The protection was supposed to appear before the signature

Before a renter becomes bound to a lease for most housing built before 1978, federal rules require a specific exchange of information. The contract must warn that the home may contain lead-based paint. It must say whether the lessor knows of lead hazards, identify available reports or state that none are available, and document that the renter received the required information.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the lease paperwork for six South Carolina homes did not contain any of the five required contract elements. Each home predated 1978. The leases were signed during 2025, and the buildings ranged from a 1950 house to one built in 1974.

The EPA’s account is narrower, and more precise, than a finding that the homes contained lead. The agency said Anderson Property Management was unable to provide records or otherwise demonstrate that the required language and acknowledgments had been included before the tenants entered the leases.

“Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards if not managed properly.”

That language is part of the federally prescribed warning. The rule highlights young children and pregnant women as particularly vulnerable to lead exposure. The settlement, however, does not say that children or pregnant women lived at the six addresses.

Six leases, all involving pre-1978 homes

The EPA inspected Anderson Property Management’s Anderson, South Carolina, office on December 9, 2025. It requested records later that month, and the company submitted records on January 19, 2026. The agency’s review identified these leases:

Federal regulations call this category “target housing,” generally meaning housing constructed before 1978, subject to exemptions that include certain zero-bedroom dwellings and some housing for elderly people or people with disabilities. The EPA determined that the six properties fell within the regulated category.

What the lease paperwork was required to contain

The federal framework assigns responsibility to lessors and their leasing agents. An agent must inform the lessor of the disclosure obligations and either ensure the lessor completes them or personally ensure compliance.

For each of the six leases, the EPA alleged that Anderson failed to include:

1. The Lead Warning Statement. This prescribed language explains that pre-1978 housing may contain lead-based paint and that exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women.
2. The lessor’s disclosure. The contract must disclose known lead-based paint or hazards, with available details, or state that the lessor has no knowledge of their presence.
3. A record of available reports. The lease must list lead-related records or reports provided to the tenant, or state that no such records are available.
4. The tenant’s acknowledgment. The tenant must affirm receipt of the lessor’s information, the record disclosure and the federally approved lead-hazard pamphlet.
5. The agent’s compliance statement. The agent must state that it informed the lessor of the legal obligations and understands its own duty to ensure compliance.

The EPA’s alleged violation focused on the absence of those elements from the contracts. Although the tenant acknowledgment would have documented receipt of the federal pamphlet, the order does not separately find that no tenant was physically handed one. It says Anderson could not demonstrate that the required acknowledgment appeared in the leases.

What the missing record meant for renters, and what it does not prove

These requirements are designed to operate before a tenant is committed to a lease. They place information about a known hazard, or a lessor’s lack of knowledge, directly into the transaction at the point when a prospective renter can consider it.

Under the EPA’s account, the six contracts did not document that process. The alleged omissions removed the contractual warning, the lessor’s position on known lead, the status of any reports and the tenant’s acknowledgment from the leases themselves.

That is a documented information failure in the agency’s case, not evidence of a documented poisoning. The order does not establish:

• that lead-based paint or a lead hazard existed at any of the properties;
• that any tenant was exposed to lead;
• that any resident suffered a health effect;
• that a child or pregnant woman lived in one of the homes; or
• that the lessors possessed undisclosed lead reports.

The distinction matters. Lead-disclosure law is preventive. It does not require proof that a resident was poisoned before the warning and recordkeeping duties apply.

The settlement closes the penalty case without an admission

Anderson Property Management agreed to pay a $26,400 civil penalty within 30 days of the settlement’s effective date. The document says the penalty was calculated under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but it does not provide a property-by-property or requirement-by-requirement breakdown.

The company neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations. It did consent to the penalty and conditions, waive its right to contest the alleged violations, and waive an appeal of the final order. It also certified, to the best of its knowledge, that it was currently complying with the relevant federal requirements.

The Regional Judicial Officer approved the agreement on September 23, 2026. The order became effective when filed and disposed of the administrative proceeding.

Compliance depends on a repeatable pre-signing check

The final order doesn’t separately prescribe a new compliance program. It records Anderson’s certification of current compliance and requires adherence to the agreement. A practical safeguard derived from the violations would place the required steps into every pre-1978 leasing workflow before a tenant signs.

Retaining the completed documents is also essential for pretty obvious reasons! In this case, the enforcement action followed the company’s inability to produce records or otherwise demonstrate that the contract requirements had been met.

A warning system is useful only if it reaches the lease

Lead-disclosure rules are built around a precise moment: before a renter is legally committed. The EPA’s case says the required warnings, disclosures and acknowledgments were absent from six lease contracts at that moment. The settlement imposes a financial consequence and records a certification of current compliance, while leaving the largest health questions unanswered. It documents a failure of the preventive paperwork, not proof of lead in the homes or harm to their residents.