What Binds You

Utah and the Wasatch Front: What State and Local Law Says About Pests in Rentals

Written for: Utah owners and managers of market-rate and assisted apartments; Utah compliance officers, attorneys and residents

For a market-rate apartment in Utah with no federal funding, the pest-specific law is thin. The state statute that governs habitability does not mention pests at all. The specific duties come from Salt Lake City’s code and from county health department housing regulations, and they cover only part of the Wasatch Front. This page sets out what each says, and what has not been found.

The Utah Fit Premises Act (Utah Code 57-22)

It never uses the word “pest.” The current text of the whole chapter was searched for pest, insect, rodent, vermin, bed bug, infest, roach, mice, rat and exterminat; none appears. A pest condition reaches the Act, if at all, through its general habitability language:

(1) Each owner and the owner’s agent renting or leasing a residential rental unit shall maintain that unit in a condition fit for human habitation and in accordance with local ordinances and the rules of the board of health having jurisdiction in the area in which the residential rental unit is located. — Utah Code 57-22-3(1)

(1) To protect the physical health and safety of the ordinary renter, an owner: (a) may not rent the premises unless they are safe, sanitary, and fit for human occupancy; and (b) shall: (i) maintain common areas of the residential rental unit in a sanitary and safe condition; — Utah Code 57-22-4(1)

Section 57-22-3(1) is the link to local rules: an owner’s duty under the Act includes “the rules of the board of health having jurisdiction.” That is how the county health department regulations below become part of a Utah owner’s statutory duty.

The Act has an express floor:

(3) This chapter does not apply to breakage, malfunctions, or other conditions which do not materially affect the physical health or safety of the ordinary renter. — Utah Code 57-22-3(3)

And it lets parties reassign duties in writing:

(4) Any duty in this act may be allocated to a different party by explicit written agreement signed by the parties. — Utah Code 57-22-3(4)

The three-day corrective period is a remedy trigger, not an eradication deadline

(a) “Corrective period” means: (i) for a standard of habitability, three calendar days; and (ii) for a requirement imposed by a rental agreement, 10 calendar days. — Utah Code 57-22-6(1)(a)

The corrective period runs from a renter’s written notice of a deficient condition, and it decides when the renter’s statutory remedies (rent abatement or repair and deduct) become available. The notice must state the remedy the renter has chosen:

(iii) state the renter remedy that the renter has chosen if the owner does not, within the corrective period, take substantial action toward correcting each deficient condition; — Utah Code 57-22-6(2)(b)(iii)

The test is “substantial action toward correcting,” not eradication within three days. A “deficient condition” also excludes conditions the renter caused:

(b) “Deficient condition” means a condition of a residential rental unit that: (i) violates a standard of habitability or a requirement of the rental agreement; and (ii) is not caused by: (A) the renter, the renter’s family, or the renter’s guest or invitee; and (B) a use that would violate: (I) the rental agreement; or (II) a law applicable to the renter’s use of the residential rental unit. — Utah Code 57-22-6(1)(b)

Cities and counties may not adopt rules inconsistent with the Act, and their enforcement may not change the corrective period (Utah Code 57-22-7).

Salt Lake City: the strongest local pest clause

Salt Lake City’s Fit Premises ordinance names pests directly:

S. Once proof of pest infestation has been established, be responsible for initiation of pest control measures. In no instance shall a property owner be required to apply pesticides contrary to label directions; — Salt Lake City Code 18.96.050(S)

Two related provisions in the same chapter:

C. A property owner may allocate any duties to the tenant by explicit written agreement. Such agreement must be clear and specific, boxed, in bold type or underlined. — Salt Lake City Code 18.96.040(C)

G. Promptly inform the property owner of any defective conditions or problems at the premises; — Salt Lake City Code 18.96.060(G) (tenant duties)

The city’s existing-housing standards point to the county health rules:

C. There shall be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the Salt Lake County health department regulations. — Salt Lake City Code 18.50.170(C)

Salt Lake County Health Department: Housing Regulation #3

The county’s housing regulation (adopted June 4, 1981, as amended January 4, 2007) applies to existing dwellings in its jurisdiction. It defines vermin broadly:

2.34. “Vermin” shall mean rats, mice, cockroaches, bedbugs, mosquitoes or any other pest as determined by the Director to be harmful to the life, health, or welfare of the public. — SLCo Health Reg. #3, § 2.34

It puts pest control on the owner or manager:

4.1.6. Pest Control. An owner or manager of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall be responsible for the control of vermin on the premises. — SLCo Health Reg. #3, § 4.1.6

