COMPLIANCE & REGULATIONS · PROPERTY & LEASING
A property manager in Plano gets a call from the fire marshal about the grease-loaded exhaust duct in a restaurant tenant’s space. The lease says the tenant maintains the kitchen. The tenant says they clean the hood every quarter. The duct runs through the landlord’s ceiling plenum, the fan sits on the landlord’s roof, and the citation has the landlord’s name on it. Everyone in this story believes someone else is responsible — and in a sense, all of them are right.
November 3, 2026 · By Facilitec Southwest
QUICK ANSWER
Responsibility for kitchen exhaust cleaning in a leased restaurant has two layers that most leases confuse. The first is code responsibility: NFPA 96 and the local fire code hold the owner or operator of the cooking operation responsible for inspection and cleaning, and in practice the fire marshal’s citation goes to whoever holds the certificate of occupancy for the space — usually the tenant for a standalone restaurant and often the landlord for a multi-tenant building where the exhaust system passes through common areas or shared roof. The second is contractual responsibility: the lease assigns who pays and who schedules, and that assignment does not change who the fire marshal cites. A well-drafted restaurant lease does five things: it assigns exhaust cleaning to the tenant at the NFPA 96 Table 12.4 cadence or stricter, it requires a landlord-approved certified vendor, it requires delivery of every written report to the landlord, it addresses the rooftop fan and grease containment separately because they sit on the landlord’s roof, and it reserves the landlord’s right to inspect and to cure at the tenant’s cost. Landlords and tenants in TX, OK, LA, NM, and AR should treat the exhaust system as a shared asset with a single file, regardless of what the lease says about who writes the check.
FOR PROPERTY MANAGERS AND LANDLORDS
Facilitec Southwest services multi-tenant restaurant properties across the Southwest — one vendor, one schedule, one file for every kitchen in the building, with rooftop containment that protects the landlord’s roof.
See Our Grease Containment Service →
1. Two Kinds of Responsibility
The confusion starts because “responsible” means two different things, and leases rarely separate them.
| CODE RESPONSIBILITY | CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY | |
|---|---|---|
| Source | NFPA 96 as adopted by the state and local fire code; the certificate of occupancy | The lease |
| Who it binds | The owner or operator of the cooking operation and the party holding the C of O for the space | Whoever the lease says — landlord, tenant, or split |
| Who enforces it | The fire marshal; the insurance carrier indirectly | The other party to the lease, through default and cure provisions |
| What happens on failure | Citation, reinspection, operational restriction, in extreme cases closure | Default notice, cure period, landlord self-help at tenant cost, lease termination |
| Can it be reassigned? | No — the fire marshal doesn’t read the lease | Yes — that’s what the lease is for |
The fire marshal’s position is simple: the building has a grease-loaded exhaust system, and someone is going to fix it. The marshal doesn’t adjudicate the lease. The citation goes to the party most directly in front of the inspector — the tenant operating the kitchen, the landlord whose name is on the building, or both. The lease determines who ultimately pays, and that determination happens afterward, between the parties.
This is why “tenant responsible for all kitchen maintenance” in a lease doesn’t protect a landlord from a citation. It gives the landlord a claim against the tenant for the cost of the correction. It doesn’t remove the landlord from the fire marshal’s correspondence, from the insurance carrier’s questions, or from the liability if the duct catches fire and the building burns.
2. Why the Exhaust System Is Different From Everything Else in the Lease
Most restaurant lease maintenance provisions are written for equipment that lives entirely inside the premises: the walk-in, the fryers, the dish machine. The tenant owns or leases it, the tenant maintains it, and if it breaks the tenant’s business suffers. The exhaust system is not like that, for four reasons.
- It leaves the premises. The hood is in the tenant’s kitchen. The duct runs through the ceiling plenum, which is usually landlord space, and often through the premises of another tenant on the way up. The fan sits on the roof, which is almost always the landlord’s. A system that spans three parties’ real estate is not “the tenant’s kitchen equipment.”
