Normal Wear and Tear vs. Damage in Colorado

The statutory definition

Here is what Colorado law means by “normal wear and tear,” word for word:

"Normal wear and tear" means deterioration, damage, or uncleanliness that occurs, based upon the use for which a rental unit or mobile home space, as defined in section 38-12-201.5 (6.5), is intended or reasonably and typically used, without negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse of the premises or equipment or private property by the tenant or home owner or members of the tenant’s or home owner’s household or their invitees or guests. "Normal wear and tear" does not include uncleanliness that renders a dwelling unit substantially less clean than the dwelling unit was when the lease began. C.R.S. § 38-12-102(4)

In plain terms: if a condition came from the unit being lived in the way it is meant to be lived in, without negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse, it is normal wear and tear and cannot be charged to the deposit. Damage from something beyond ordinary use can be.

What the 2026 law changed

HB25-1249, effective January 1, 2026, broadened the definition and added hard limits that most older guides do not mention:

• The definition now spells out that ordinary damage and uncleanliness from typical use count as normal wear and tear, and that “private property” is covered, not just the old term “chattels.”
• Cleaning has an explicit line: uncleanliness that leaves the unit substantially less clean than when the lease began is not normal wear and tear, while ordinary end-of-tenancy dirt is, and can never be charged. The same law removed cleaning as a named reason to keep deposit money, so which of the four reasons the law now lists a cleaning charge fits is a matter of reading: see what a Colorado landlord can deduct.
• Preexisting conditions can never be charged, and a lease clause that tries to make the tenant pay for normal-wear or preexisting-condition work is void (§ 38-12-103(1)(a), (7)(b)).
• Carpet and paint have their own strict limits, including a ten-year rule for carpet: see the wear-versus-damage table below for where the line sits.

Those are the wear-and-tear pieces. For everything the 2026 rewrite changed, from the move-out walk-through to the 125% bad-faith presumption and the good-faith safe harbor, see Colorado security deposit law changes in 2026 (HB25-1249).

Cleaning, carpet, and paint: where the line sits

These are the three fights that fill small-claims dockets. General illustrations, not a ruling on your situation: you decide what to claim, and a court decides any dispute.

Whatever you decide to claim, remember two Colorado rules that decide most disputes: keeping 125% or more of your actual, provable costs is presumed unreasonable, and in court the landlord bears the burden of proving the amount was reasonable and the retention not wrongful (§ 38-12-103(3), (3.5)).

Can a landlord charge for carpet wear and tear after 3 years?

No. Not after three years, and not after any number of years. Worn, matted, or faded carpet from ordinary use is normal wear and tear, and Colorado never lets a landlord keep deposit money for that (§ 38-12-102(4), § 38-12-103(1)(b)). A lease clause that says otherwise is void (§ 38-12-103(7)(b)).

The carpet’s age only starts to matter once there is real damage beyond wear, such as burns, large tears, or pet destruction, and even then it works in one direction. Carpet that was not replaced with new carpet in the ten years before the lease ended or the premises were surrendered cannot be treated as substantially and irreparably damaged, which is the test for charging to replace it (§ 38-12-103(11)(c), quoted in full below). A three-year-old carpet is well inside that window, so the ten-year rule does not protect it. A replacement charge on it is possible, but only if the damage is substantial and irreparable, goes beyond normal wear and tear, and did not exist before the tenancy (§ 38-12-103(11)(a)).

Is the carpet rule 5 years or 10 years?

Ten. The law as passed, and the 2026 Colorado Revised Statutes, say ten years. Five years was the figure in HB25-1249 as introduced, and it was changed to ten before the bill passed. The legislature’s summary of the introduced bill still repeats the old figure, and that summary is still printed at the top of later versions such as the revised bill, which is one reason the five keeps turning up. The same goes for a “minimum amount necessary” limit on carpet and paint charges: it was in the bill until the Senate took it out, the summary still describes it, and it is not in the statute. The statute is the text to rely on.

