Does an El Segundo Landlord Have to Rekey the Locks Between Tenants?

Published August 10, 2026

No California statute requires a landlord to rekey a unit's locks between tenants. Civil Code section 1941.3 requires operable dead bolt and window locks, not a rekey at turnover. General duty of care principles are still a reason most landlords rekey anyway.

The short answer

No California statute requires a landlord to rekey a unit's locks between tenants. Civil Code section 1941.3 requires operable dead bolt locks and window security devices, but its text does not mention rekeying at turnover at all. The honest answer for an El Segundo landlord is that this is a practice, not a legal mandate, though general duty of care principles are a real reason to do it anyway.

Last verified: August 10, 2026

What Civil Code section 1941.3 actually requires

Section 1941.3 is the security device statute landlords reach for when this question comes up, and it is worth reading closely because it requires something narrower than what people often assume.

Dead bolt locks. A landlord must install and maintain an operable dead bolt lock on each main swinging entry door of a dwelling unit. The statute specifies the bolt must extend a minimum of 13/16 of an inch beyond the strike edge.

Window locks. A landlord must install and maintain operable window security or locking devices on windows designed to be opened, with limited exceptions for louvered windows and windows above certain height and width thresholds.

Common area doors. In multifamily buildings, common area doors that provide access to a dwelling unit need locking mechanisms that comply with applicable fire and safety codes.

Effective date. These requirements took effect July 1, 1998.

Quick reference

| Question | What section 1941.3 says |

|---|---|

| Must a landlord install an operable dead bolt on the main entry door? | Yes |

| Must a landlord install operable window locks on openable windows? | Yes, with limited exceptions |

| Must a landlord maintain those devices in working order? | Yes |

| Must a landlord rekey or change locks when a tenant moves out? | Not addressed. No requirement in the statute's text. |

| Does the statute mention prior tenants or key control? | No |

The honest negative

Read section 1941.3 end to end and there is no clause requiring a rekey at turnover. The statute is about the physical hardware being present and functional, a dead bolt of a specified minimum throw and window locks that work, not about who holds a key at any given moment. A landlord who never rekeys between tenants is not violating this statute by that fact alone, as long as the required locks are installed and operating.

That is a genuinely different question from whether skipping a rekey is a good idea, which is the next section.

Why duty of care still points toward rekeying anyway

A landlord's general duty of care to a tenant, the same negligence principles that apply to any landlord obligation to keep a property reasonably safe, is a separate legal track from section 1941.3's hardware requirements. If a former occupant, a prior tenant, a contractor, or anyone else who once had a key uses it to enter a unit after a new tenant has moved in, a landlord who knew keys were outstanding and did nothing faces real exposure under ordinary negligence principles, independent of whether any specific statute required a rekey.

This is a foreseeability question, not a checklist item. A landlord who has handed out five sets of keys over several past tenancies, never collected all of them back, and never changed the locks has a harder time arguing that a break in by someone with a working key was unforeseeable. That exposure exists whether or not section 1941.3 required the rekey, because the statute and general duty of care are two different legal questions with two different answers here.

What this means for a practical policy

Because no statute forces the rekey, the decision is a risk and cost judgment call, not a compliance question. Considerations that push toward rekeying every turnover:

• You cannot confirm every key and fob issued to a departing tenant, guests, or a roommate was returned
• The unit had a prior forced entry, lockout service call, or lost key report during the last tenancy
• The cost of a rekey by a locksmith is small relative to the exposure of a former keyholder entering an occupied unit

Considerations some landlords weigh the other way, though they do not eliminate the underlying exposure:

• A confirmed, complete key return with no history of lost keys or additional copies made
• Smart locks or keypad entry already in place, where the access code itself is changed rather than physical hardware rekeyed

FAQ

Is there a California law requiring landlords to rekey between tenants?

No. No statute, including Civil Code section 1941.3, requires a rekey at tenant turnover. Section 1941.3 requires operable dead bolt and window locks, not a rekey schedule.

What does Civil Code section 1941.3 actually require?

An operable dead bolt lock on each main swinging entry door, with a bolt throw of at least 13/16 of an inch, and operable window security devices on windows designed to open, effective since July 1, 1998.

If there is no rekey law, why do most property managers rekey anyway?

Because a landlord's general duty of care to keep the property reasonably safe is a separate legal question from section 1941.3's hardware rules. A former keyholder entering a unit after turnover can expose a landlord to negligence claims regardless of what the security device statute required.

Does changing a keypad or smart lock code count as rekeying?

Functionally it addresses the same access control concern. Section 1941.3 does not distinguish between mechanical and electronic locks, and it does not require either to be reset at turnover. The duty of care reasoning applies the same way to a code as to a physical key.

Could El Segundo have its own local rule on this?

Possibly, through a municipal ordinance rather than the state Civil Code. Check directly with the City of El Segundo, since this article covers the state statute only.

Is a landlord automatically liable if a former tenant breaks in using an old key?

Not automatically. Liability under general duty of care principles depends on foreseeability and what the landlord knew or should have known about outstanding keys, which is a fact specific question for a licensed attorney, not a fixed rule.

This is general information, not legal advice. Confirm your security device compliance and turnover policy with a licensed attorney and against the current statute at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Topics: compliance, landlord law, security, South Bay, El Segundo

Get a free management quote

Back to the Schofield Properties blog

Schofield Properties is a family run property management company at 323 Richmond St, El Segundo, CA 90245. We have managed the South Bay since 1972 and personally oversee about 186 doors today. Book a call to talk about your property.