A landlord can keep part of a security deposit for only four things (§ 1950.5(b)): unpaid rent; repairing damage you caused beyond ordinary wear and tear; cleaning to return the property to the level of cleanliness it had when you moved in; and, where the lease provides for it, restoring or replacing furnishings or other personal property the landlord supplied.
Ordinary wear and tear is carved out by name. The statute says a landlord may claim only what is reasonably necessary for those four purposes (§ 1950.5(e)(1)), and then draws the line:
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.
Three things are packed into that sentence. Wear that existed before you moved in is not yours. Wear that happened while you lived there, if it is ordinary, is not yours. And wear that built up across several tenants — the carpet that was already five years old when you arrived — cannot be charged to whichever tenant happens to be leaving.
The statute also addresses one common line item directly: professional carpet cleaning or other professional cleaning is not chargeable unless it is reasonably necessary to bring the property back to the condition it was in at the start of your tenancy, ordinary wear and tear excluded (§ 1950.5(e)(2)(C)). A lease clause that says "tenant pays for professional carpet cleaning at move-out" does not change that; the question is whether the carpet needed it.
What the phrase means in practice
The statute does not define "ordinary wear and tear," so the working definition comes from how courts and the state's own tenant guide have applied it: the gradual deterioration that comes from living in a place normally, as opposed to damage from an accident, neglect, or misuse.
The examples that come up most often fall into two columns.
Usually ordinary wear and tear
- Small nail or pin holes from hanging pictures
- Faded, chalky, or slightly scuffed paint after a few years
- Carpet worn in traffic paths; minor fraying at seams
- Minor scratches on wood floors from furniture
- Loose grout, a worn kitchen faucet washer, a sticking drawer
- Dust, faint marks where furniture stood, a few cobwebs
- Curtains or blinds faded by sun
Usually damage
- Holes in walls or doors larger than a nail hole
- Burns, deep stains, pet urine, or torn carpet
- Crayon, marker, or unapproved paint colors on walls
- Broken windows, fixtures, or appliances (beyond normal failure)
- Missing or ruined blinds, screens, or doors
- Filth that takes more than ordinary cleaning to remove
- Anything left behind that the landlord has to haul away
These are patterns, not rules. The same scuff can be wear and tear in a unit you lived in for six years and damage in one you lived in for six months. Time, the condition at move-in, and how the property was used all feed into where a court would put it.
Why age matters: the "useful life" idea
Even where something is damage, a landlord generally cannot charge the full replacement cost of an item that was already partway through its life. Courts commonly prorate. Carpet is the classic example: if a carpet is expected to last about eight years and it was four years old when you moved out, a tenant who ruined it is looking at roughly half of a replacement, not the whole thing — the other half was already used up. Paint works the same way over a shorter span.
There is no statute that sets these life spans; they come from small claims practice and from the guidance judges use. But the principle follows directly from the statute's own language: the landlord may claim only what is reasonably necessary, and paying for a brand-new carpet to replace a half-worn one is not.
If a deduction charges you full replacement for carpet, paint, or flooring, the age of what was replaced is the first fact to establish.
The pre-move-out inspection
California gives you a way to see the landlord's list before it becomes a deduction. Within a reasonable time after either side gives notice to end the tenancy, or before a fixed lease ends, the landlord must tell you in writing that you may request an initial inspection and may be present for it (§ 1950.5(f)(1)). If you ask for it, the inspection happens no earlier than two weeks before you move out, the landlord gives you an itemized list of proposed repairs and cleaning, and you get the chance to fix those items yourself before you leave.
That list is useful in a wear-and-tear dispute for a second reason: with limited exceptions, a landlord who did the inspection generally cannot later deduct for something that was on view at the time and was not on the list (§ 1950.5(f)(4); the exceptions are in (f)(5) and (f)(6)). What was not identified, and could have been, is hard to charge for afterward.
Photographs are the evidence
Since April 1, 2025, a landlord who plans to deduct for repairs or cleaning has to photograph the property within a reasonable time after you return possession, before any work, and again after the work is done (§ 1950.5(g)(2)). For tenancies that began on or after July 1, 2025, the landlord also has to photograph the property at move-in (§ 1950.5(g)(1)).
Those photographs, with a written explanation of the cost of each allowable repair or cleaning, have to be provided along with the itemized statement (§ 1950.5(h)(2)(D)). The exceptions are the same ones that apply to receipts: no documentation is owed when repair and cleaning deductions total $125 or less, or when you signed a written waiver of the documentation (§ 1950.5(h)(4)).
For a wear-and-tear disagreement, this is the whole argument. A worn carpet path and a pet-stained carpet look different in a photograph. A landlord who charged you for damage and has no before-and-after pictures has an itemized statement that is missing something the statute requires — and, in court, the burden of proving that each amount kept was reasonable is the landlord's (§ 1950.5(m)). Your own move-in and move-out photos, if you took any, do the same work from the other side.
If the deductions are for wear and tear
Whether a specific deduction crosses the line is a question a court decides. What the statute gives you is the standard, the exclusions, the documentation requirement, and the burden of proof. The free check on this site works through those from your dates and amounts, and the wear-and-tear letter quotes § 1950.5(e)(2)(A) word for word, states that the deductions listed are for ordinary wear and tear, and points to the photograph requirement — so the landlord is answering the statute, not an opinion.
Free · no account needed · California only, for now.
This is legal information, not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed California attorney.