Can a landlord charge to replace carpet in just one room?

Yes, if that part of the carpet has substantial and irreparable damage that goes beyond normal wear and tear and did not exist before the tenancy. The statute says expressly that the whole-unit rule does not stop a charge for replacing carpet in a portion of the unit on those terms (§ 38-12-103(11)(a)). On our reading the ten-year rule applies here too, so the carpet must have been replaced with new carpet within the ten years before the lease ended or the premises were surrendered (see the next question).

What if the carpet is more than 10 years old?

Then the statute says the landlord cannot treat it as substantially and irreparably damaged, however bad it looks (§ 38-12-103(11)(c)). Two things follow on our reading, and the statute does not spell out either one. Because replacing even part of the carpet needs that same “substantial and irreparable” finding, a charge to replace a portion is out too. And a charge to repair specific damage beyond wear is a different thing from replacement, so it can still fall under the general repair reason in § 38-12-103(1)(b)(IV). We have not researched case law on either point.

Does a landlord have to prorate carpet by its age?

The statute sets no depreciation or proration formula for carpet. Its only age figure is the ten-year rule above. Whether a charge has to be reduced for age in some other way is a question the statute does not answer, and we have not researched how courts handle it, so we do not state a rule. Figures you may see, such as “carpet lasts 5 years” or “7 years in Colorado”, are not in the Colorado statute.

Repainting, and whether paint has an age rule

Repainting the whole interior can be charged only where there is substantial paint damage throughout the entire unit, beyond normal wear and tear and not preexisting. A damaged area can be charged on its own if that portion has substantial damage (§ 38-12-103(11)(b)). Paint has no age rule: the ten-year limit names carpet only, and the paint test asks for substantial damage, not substantial and irreparable damage.

Are nail holes normal wear and tear in Colorado?

The statute does not mention nail holes, curtain-rod holes, or stickers. Its test is whether the condition came from ordinary use, without negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse (§ 38-12-102(4)). Our table above lists small nail holes as usually normal wear, and that is a general illustration, not a ruling: large holes and gouges are more likely to be damage.

The carpet and paint limits, in the statute’s own words

Colorado is unusual in writing the carpet and paint fight directly into the deposit statute rather than leaving it to argument. Two separate limits apply, and the second one is the surprise: once carpet has gone ten years without being replaced with new carpet, you cannot charge to replace it however bad it looks, though on our reading a charge to repair specific damage survives.

A landlord shall not deem carpet to be substantially and irreparably damaged if the carpet has not been replaced with new carpet within ten years preceding the termination of the lease or surrender of the premises. C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11)(c)

That sentence is the last of three rules subsection (11) lays down. First, whole-unit re-carpeting needs damage that is both substantial and irreparable (§ 38-12-103(11)(a)). Second, repainting the entire interior needs substantial paint damage throughout the entire unit (§ 38-12-103(11)(b)). Third, the sentence quoted above: carpet cannot be deemed substantially and irreparably damaged at all if it was not replaced with new carpet within the ten years before the lease ended or the tenant surrendered, so on older carpet the replacement door is closed however bad it looks. Portion claims are not an inference from silence: both (11)(a) and (11)(b) say expressly that nothing in them precludes retaining for replacement of carpet, or of paint, in a portion of the unit, with the same elements: substantial and irreparable damage to that portion of the carpet, or substantial damage to that portion of the paint, in each case exceeding normal wear and tear and not predating the tenancy. What that means for carpet more than ten years old is our reading, set out above under what if the carpet is more than 10 years old.

One scope line to know: under § 38-12-103(12), neither these carpet-and-paint limits nor the walk-through below applies to a mobile home in a mobile home park. The rest of the deposit statute, the wear definition included, still does, and the Colorado tool asks about mobile-home parks for exactly this reason.

