Weiss LLP  |  September 2, 2026

“Caveat lessee” — “let the lessee beware” — is the common-law rule that a commercial landlord makes no implied warranty that leased premises are fit, safe, or suitable for the tenant’s intended use. Absent an express covenant, fraud, active concealment of a latent defect, or a governing statute, a commercial tenant takes the premises as found and bears the risk of their condition and suitability. The doctrine traces to agrarian leases, where the land — not any structure on it — was the object of the bargain, and tenants were expected to maintain what they occupied. It was carried into American common law for all leaseholds and survives today principally in the commercial context: while nearly every state abrogated the analogous rule for residential leases in the 1970s via an implied, non-waivable warranty of habitability (in D.C., Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970)), that reform generally stopped at the residential line. Commercial tenants are treated as sophisticated parties expected to inspect and to bargain for protection in the lease itself, and most courts to address the question have declined to imply a warranty of fitness or suitability for commercial space. Texas is the principal exception, extending such a warranty in Davidow v. Inwood North Professional Group–Phase I, 747 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1988).

Effect of an “AS IS” Clause. An “AS IS” clause does not depart from caveat lessee — it is the parties’ express, written adoption of the rule the common law already supplies. Courts applying the doctrine hold that, absent fraud or an express covenant, a landlord does not represent that commercial premises are tenantable or fit for the tenant’s purpose, and enforce “as is” language accordingly. Disunno v. WRH Properties, LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 05719 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2012) (“In the absence of fraud or of a covenant, a lessor does not represent that the premises are tenantable and may be used for the purpose for which they are apparently intended.”); Richard Paul, Inc. v. Union Improvement Co., 59 F. Supp. 252, 255 (D. Del. 1945) (caveat emptor applies between landlord and tenant absent fraud; no implied warranty of fitness or code compliance). Even so, courts recognize limits: an “AS IS” clause does not immunize fraud or active concealment of a defect the landlord knew of and the tenant could not reasonably discover; it does not override an express repair or delivery-condition covenant elsewhere in the same lease, which is generally read to control; it is less likely to reach latent defects or undisclosed environmental contamination the landlord knew or should have known about; it cannot waive non-waivable statutory or code obligations; and it should not be assumed, without jurisdiction-specific confirmation, to excuse a landlord’s own gross negligence or willful misconduct, which many states will not let a contract disclaim.

States with Reported Decisions Recognizing the Doctrine (Commercial Leases). The table below is illustrative, not exhaustive, and includes the District of Columbia, whose courts confirmed post-Javins that caveat lessee continues to govern commercial tenancies:

State	Case	Citation
Ark.	Propst v. McNeill	326 Ark. 623, 933 S.W.2d 375 (1996)
Cal.	Schulman v. Vera; Muro v. Superior Court	108 Cal. App. 3d 552 (1980); 184 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (1986)
Colo.	Collins v. Shanahan	34 Colo. App. 82, 523 P.2d 999 (1974)
Conn.	Hoban v. Masters	36 Conn. Supp. 611, 421 A.2d 1318 (1980)
Del.	Richard Paul, Inc. v. Union Improvement Co.	59 F. Supp. 252 (D. Del. 1945)
D.C.	Interstate Restaurants, Inc. v. Halsa Corp.	309 A.2d 108 (D.C. 1973)
Ill.	McArdle v. Courson; Dapkunas v. Cagle	82 Ill. App. 3d 123 (1980); 42 Ill. App. 3d 644 (1976)
Kan.	Service Oil Co. v. White	218 Kan. 87, 542 P.2d 652 (1975)
Mass.	Buker v. National Management Corp.	16 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 448 N.E.2d 1299 (1983)
Mo.	Kootman v. Kaye	744 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
Neb.	Gehrke v. General Theatre Corp.	207 Neb. 301, 298 N.W.2d 773 (1980)
N.H.	Golub v. Colby	120 N.H. 535, 419 A.2d 397 (1980)
N.Y.	Disunno v. WRH Properties, LLC	2012 NY Slip Op 05719 (2d Dep’t)
Wash.	Olson v. Scholes	17 Wash. App. 383, 563 P.2d 1275 (1977)

Older decisions applying caveat lessee to leases generally — not always squarely limited to commercial premises — also exist in Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District of Columbia and Maryland

D.C.: Javins abolished caveat lessee only for residential “urban dwelling units”; Interstate Restaurants, Inc. v. Halsa Corp., 309 A.2d 108 (D.C. 1973), confirmed it still governs commercial leases. Maryland: historically applied caveat emptor to leases; subsequent reforms (Md. Code, Real Property § 8-208; Baltimore City’s habitability ordinance; the 1975 Rent Escrow Act) are residential by their terms. No Maryland decision extending an implied warranty to commercial leases was located — its commercial position appears consistent with the majority rule but should be confirmed by a targeted search.