In Part 1, this series covered why professional property managers install bedroom smoke alarms regardless of legal requirements: insurance carriers expect them, fire safety science proves they work, and the cost-benefit analysis is obvious.
Part 2 addresses the question that actually triggers legal risk for property owners and property managers:
Does Virginia Code § 55.1-1220 require existing rental properties to comply with current building codes, or only the codes that applied when the property was built?
This is the smoke-alarm issue that leads to real disputes because the statute’s wording is not as clean as many owners assume. The problem is not that the law is “unknown.” The problem is that the law is written in a way that invites two reasonable interpretations, and neither side gets certainty until litigation forces a court to pick one.
This article explains why the ambiguity exists, how the arguments usually line up, how courts tend to think about “health and safety” duties in landlord-tenant disputes, and why the conservative professional move is to install bedroom alarms regardless of how the statutory debate lands.
This is Part 2 of a 2-part series:
- Part 1: Why Every Bedroom Needs a Smoke Alarm: The Insurance and Liability Reality
- Part 2: The Legal Gray Area Around § 55.1-1220 (this article)
For a neutral, step-by-step reference on what to install, where to install it, how often to replace it, and how to document annual certification, see the Smoke & CO Alarm Placement Checklist for Virginia Rentals.
Important Notice: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Property owners should consult a Virginia-licensed attorney and local building officials for guidance specific to a particular property.
Table of Contents
The One Sentence That Creates the Entire Problem
Why “Applicable Codes” Is Not Self-Defining
Two Competing Interpretations
Why Both Interpretations Are Legally Defensible
How Virginia Courts Would Likely Analyze the Ambiguity
What a Post-Fire Lawsuit Actually Looks Like
Why the Insurance Reality Often Trumps the Statutory Debate
Why § 15.2-922 Helps Less Than Many Owners Think
The Professional Management Position: Install Them Anyway
Why This Same Ambiguity Shows Up in GFCIs, Handrails, and Other Safety Items
Practical Risk Framework for Property Owners
FAQs
Conclusion and Next Steps
The One Sentence That Creates the Entire Problem
The statutory language at the center of this debate is in Virginia Code § 55.1-1220, which imposes a duty on landlords to maintain fit premises. The line that drives the smoke-alarm uncertainty is the requirement to:
“Comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety…”
Four words create the confusion: “applicable building and housing codes.”
The statute does not define “applicable” in a way that resolves whether the relevant codes are the codes in effect at the time the building was constructed, or the codes currently in force that apply to residential housing.
That single ambiguity is why attorneys can argue both sides in good faith.
Why “Applicable Codes” Is Not Self-Defining
Building codes do not operate like speed limits. They do not automatically update every existing building the moment the codebook changes. Historically, building codes function on a grandfathering framework: new construction and major renovations must meet current standards, while older structures may remain lawful if they were lawful when built.
Landlord-tenant law, however, adds a different layer: an ongoing duty to maintain habitability and safety for occupants who did not choose the building’s original design.
That creates a collision between two real concepts:
Building code reality: older buildings are often legally “grandfathered.”
Landlord-tenant reality: landlords have ongoing obligations, especially for life-safety issues.
Smoke alarms sit directly in the overlap of those two worlds, which is why § 55.1-1220’s wording matters.
Two Competing Interpretations
Interpretation 1: Codes Applicable When Built (Landlord-Friendly)
Core argument: “Applicable codes” means the codes that were in effect and applicable to the property when it was constructed or last substantially renovated.
Common support for this view includes:
Virginia policy recognizes grandfathering and limits forced retrofits in many contexts.
§ 15.2-922 restricts localities from requiring retrofits to current building code standards for existing buildings except in narrow circumstances.
The word “applicable” can be read as contextual: codes apply based on building age, permitted work, and whether the code was in effect when the building was erected.
A broad reading that forces full retrofits whenever codes change would make older housing stock economically difficult to maintain.
Under this interpretation, a 1985 rental with hallway and level smoke alarms that matched standards when built could be argued compliant with § 55.1-1220, even if modern standards would place alarms inside bedrooms.
Interpretation 2: Current Codes That Apply to Rentals (Safety-First)
Core argument: “Applicable codes” means the current building and housing codes that apply to residential rental property and materially affect health and safety, regardless of when the building was constructed.
Common support for this view includes:
§ 55.1-1220 uses present-tense language about an ongoing duty: “The landlord shall comply,” not “shall have complied at construction.”
The statute narrows the duty to codes “materially affecting health and safety,” which highlights life-safety items like smoke alarms rather than cosmetic code changes.
Courts evaluating landlord obligations often focus on reasonableness and occupant safety, not purely historical compliance.
