Waste and Breach
Statutory anchor:
- UD “waste / sublet / unlawful purpose” is in CCP § 1161(4).
- Many non-rent covenant breaches are typically litigated under CCP § 1161(3) (Perform Covenants or Quit); I flag the most common “hook” for each entry.
| # | Category | Act / condition (non-rent covenant breach or waste theory) | UD Hook | Case (linked) | Status / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep and maintain the interior of an apartment house in “good order.” | § 1161(3) | Hosea v. Brather, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Lease-maintenance covenants litigated in UD. |
| 2 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep and maintain the interior in “good repair.” | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Lease-maintenance covenant discussed as UD predicate. |
| 3 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep and maintain the interior in “good condition.” | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Lease-maintenance covenant discussed as UD predicate. |
| 4 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to flush the plumbing connection with the sewer at least every 10 days (lease-required). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Specific maintenance covenant discussed as UD basis. |
| 5 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to repair damaged furniture (lease-required). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Furniture covenants litigated in UD. |
| 6 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to repair broken furniture (lease-required). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Furniture covenants litigated in UD. |
| 7 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to replace worn-out furniture (lease-required). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Replacement obligation discussed in UD posture. |
| 8 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to replace worn-out furnishings (lease-required). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Replacement obligation discussed in UD posture. |
| 9 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to replace broken furniture (after notice/demand). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Replacement covenant litigated in UD posture. |
| 10 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to cure lease-maintenance breaches after a written demand specifying required actions. | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Notice/cure mechanics and forfeiture posture discussed. |
| 11 | Failure to maintain / repair | Allowing premises to be condemned as unsanitary/unfit for habitation during the tenancy (fact pattern tied to covenant breaches). | § 1161(3) | Hosea, 71 Cal.App.2d 826 (1945) | Used as part of covenant-breach narrative in UD. |
| 12 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to water all trees on the premises (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco v. Farullo, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Opinion describes these as lease-covenant failures alleged as UD predicates. |
| 13 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to take the best care of trees (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Covenant breach described in the UD pleadings discussed by the court. |
| 14 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to cultivate space between trees (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Premises-care covenant alleged in UD. |
| 15 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to cultivate other ground where no trees were planted (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Premises-care covenant alleged in UD. |
| 16 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to furnish vegetables/produce sufficient for family use (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Performance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 17 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to furnish produce “to the plaintiff’s satisfaction” (as framed in the lease covenant alleged). | § 1161(3) / § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Performance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 18 | Construction covenant | Failing to furnish all labor required to build a house (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Construction/performance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 19 | Construction covenant | Failing to furnish materials needed for house construction (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Construction/performance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 20 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep the pump in repair/good shape (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Equipment-maintenance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 21 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep the engine in repair/good shape (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Equipment-maintenance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 22 | Failure to maintain / repair | Failing to keep fences in repair/good shape (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Premises-maintenance covenant alleged in UD. |
| 23 | Construction / improvements | Failing to construct roads required by the lease. | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Improvement covenant alleged in UD. |