A lease clause cannot move this line

The most common way landlords get this wrong is not a bad deduction. It is a lease that promises a mandatory cleaning fee or charges the tenant for ordinary wear, signed by both sides and therefore assumed binding. Colorado voids those terms outright.

A provision, whether oral or written, in or pertaining to a rental agreement, which provision assigns a fee or charge to a tenant for repairs, cleaning, or other necessary work due to normal wear and tear or for any damage or defective condition that preexists the tenancy, is deemed to be against public policy and void. C.R.S. § 38-12-103(7)(a)-(b)

The walk-through that fixes the line before you argue about it

Since 2026 a tenant can request a pre-move-out inspection and the landlord must provide one, at a mutually convenient time, and its purpose is precisely to identify in writing what is beyond normal wear and what did not predate the tenancy. It is worth welcoming rather than resisting: a signed contemporaneous list is far better evidence than a photograph taken after the tenant has gone.

Upon a landlord’s or tenant’s request, if reasonable and practicable, the landlord and tenant shall conduct a walk-through inspection, either in person or via a telecommunication-assisted interactive walk-through, of the dwelling unit to identify in writing any damage or defective conditions that are beyond normal wear and tear and that did not preexist the tenancy. The landlord shall provide a walk-through inspection at a tenant’s request, at a time that is mutually convenient to the parties, before the termination of the lease or the surrender of the premises, and after the tenant has had the opportunity to remove furniture. C.R.S. § 38-12-103(1.5)

Who has to prove it, and the 125% line

Two rules decide most disputes, and both point the same way: keep records. In court the burden is on the landlord, not the tenant, and Colorado fixes a numerical point at which an amount is presumed unreasonable.

An amount retained by a landlord is presumed to unreasonably exceed the amount of actual damages the landlord incurred if the amount retained is one hundred twenty-five percent or greater than the actual damages incurred. Nothing in this subsection (3.5)(b) prevents a court or jury from finding that a lesser amount retained by a landlord unreasonably exceeds the amount of actual damages the landlord incurred. C.R.S. § 38-12-103(3.5)(b)

The tenant can also compel your evidence, and the test is broader than landlords expect. On a written request you must hand over the documentation in your possession or control that is relevant to the retention, which on our reading includes material that does not help your case. Producing only what you chose to rely on under-produces. The statute’s fourteen-day wording is tangled (read literally, it attaches the fourteen days to delivering the statement rather than the documents), so on our reading, and as the safe course, treat fourteen days from the tenant’s written request as your deadline for the documents themselves. Documenting at the time is simply the practical way to have it.

For a termination of a lease or a surrender of the premises on or after January 1, 2026, if a landlord provides a tenant with a written statement pursuant to subsection (1) of this section within fourteen days after a written request by the tenant, the landlord shall provide documentation in the landlord’s possession or control, including photographs, inspection forms or reports, receipts, invoices, or estimates, that is relevant to the retention of the tenant’s security deposit or any portion of the security deposit. C.R.S. § 38-12-103(8)

Work out your Colorado deposit return

The free Colorado deposit tool walks you through the deadline, the four lawful deduction categories, the carpet and paint limits, and generates a statute-cited return letter, all in your browser with nothing stored. If the rental is in Boulder, it also computes the deposit interest the City requires. For how much you may hold in the first place, see the Colorado deposit limits.

Colorado normal wear and tear: common questions

Do the carpet, paint, and walk-through rules apply to a mobile home in a mobile home park?

No. Under § 38-12-103(12), the pre-move-out walk-through (§ 103(1.5)) and the carpet and paint limits (§ 103(11)) do not apply to a rental of a mobile home in a mobile home park. The rest of the deposit statute still does, including the wear definition and the return deadline, and the park lot itself is under a separate one-month cap and trust-account rule (§ 38-12-207). A mobile home on private land is an ordinary rental. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(12))

What counts as normal wear and tear in Colorado?