- Its failure mode is the building’s failure mode. A broken fryer is the tenant’s problem. A grease duct fire travels through the plenum and the roof deck and into the adjoining tenant’s space. Our post on how grease duct fires spread describes the path. The landlord’s building and the landlord’s other tenants are what’s at risk.
- It damages the landlord’s roof. Fan discharge grease degrades roofing membranes and voids roofing warranties. Our posts on rooftop grease containment and hood cleaning wastewater cover the damage and the stormwater liability that goes with it. The tenant’s cooking is depositing grease on the landlord’s asset every day.
- It outlasts the tenant. Restaurants turn over. The exhaust system stays. A landlord who inherits a duct with five years of a previous tenant’s deposits inherits the compliance problem — and the next tenant’s first fire marshal inspection will find it.
FIELD NOTE — THE DUCT THROUGH THE NAIL SALON
A strip center in the Houston market had a restaurant end-cap whose exhaust duct ran horizontally through the ceiling of the adjoining nail salon before turning up to the roof. The restaurant’s cleaning vendor cleaned what they could reach from the kitchen and the roof. The horizontal run above the salon — about twenty feet of it — had no access panels and had never been opened. The salon owner noticed a brown stain spreading on her ceiling tile. The landlord’s property manager opened the ceiling and found a duct seam weeping grease onto the tiles. Three parties, one duct, and the only one of them with any idea what was in it was the one who didn’t cook. Our post on the access panel rule covers why that run was non-compliant from the day it was built.
3. How Leases Usually Get It Wrong
Restaurant leases in the Southwest tend to handle exhaust cleaning in one of five ways. Four of them create problems.
| LEASE APPROACH | WHAT IT SAYS | WHERE IT FAILS |
|---|---|---|
| Silence | Nothing specific; exhaust falls under general “tenant maintains premises” language | No standard, no vendor requirement, no reporting, no roof provision. Landlord learns about problems from the fire marshal. |
| Tenant responsible, period | “Tenant shall maintain and clean the kitchen exhaust system” | No cadence, no certification requirement, no reports to landlord. Tenant hires the cheapest vendor; landlord has no visibility until something goes wrong. |
| Tenant responsible with a frequency | “…at least semiannually” or “quarterly” | Better, but a fixed frequency may be below Table 12.4 for the cooking profile (a charbroiler is monthly), and still no reporting or roof language. |
| Landlord responsible, cost passed through | Landlord contracts exhaust cleaning as a CAM item billed to the tenant | Works well for the duct and roof, but the landlord’s vendor needs kitchen access on the tenant’s schedule; friction over timing and over the pass-through amount. |
| Split by component | Tenant: hood and filters. Landlord: duct, fan, roof. | Seems logical, fails in practice — two vendors, two schedules, and the junction between hood and duct is nobody’s. Shared-duct buildings make it worse. |
The split-by-component approach deserves a specific warning because it looks so reasonable. NFPA 96 Section 12.6.5 requires the entire system — hood, duct, fan — to be cleaned to bare metal, and the inspection under Section 12.6.1.1 is of the system, not of components. Two vendors cleaning two halves on two schedules produces two partial reports and no document that says the system is compliant. Our post on cleaned to bare metal explains why the standard is written at the system level.
4. The Five Provisions a Restaurant Lease Should Have
The lease approach that works — for landlords who want protection and tenants who want clarity — assigns the work to one party at a defined standard, with visibility for the other. The provisions below are described in plain language; counsel drafts the actual clauses.
- Assignment at a standard, not just a frequency. “Tenant shall cause the kitchen exhaust system, including the hood, grease removal devices, ductwork, exhaust fan, and rooftop grease containment, to be inspected and cleaned in compliance with NFPA 96 as adopted by the applicable fire code, at the frequency required by NFPA 96 Table 12.4 for Tenant’s cooking operation or [quarterly], whichever is more frequent.” The Table 12.4 reference means the cadence follows the menu — a tenant who adds a charbroiler is automatically on a monthly inspection cadence without a lease amendment.