| 24 | Construction / improvements | Failing to construct paths required by the lease. | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Improvement covenant alleged in UD. |
| 25 | Premises use restriction | Failing to keep stock at the required distance from the house (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Use-restriction covenant alleged in UD. |
| 26 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to properly cultivate the premises (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Premises-care covenant alleged in UD. |
| 27 | Premises care (ag/land lease) | Failing to properly care for the premises (lease covenant). | § 1161(3) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Premises-care covenant alleged in UD. |
| 28 | Waste / deterioration | Committing waste on the premises (as pleaded alongside covenant failures). | § 1161(4) | Zucco, 37 Cal.App. 562 (1918) | Opinion discusses waste theory in UD context; consult the full opinion for how the court disposes of the claim. |
| 29 | Prohibited alterations | Making alterations to leased premises in violation of the lease’s alteration restriction (as litigated in UD). | § 1161(3) | Richard v. Degen & Brody, Inc., 181 Cal.App.2d 289 (1960) | UD appeal addressed alteration covenant issues. |
| 30 | Waste / property damage | Making alterations that inflicted damage to the premises (damage tied to alteration activity in UD posture). | § 1161(4) (waste) / § 1161(3) | Richard, 181 Cal.App.2d 289 (1960) | Opinion discusses “alterations which inflicted damage” in the UD dispute. |
| 31 | Prohibited alterations | Failing to comply with lease requirement of consent before making alterations (alteration restriction treated as enforceable covenant in UD). | § 1161(3) | Richard, 181 Cal.App.2d 289 (1960) | Treated as a non-rent covenant relevant to UD. |
| 32 | Unauthorized subletting | Subleasing without the landlord’s consent (lease prohibits subletting; litigated in UD posture). | § 1161(4) (sublet) / § 1161(3) | Richard, 181 Cal.App.2d 289 (1960) | Opinion discusses subleasing-without-consent in UD. |
| 33 | Unauthorized subletting | Continuing in possession after service of a notice addressing the unauthorized sublease (notice/cure mechanics discussed in UD appeal). | § 1161(4) / § 1161(3) | Richard, 181 Cal.App.2d 289 (1960) | See opinion for the notice issue framing; useful for briefing “curable vs incurable” breach arguments. |
| 34 | Unauthorized occupancy | Permitting an unauthorized adult occupant to reside in the unit in violation of the lease (UD tried on that theory). | § 1161(3) | Wong v. Markarian (App. Div. L.A. Super. Ct. 2022) (JAD22-06) | Appellate Division opinion focuses on whether lease was violated by unauthorized adult occupant. |
| 35 | Unauthorized occupancy | Failing to remove the unauthorized occupant after a notice to perform covenants or quit (as the continuing default). | § 1161(3) | Wong v. Markarian (JAD22-06) | Typical “perform covenant or quit” framing in unauthorized-occupant UD cases. |
| 36 | Prohibited commercial use | Using premises for a purpose other than the permitted “apartment house business” (use-restriction breach litigated in UD). | § 1161(3) | Hignell v. Gebala, 90 Cal.App.2d 61 (1949) | Use-restriction covenant litigated as UD predicate. |
| 37 | Prohibited commercial use | Operating a real estate business on the premises (business-use violation in UD posture). | § 1161(3) | Hignell, 90 Cal.App.2d 61 (1949) | Opinion addresses whether the described business activity violated lease terms. |
| 38 | Prohibited commercial use | Allowing the premises to be used as a real estate office (use restriction applied to the business operation described in the opinion). | § 1161(3) | Hignell, 90 Cal.App.2d 61 (1949) | Use-restriction application in UD context. |
| 39 | Unlawful business use | Selling marijuana without a license from leased commercial premises (illegal-use / breach theory litigated in UD). | § 1161(3) (lease breach) / sometimes framed as “unlawful use” | Lee v. Kotyluk, G058631 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2021) | Court of Appeal decision discusses UD based on covenant breach tied to unlicensed marijuana sales. |
| 40 | Unlawful business use | Continuing the unlicensed sales activity after service of a notice to perform/quit (i.e., failing to cure the illegal-use breach within the notice period). | § 1161(3) | Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) | See opinion for the cure/notice posture and what the notice demanded. |
| 41 | Use restriction (no camping) | Permitting camping on the premises where the contract prohibited “camping” (treated as a breach in UD posture). | § 1161(3) | Salton Community Services Dist. v. Southard, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | UD action based on “no camping / no trailers” covenants and enforcement duties. |
| 42 | Use restriction (no camping) | Permitting camping by members of the public on the premises (as described in the opinion’s covenant-breach allegations). | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Useful for drafting “specific facts” and repeated-violation narratives. |
| 43 | Use restriction (no camping) | Permitting intermittent camping over time despite demands to stop (continuing default framing). | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Illustrates repeated/ongoing covenant breach allegations in UD context. |