Another subsection, § 55.1-1220(C), emphasizes that, where required by law or regulation, codes must be applied to rental housing regardless of whether the rental agreement mentions them, and that the obligation to comply is greater in that scenario.
Under this interpretation, if modern code standards are the relevant benchmark for smoke alarm placement as a health-and-safety item, then older properties could be argued to have an ongoing duty to meet that standard for rental use.
Why Both Interpretations Are Legally Defensible
This is what makes the issue uncomfortable: both interpretations can be argued in court without anyone being dishonest.
The ambiguity persists because:
Neither interpretation is facially absurd.
Both can be harmonized with other parts of Virginia law depending on how a court frames the relationship between building code grandfathering and rental habitability duties.
There is not a simple, universally cited Virginia appellate opinion that definitively resolves “applicable codes” for smoke alarm placement in older single-family rentals.
That is why the risk exists. The statute does not give certainty. Litigation creates certainty, and litigation is the outcome no property owner should be relying on for safety planning.
How Courts Would Likely Analyze the Ambiguity
When courts face ambiguous statutory language, they typically rely on established tools rather than gut instinct.
A. Legislative intent
Courts ask what the General Assembly intended the statute to accomplish. With landlord-tenant provisions, courts generally take health-and-safety duties seriously.
B. The statutory context
Courts look at how the statute fits within the surrounding legal framework.
Two provisions pull in different directions:
§ 15.2-922 reflects a policy limit on local retrofitting mandates through local ordinances.
§ 55.1-1220 reflects an ongoing landlord duty tied to health and safety.
The question becomes whether those can be read together without one swallowing the other.
C. Public policy and reasonableness
Courts consider the practical consequences.
A rule requiring every older property to meet every new code provision immediately would be extreme. A rule requiring reasonable life-safety upgrades that materially affect health and safety is far more plausible.
That is why the phrase “materially affecting health and safety” matters. It provides a limiting principle that could allow courts to distinguish between:
Life-safety items (smoke alarms, GFCIs, handrails)
Convenience or cosmetic items (outlet spacing, energy efficiency standards, cabinet clearances)
D. Landlord-tenant ambiguity is often resolved with safety in mind
In disputes involving habitability and occupant injury, courts commonly interpret duties in a way that favors safety and reasonableness over technical loopholes.
What a Post-Fire Lawsuit Actually Looks Like
The scenario that drives real exposure is not a routine inspection. It is an injury case.
The setup
A landlord owns a well-maintained 1985 house used as a rental. It has hallway smoke alarms and level coverage, consistent with older layouts. It does not have smoke alarms inside bedrooms.
A residential fire occurs. One occupant is injured due to delayed warning. The facts show the hallway alarm activated, but the sleeping occupant behind a closed door did not wake in time.
The injured party’s counsel will argue
§ 55.1-1220 requires compliance with “applicable” codes materially affecting health and safety.
Modern standards exist for a reason, and smoke alarms are the textbook example of life-safety equipment.
The missing bedroom alarm was a low-cost, foreseeable safety measure.
A reasonable professional property manager in 2025 installs bedroom smoke alarms.
The failure was preventable negligence.
The defense counsel will argue
The property was lawful when built and remained lawful absent renovations triggering upgrades.
Virginia law reflects grandfathering policy, and § 15.2-922 limits retrofit requirements.
The property passed local inspection standards and met all required maintenance duties.
Requiring retrofits for every code change is economically unreasonable.
Why the injured party often has the momentum
In the courtroom, abstract legal arguments collide with concrete facts:
An injury occurred.
A low-cost device could have changed the timeline.
Expert testimony will describe modern fire science and industry expectations.
A jury will evaluate “reasonableness” through that lens.
Even if the defense ultimately prevails on a narrow statutory theory, the defense costs are typically enormous. For property owners, that matters because legal defense is part of the total risk, not an afterthought.
Why the Insurance Reality Often Trumps the Statutory Debate
Property owners often debate statutes while missing the operational reality:
Insurance claims are not resolved by statutory interpretation alone.
After a serious fire, claims adjusters and carrier counsel focus on:
Whether the property met industry standards
Whether reasonable precautions were taken
Whether the property was managed in a manner consistent with professionally managed comparables
Whether omissions created avoidable risk
A carrier may cover the property loss but raise hard questions about injury exposure, subrogation, or whether the insured failed to take reasonable precautions. This is not a criminal issue. It is a coverage and liability issue.
The practical problem is that carriers and third-party inspection vendors often treat modern placement standards as the baseline for defensibility.
In that environment, “but the building was grandfathered” is not always the argument that ends the conversation.
Why § 15.2-922 Helps Less Than Many Owners Think
Many owners cite § 15.2-922 as total protection against retrofits. It is not.
