since 2024 · 1k+ posts · 607 votes
    10mo

    Seth, this policy isn’t standard but some property managers are becoming more cautious because of EPA liability. A voluntary test can give clarity but yes, a positive result becomes a permanent disclosure and may create additional obligations. As a property manager myself in Atlanta, I would also be hesitant to manage a home with confirmed lead-based paint. If you are local, self managing could be an option to avoid these restrictions

  • Member since 2022 · 10 posts · 6 votes
    10mo

    @Drew Sygit Thank you

  • Member since 2022 · 10 posts · 6 votes
    10mo

    @Janice Carter  Thank you

  • Stephen QuesinberryBusiness Member
    Real Estate Agent · Cumming, GA · Member since 2016 · 226 posts · 157 votes
    10mo

    I tend to agree with Drew here. It’s likely something changed on their end—either an insurance issue or a prior liability situation—that’s causing them to tighten standards to mitigate future risk. From their perspective, this feels more like risk management than overreach.

    That said, it does put you in a tough spot as an owner. This is one of the reasons I personally try to avoid older properties where unknowns around lead, insurance, and long-tail liability can materially change the risk profile after the fact.

    In a 1950s home, lead is statistically likely, and once it’s formally documented, you can’t undo that. While testing may feel proactive, it can also create additional exposure if remediation isn’t economically feasible.

    Unfortunately, this seems less about what’s “common” across all managers and more about this specific company drawing a harder line based on their own risk tolerance.

    Cornerstone Real Estate Partners
    View Page
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.