| 44 | Use restriction (no trailers) | Permitting house trailers on the premises where expressly prohibited. | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Non-rent covenant breach used as UD predicate. |
| 45 | Use restriction (no camping) | Permitting sleeping in pickup-bed “campers” (explicitly treated as “camping” under the contract language described in the opinion). | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Good example of defining the prohibited conduct in the agreement/notice. |
| 46 | Enforcement covenant | Failing to enforce the no-camping / no-trailer restriction where the contract placed that “duty and responsibility” on the tenant/party in possession. | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Illustrates “duty to prevent” covenants (third-party conduct) in UD posture. |
| 47 | Material breach clause | “Sufferance or permission” of camping treated as a substantial and total breach under the contract’s breach clause described in the opinion. | § 1161(3) | Salton, 256 Cal.App.2d 526 (1967) | Useful for drafting “material breach” language and briefing materiality. |
| 48 | House rule / prohibited activity | Performing automobile repairs on the premises where prohibited by the rental agreement (treated as covenant violation in UD posture). | § 1161(3) | Savett v. Davis, 29 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13 (1994) | Appellate Division decision in UD context; good “perform covenant or quit” example. |
| 49 | House rule / prohibited activity | Continuing prohibited vehicle-repair activity after notice to perform covenants or quit (continued default framing). | § 1161(3) | Savett v. Davis, 29 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13 (1994) | Use the opinion for notice specificity and cure framing. |
| 50 | Waste (standard of proof) | Damaging the premises in a way that (to qualify as “waste” for UD) must be shown to injuriously affect market value (standard discussed in UD “waste” case). | § 1161(4) (waste) | Freeze v. Brinson, 3 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1991) | Case is frequently cited for the evidentiary burden in UD “waste” claims; consult for proof requirements. |
| 51 | Waste / unsanitary conditions | Allowing animal droppings to accumulate on a bedroom floor (unsanitary condition used in the “waste” discussion). | § 1161(4) (waste) | Freeze, 3 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1991) | Opinion discusses these facts in evaluating whether conduct met UD “waste” standard. |
| 52 | Waste / property damage | Urine staining on walls (lower portions) as a form of damage/unsanitary condition considered under “waste” analysis. | § 1161(4) (waste) | Freeze, 3 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1991) | Discussed as part of the waste/damage record. |
| 53 | Waste / property damage | Pet urine damaging/staining a wood floor (replacement/repair evidence discussed under waste standard). | § 1161(4) (waste) | Freeze, 3 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1991) | Discussed in evaluating whether the landlord proved “waste” sufficient for UD forfeiture. |
| 54 | Waste / property damage | Urine-related staining/damage to walls/plaster (repair-cost testimony discussed in waste analysis). | § 1161(4) (waste) | Freeze, 3 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1991) | Useful for “waste” proof discussion (market value vs repair costs). |
| 55 | Waste (claim rejected) | Alleged “waste” based on conduct that did not amount to legally sufficient waste for UD (illustrates what is not enough). | § 1161(4) (waste) | Rowe v. Wells Fargo Realty Services, Inc., 166 Cal.App.3d 310 (1985) | Published UD decision addressing “waste” and evidentiary sufficiency; helpful for defense/standard-of-proof briefing. |
| 56 | Unlawful purpose (non-nuisance) | Using premises in a way alleged to violate a government regulation (thermostat/temperature control theory litigated as “unlawful purpose” in UD). | § 1161(4) (unlawful purpose) | Rowe, 166 Cal.App.3d 310 (1985) | Not nuisance; included because it’s an alternative § 1161(4) pathway sometimes pled with waste. |
| 57 | Waste (diversion of resources) | Alleged waste by unlawfully diverting water developed on the leased premises and using/selling it for other lands. | § 1161(4) (waste) | Horton-Howard v. Payton, 44 Cal.App. 108 (1919) | UD brought under § 1161(3) & (4); opinion focuses on demand/notice requirements (procedural). Use for notice drafting. |
| 58 | Covenant breach (ag use) | Breaching a covenant to plant all land to a specified crop (planting corn instead of beets on part of the leased land). | § 1161(3) | Horton-Howard, 44 Cal.App. 108 (1919) | Illustrates “covenant incapable of later performance” and the necessity of a clear demand for possession. |
| 59 | Insurance covenant (materiality) | Failure to obtain renter’s insurance (non-rent covenant litigated in UD; courts analyze whether breach is “material” enough for forfeiture). | § 1161(3) | Boston LLC v. Juarez, 245 Cal.App.4th 75 (2016) | Published UD materiality analysis for non-rent covenants; useful when drafting notices/complaints. |
| 60 | Insurance covenant (rent control) | Attempting to treat failure to maintain renter’s insurance as an evictable breach under a unilaterally changed term (materiality/validity analyzed in UD context). | § 1161(3) | NIVO 1 LLC v. Antunez, 217 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (2013) | Published Appellate Division UD decision; useful for “unilateral change of terms” and materiality arguments. |