4.1.7. Prevention of Pests. The owner or manager, of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall not accumulate garbage, refuse, or any materials that may serve as food or harborage for vermin. — SLCo Health Reg. #3, § 4.1.7

4.4.8. Rodentproofing . Every dwelling, and dwelling unit, shall be maintained rodentproof. — SLCo Health Reg. #3, § 4.4.8

And it limits shifting that duty by contract:

3.6. Verbal or contractual obligations shall not diminish or remove the owner’s or other responsible person’s obligation to comply with this regulation. — SLCo Health Reg. #3, § 3.6

Weber-Morgan Health Department: who exterminates

Weber and Morgan counties draw an explicit line between owner and occupant, require a professional when the owner’s own efforts fail, and put extermination back on the owner when the building was not kept vermin-proof:

4.1.8 Pest Control. An owner or manager of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall be responsible for the control of vermin on the premises under the following circumstances. If owner or manager control methods are unsuccessful, a professional pest control company shall be used. 4.1.8.1 Whenever infestation exists in two or more of the dwelling units in any dwelling, or in the shared or public parts of any dwelling containing two or more dwelling units, extermination thereof shall be the responsibility or the owner or manager. 4.1.8.2 Every occupant of a dwelling unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever his dwelling unit is the only one infested. 4.1.8.3 Notwithstanding, the foregoing provisions of this subsection, whenever infestation is caused by failure of the owner to maintain a dwelling in a vermin proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the owner. — Weber-Morgan Housing Sanitation and Occupancy Reg., § 4.1.8

4.3.8 Rodent proofing. Every dwelling, and dwelling unit, shall be maintained rodent proof. — Weber-Morgan Housing Sanitation and Occupancy Reg., § 4.3.8

The single-unit rule in 4.1.8.2 is subject to 4.1.8.3, and it is a county health rule. It does not override a lease, a HUD program requirement, or (on a HUD Model Lease property) HUD’s 2019 position on cost-shifting; see HUD multifamily bed bug rules.

Other Wasatch Front jurisdictions

Provo, West Valley City, Ogden and Utah County were checked. The Utah County Health Department’s regulation index has no housing or pest regulation. The Provo, West Valley City and Ogden code texts could not be retrieved from a primary source when this page was verified, so nothing is stated about them here. They are on the open items list.

Utah courts

No Utah appellate decision addressing bed bugs, cockroaches, rodents, or another pest infestation as a residential habitability issue was found. The Utah Courts appellate opinion search and CourtListener were searched on October 13, 2026 for bed bug, cockroach, rodent, mice, rats, vermin, infestation, pest, exterminator and habitability terms, alone and combined with landlord and tenant terms. The hits were idioms, criminal and family cases, a commercial lease, and passing mentions.

The controlling Utah authority is general. The Utah Supreme Court recognized the implied warranty of habitability in residential leases:

we reject the rule of caveat emptor and recognize the common law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. — Wade v. Jobe, 818 P.2d 1006 (Utah 1991)

The determination of whether a dwelling is habitable depends on the individual facts of each case. — Wade v. Jobe, 818 P.2d 1006 (Utah 1991)

the landlord must have a reasonable time to repair material defects before a breach can be established. — Wade v. Jobe, 818 P.2d 1006 (Utah 1991)

The facts in Wade were sewage and a lack of hot water, not pests.

In Myrah v. Campbell, the tenants alleged that the house was infested with cockroaches and spiders, among other defects. The case turned on notice, not on the pests:

It is undisputed that Tenants did not follow these statutory procedures when they sent informal emails to Landlord and telephoned Landlord and Landlord’s son regarding the perceived problems. — Myrah v. Campbell, 2007 UT App 168

Myrah applied the 1990 version of the Act. Cite it for the principle that the Act’s written-notice steps govern its remedies, not as a ruling on pests.

Reading the Utah layer together

Professional synthesis, not law

• In Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, pest control is the owner’s job once infestation is shown, and the county rule says a contract does not shift it away. In Weber and Morgan counties the owner handles multi-unit and common-area infestations and the occupant handles a single-unit one, unless the infestation comes from the owner’s failure to keep the building vermin-proof; a professional is required if the owner’s own methods fail.
• Because the Fit Premises Act runs on written notice and a corrective period, the dated record of when the owner learned of a problem and what was done in the following days is the record that matters in Utah, whether or not a court ever sees it.
• Salt Lake City’s clause that no owner must apply pesticide “contrary to label directions” matches federal law, which makes the label binding on anyone who applies the product. See Who May Apply Pesticide in a Unit.