Colorado defines it by statute: deterioration, damage, or uncleanliness that happens because the unit is used the way it is meant to be used, without negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse. That is not chargeable to the deposit. HB25-1249 broadened the definition in 2026 to spell out that ordinary damage and uncleanliness from typical use are included. (C.R.S. § 38-12-102(4))

Is ordinary dirt normal wear and tear in Colorado?

Yes. The 2026 definition counts uncleanliness from normal use as normal wear and tear, which can never be charged. Uncleanliness falls outside it when it leaves the unit substantially less clean than it was when the lease began, or when it comes from negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse. The statute no longer names cleaning as a reason to keep deposit money, so how a cleaning charge can be made is covered on our Colorado deductions page. (C.R.S. § 38-12-102(4))

Can a Colorado landlord charge for carpet wear and tear after 3 years?

Not for wear and tear, at any age: worn or matted carpet from ordinary use is normal wear and tear. Age matters only for real damage. Carpet not replaced with new carpet within the ten years before the lease ended or the premises were surrendered cannot be treated as substantially and irreparably damaged, but a three-year-old carpet is inside that window, so a replacement charge is possible if the damage is substantial and irreparable, beyond normal wear, and did not predate the tenancy. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11)(a), (c))

Is the Colorado carpet rule 5 years or 10 years?

Ten. The law as passed says carpet not replaced with new carpet "within ten years preceding the termination of the lease or surrender of the premises" cannot be deemed substantially and irreparably damaged. Five years was the figure in HB25-1249 as introduced; it was changed to ten before the bill passed, and the legislature’s summary of the introduced bill still repeats the old figure. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11)(c))

Does a Colorado landlord have to prorate carpet by its age?

The statute sets no depreciation or proration formula. Its only age figure is the ten-year rule. Whether a charge must otherwise be reduced for age is a question the statute does not answer, and we have not researched how courts handle it. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11))

Can a Colorado landlord charge for repainting?

Only if there is substantial paint damage throughout the entire interior, beyond normal wear and tear, that did not predate the tenancy. Routine repainting between tenants is not chargeable. A landlord may still charge for a specific portion that is substantially damaged. There is no paint age rule: the ten-year limit names carpet only. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11)(b))

Can a landlord charge me for small nail holes in Colorado?

Usually not for small ones, on our reading. The statute does not mention nail holes: it lets a landlord keep money only for damage beyond normal wear and tear, meaning a condition from something other than ordinary use. Our own table lists small nail holes as usually normal wear, which is our illustration, not a statute or a court ruling; large holes and gouges are more likely to be damage. (C.R.S. §§ 38-12-102(4), 38-12-103(1)(b))

Can a landlord charge for something that was already there when I moved in?

No. Colorado bars keeping the deposit for any damage or defective condition that preexisted the tenancy, and a lease clause that tries to shift the cost of preexisting or normal-wear work to the tenant is against public policy and void. This is one reason a move-in inspection matters. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(1)(a), (7)(b))

Who decides whether something is wear or damage?

The landlord decides what to claim, the tenant can dispute it, and a court decides any disagreement. In any court action a tenant brings under the deposit statute, the landlord bears the burden of proving both that the withholding was not wrongful and that the landlord complied with the statute. This tool does not classify your situation; it shows you the standard so you can apply it. (C.R.S. § 38-12-103(3))

Sources

• C.R.S. §§ 38-12-102(4), 38-12-103, as amended by HB25-1249 (2026)
• C.R.S. § 38-12-103(11)(a)-(c): the carpet and paint limits
• C.R.S. § 38-12-103(7)(a)-(b): lease terms that are void
• C.R.S. § 38-12-103(1.5): the pre-move-out walk-through
• C.R.S. § 38-12-103(3.5)(b): the 125% presumption
• C.R.S. § 38-12-103(8): documentation on written request
• The Colorado security deposit tool and full cited rules