Key Takeaways

• Both landlords and tenants can face liability for accessibility violations at commercial premises, so who bears the cost is a key lease term to settle, not assume.
• California law (Civil Code 1938) requires a landlord to disclose whether the space has had a CASp (Certified Access Specialist) inspection, and to deliver any report.
• A CASp inspection is not mandatory, but the disclosure is, and a tenant generally cannot be barred from getting an inspection.
• California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act adds statutory damages on top of the federal ADA, making the state a high-volume accessibility-litigation environment.
• The lease should clearly allocate accessibility compliance and cost between the parties; vague allocation is a common and expensive gap.

ADA and Accessibility in California Commercial Leases: Who Is Responsible?

Accessibility is one of the most underestimated risks in a commercial lease. A business signs a lease, opens its doors, and then receives a demand letter, or a lawsuit, alleging the premises are not accessible to people with disabilities. The question that follows is immediate and expensive: who is responsible, the landlord who owns the building or the tenant who occupies it? In California, the answer depends heavily on the lease, and on a state legal landscape that makes accessibility claims especially common. Here is what tenants and landlords need to understand.

Two layers of law: the ADA and the Unruh Act

Commercial premises open to the public must comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which sets construction-related accessibility standards. California layers its own law on top. The Unruh Civil Rights Act treats a violation of the federal ADA as also a violation of California civil rights, and, importantly, allows a plaintiff to recover statutory damages for each violation, in addition to the injunctive relief and attorney’s fees available under federal law.

This combination is why California sees a high volume of accessibility litigation. Because the Unruh Act attaches statutory damages to ADA violations, and because liability generally does not depend on the defendant’s intent or knowledge, even an unintentional, quickly fixed violation can support a claim. For both landlords and tenants, that makes accessibility a real and recurring exposure, not a theoretical one, and makes clear allocation of the risk in the lease genuinely important.

Who is liable, landlord or tenant?

Here is the part that surprises many business owners: both the landlord and the tenant can potentially be liable for an accessibility violation at the leased premises. A plaintiff may name either or both. As between themselves, who actually bears the cost is determined largely by the lease, which is exactly why the allocation language matters so much.

A well-drafted commercial lease addresses accessibility directly: which party is responsible for ensuring the premises comply, who pays for any required modifications, how responsibility splits between the common areas (typically the landlord’s domain) and the tenant’s own build-out and use, and how the parties handle indemnification if a claim arises. A lease that is silent or vague on these points leaves both sides exposed and sets up a fight over who pays when a claim lands. Allocating this risk deliberately, before signing, is far cheaper than litigating it afterward.

Where accessibility problems commonly arise

Accessibility claims often focus on a recurring set of physical features, and knowing them helps both sides assess a space realistically. Parking and the path of travel from parking to the entrance are frequent subjects, accessible spaces, signage, slopes, and curb ramps. So are entrances and doors (width, hardware, thresholds), interior circulation, restrooms (clearances, grab bars, fixtures), and service counters. Older buildings that predate current standards, or that have been altered over the years, tend to carry more exposure, because accessibility requirements have evolved and prior work may not meet current standards.

The timing of who created a given condition matters to the landlord-tenant allocation. A base-building feature, the parking lot, the common-area path of travel, the building entrance, is typically within the landlord’s sphere, while a tenant’s own build-out, interior layout, counters, and fixtures arises from the tenant’s work and use. This is why the lease should distinguish between the base building and the tenant’s improvements when allocating compliance responsibility: a tenant should be wary of inheriting responsibility for base-building conditions it did not create and cannot control, and a landlord will want the tenant to own the accessibility consequences of the tenant’s own alterations. A tenant planning significant build-out should also remember that triggering alterations can carry their own accessibility-upgrade obligations, another reason to involve the right professionals early.

The CASp disclosure requirement

California law gives the parties a tool to surface accessibility issues before they sign, the CASp (Certified Access Specialist) framework, codified in Civil Code section 1938. A CASp is a state-certified expert who inspects commercial property against accessibility standards and issues a report.

The law requires a commercial landlord to state in the lease whether the premises have been inspected by a CASp, and if so, whether the property was determined to meet the applicable standards. The mechanics, as of this writing, work like this:

• If a CASp inspection has occurred and the landlord knows of no later modifications affecting compliance, the landlord must deliver the CASp report to the prospective tenant before the lease is executed.
• If the report is not provided at least 48 hours before the tenant signs, the tenant generally has the right to terminate the lease within 72 hours after signing, based on the report’s information.
• After execution, the landlord must provide the inspection certificate and any related reports within a short window (generally 7 days).
• If the premises have not had a CASp inspection, the lease must include specific statutory language notifying the tenant of that fact and of the tenant’s right to request an inspection.