That statute limits local government authority to impose retrofits by local ordinance, with narrow exceptions.
It may help explain why a locality cannot simply fail every older rental at inspection for missing modern smoke-alarm placement.
It does not automatically resolve:
State statutory duties under § 55.1-1220
Negligence standards in injury lawsuits
Insurance carrier expectations
Industry standards that define “reasonable precautions”
Habitability arguments tied to occupant safety
In short: § 15.2-922 can reduce local enforcement pressure, but it does not erase liability exposure after an injury.
The Professional Management Position: Install Them Anyway
Professional property management exists to prevent owners from learning hard lessons at the worst possible time.
At PMI James River, the position is simple: the debate is not worth the downside. Bedroom alarms get installed.
Why the conservative approach wins
The downside of being wrong is catastrophic.
The cost of being “extra safe” is trivial compared to even a single contested injury claim.
Industry expectations and modern fire science point in the same direction.
If an owner wants a manager who cuts corners to save a small amount of money, that is a mismatch in standards.
This is not about chasing the strictest interpretation of the codebook. It is about managing foreseeable risk in a way that can be defended.
Why This Same Ambiguity Shows Up in GFCIs, Handrails, and Other Safety Items
The “applicable codes” question is not unique to smoke alarms.
Consider two common examples.
GFCI outlets
Older homes may not have GFCI protection in all areas where modern codes require it. Electrical shock is plainly a health-and-safety issue. Many professional managers treat GFCIs in high-risk locations as a baseline, regardless of a property’s age.
Handrails
Older stairs may be missing handrails or have handrails that do not match modern standards. Falls create injury exposure. Professional managers regularly upgrade handrails as a safety control, not as a purely legal checkbox.
The pattern is consistent: when an item materially affects health and safety, and the upgrade is reasonable, professional practice tends to move ahead of legal ambiguity.
Practical Risk Framework for Property Owners
This is the framework PMI James River uses internally when advising owners on safety upgrades in older housing.
Life-safety items: treat modern standards as the baseline
When a measure:
materially affects health and safety, and
is low cost relative to the risk avoided, and
reflects modern safety knowledge and industry expectations,
professional practice treats that measure as non-negotiable.
Smoke alarms and CO alarms fall squarely into this category.
Cosmetic or convenience code changes: do not assume retrofit duties
Many code changes are not life safety. Courts are far more likely to limit any “current code” reading to the health-and-safety domain because the statute itself uses that limiting phrase.
This distinction is what prevents the nightmare scenario where every older home must meet every new code revision immediately.
FAQs
Has a Virginia appellate court definitively ruled on whether § 55.1-1220 requires bedroom smoke alarms in older rentals?
There is not a simple, universally cited appellate decision that cleanly resolves this question for all older single-family rentals. That is why this remains a gray area that attorneys can argue both ways.
Does legal ambiguity protect a landlord from liability?
No. Ambiguity creates risk. In injury cases, courts and juries often decide based on reasonableness, safety expectations, industry standards, and foreseeable harm.
Does § 15.2-922 eliminate the need to upgrade smoke alarms?
It limits local retrofit mandates through local ordinances. It does not necessarily eliminate state-law duties, negligence exposure, insurance standards, or habitability arguments.
If local inspectors do not cite bedroom alarms, does that mean the risk is solved?
No. Local inspections typically focus on enforceable minimums. Injury litigation and insurance scrutiny focus on reasonableness and industry standards after the fact.
What is the conservative “no regrets” move for smoke alarms?
Installing smoke alarms inside bedrooms, outside sleeping areas, and on every level, with documented testing, replacement schedules, and annual certification records.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Virginia Code § 55.1-1220 uses language that invites two plausible interpretations of “applicable codes.” That ambiguity is why this issue keeps resurfacing in property management circles.
But the practical outcome is straightforward:
Injury cases are evaluated with hindsight.
“Health and safety” duties are treated seriously.
Industry standards and modern fire science heavily influence what looks reasonable.
The cost of bedroom alarms is small compared to the downside of defending an avoidable omission.
PMI James River manages to the professional standard, not the bare minimum. Bedroom smoke alarms are installed as a baseline safety measure because it is defensible, evidence-based, and aligned with how risk is actually judged.
Property owners who want a documented alarm compliance approach that is defensible in the real world can request a Smoke and CO Alarm Audit through PMI James River. The audit includes a placement review, replacement timeline planning, and documentation standards designed for insurance and liability defensibility.
Continue reading:
Disclaimer
This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Virginia landlord-tenant law, building codes, and local regulations are complex and subject to change. Property owners should consult a Virginia-licensed attorney and local building officials for guidance specific to a particular property, and should seek independent insurance guidance regarding coverage requirements. PMI James River is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