Two important nuances. First, California does not require a landlord to actually have a CASp inspection performed, the duty is to disclose the inspection status, not to inspect. Second, a landlord generally cannot prevent a tenant from obtaining a CASp inspection if the tenant wants one (the parties negotiate the timing, payment, and who covers any needed repairs). These timing and procedural details can change, so confirm the current requirements before relying on them.

What a CASp inspection does, and the presumption it creates

Getting a CASp inspection is voluntary, but it carries advantages. A property inspected by a CASp and found compliant (or brought into compliance) can give the owner certain procedural protections if an accessibility lawsuit is later filed, such as the ability to seek a stay and an early evaluation conference. For a tenant, an inspection before signing reveals what it may be taking on.

There is also a meaningful default rule worth knowing: under the statute, when a CASp report identifies violations, the landlord is presumed responsible for making the necessary repairs to correct them, unless the landlord and tenant agree otherwise in the lease. That presumption is a starting point, and it can be shifted by negotiation, which again puts the focus on what the lease says. A landlord who wants the tenant to bear certain repair costs, or a tenant who wants to avoid inheriting the building’s accessibility problems, should address it explicitly rather than rely on the default.

Practical guidance for each side

For tenants: do not treat accessibility as the landlord’s problem by default, since you can be named in a claim. Ask whether a CASp inspection has been done, review any report, consider getting an inspection before signing, and make sure the lease clearly states who is responsible for compliance and the cost of any modifications, especially distinguishing the base building from your own improvements. For landlords: comply with the disclosure requirements precisely, consider a CASp inspection for its procedural protections, and use the lease to allocate accessibility responsibility and cost clearly rather than leaving it to the statutory default or to chance. For both, given California’s statutory-damages exposure, this is a area where a careful lease and professional advice pay for themselves.

Bay Legal helps California tenants and landlords allocate accessibility risk and navigate CASp and ADA obligations in commercial leases. For guidance on your specific situation, call (650) 668-8000 or schedule a consultation at baylegal.com/contact.

The bottom line

Accessibility liability at commercial premises can fall on the landlord, the tenant, or both, and California’s Unruh Act, by attaching statutory damages to ADA violations under a strict-liability framework, makes such claims common and costly. California law requires a landlord to disclose the premises’ CASp inspection status and to deliver any report, with specific timing that gives a tenant a limited right to terminate, though an inspection itself is not mandatory. Because liability and cost are allocated largely by the lease, and because a statutory presumption puts repair responsibility on the landlord absent agreement, the accessibility provisions deserve careful, deliberate negotiation. Settle who is responsible before a claim arrives, not after.

Concerned about accessibility obligations in a commercial lease? For guidance on your specific situation, call (650) 668-8000 or schedule a consultation at baylegal.com/contact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is responsible for ADA compliance in a commercial lease, the landlord or the tenant?

Both can potentially be liable to a plaintiff for an accessibility violation at the premises. As between the landlord and tenant, who actually bears the cost is determined largely by the lease. That is why the lease should clearly allocate responsibility for compliance and for the cost of any modifications, rather than leaving it vague.

What is a CASp inspection?

A CASp (Certified Access Specialist) inspection is an evaluation of a commercial property by a state-certified expert who checks it against accessibility standards and issues a report. California law (Civil Code section 1938) requires a landlord to disclose whether the premises have had such an inspection, though it does not require the landlord to actually have one performed.

Does a California commercial landlord have to provide a CASp report?

If the premises have had a CASp inspection, the landlord generally must disclose that and deliver the report, before signing if there are no later modifications affecting compliance. If the report is not provided at least 48 hours before signing, the tenant generally has a limited right (within 72 hours after signing) to terminate based on the report. If there has been no inspection, the lease must include specific statutory notice language.

Why does California have so many accessibility lawsuits?

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act treats an ADA violation as a civil-rights violation and allows statutory damages per violation, on top of the federal remedies. Combined with the fact that liability generally does not depend on intent or knowledge, this makes accessibility claims common and potentially costly, even for unintentional or quickly corrected violations.

If a CASp report finds violations, who has to fix them?

Under California law, when a CASp report identifies violations, the landlord is presumed responsible for making the necessary corrections, unless the landlord and tenant agree otherwise in the lease. That presumption is a default that can be shifted by negotiation, which is why repair responsibility should be addressed explicitly in the lease.