- Landlord-approved certified vendor. “…performed by a kitchen exhaust cleaning contractor holding current certification [IKECA or Phil Ackland], approved in advance by Landlord, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.” Our post on certifications explains what those credentials cover. This single provision prevents the cheapest-vendor problem.
- Reports to the landlord. “Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a copy of the written report required by NFPA 96 Section 12.6.15 within [ten] days of each service, and shall maintain the service label required by Section 12.6.13 on the hood at all times.” The landlord gets the file without having to ask. Our post on what’s in a real NFPA 96 cleaning report covers what the report should contain.
- Roof and containment addressed separately. “Tenant shall install and maintain, at Tenant’s cost, a rooftop grease containment system at the exhaust fan termination, serviced at each exhaust cleaning, and shall be responsible for any damage to the roof membrane or roof drains caused by grease discharge from Tenant’s exhaust system.” The roof is the landlord’s most expensive exposure and the one general maintenance language never reaches.
- Inspection and cure rights. “Landlord may inspect the exhaust system on reasonable notice. If Tenant fails to perform required inspection or cleaning, Landlord may, after [ten] days’ notice, cause the work to be performed and Tenant shall reimburse Landlord’s cost plus [an administrative fee] as additional rent.” This is the enforcement mechanism. Without it, the landlord’s only remedy for a non-compliant exhaust system is a default proceeding.
Two optional provisions worth considering
- Turnover condition. “Upon expiration or termination, Tenant shall deliver the exhaust system cleaned to bare metal per NFPA 96 Section 12.6.5, with a written report dated within thirty days of surrender.” The landlord gets a clean system for the next tenant instead of inheriting five years of deposits.
- Single-vendor option for multi-tenant buildings. Where multiple restaurant tenants share a roof or duct infrastructure, the landlord contracts one vendor for every exhaust system in the building and passes cost through by tenant. One schedule, one file, no shared-duct disputes. Our hotel foodservice post describes the same approach for leased outlets inside a hotel.
THE LEASE RULE
Assign the work to one party at the NFPA 96 standard. Give the other party the reports. Address the roof by name. Reserve the right to cure. Everything else is detail.
5. What the Landlord Should Hold
Even where the tenant does the work, the landlord should maintain a file. The fire marshal, the insurance carrier, the lender, and the buyer at sale will all ask the landlord, not the tenant.
| DOCUMENT | SOURCE | WHY THE LANDLORD NEEDS IT |
|---|---|---|
| Hood survey for every kitchen in the building | Vendor, at lease commencement and at any concept change | Establishes what systems exist, where the ducts run, where access panels are, and which Table 12.4 cadence applies |
| Written report from every service | Tenant delivers per lease | Proof of compliance; the fire marshal and carrier ask the landlord |
| Vendor certification evidence | Tenant at vendor approval | Shows the “properly trained, qualified, and certified” requirement of Section 12.6.1 is met |
| Containment service records | Vendor, at each service | Roof protection and stormwater compliance documentation |
| Roof condition photos at the fan | Landlord or vendor, at each service | Baseline for any damage claim against the tenant |
| Deficiency notices and corrections | Vendor and tenant | Shows problems were identified and fixed; protects against negligence claims |
| Fire marshal correspondence | Fire prevention office | The landlord’s name is on it regardless |
For landlords with multiple restaurant tenants across several properties, this is the same portfolio file our post on multi-location kitchen compliance describes for restaurant groups — one spreadsheet, every hood, every cadence, every last-service date.
FIELD NOTE — THE SALE THAT STALLED
A retail center in the Dallas market with three restaurant tenants went under contract. The buyer’s property condition assessment flagged all three exhaust systems: no service records in the landlord’s file, grease staining on the roof at two of the three fans, and no containment at any of them. The leases said the tenants were responsible. The buyer didn’t care who was responsible — the buyer cared that the roof had unknown damage and the building had three unknown compliance exposures. The seller spent six weeks collecting reports from the tenants, commissioning a roof inspection, and installing containment at all three fans to close. The lease language was fine. The file was empty.
6. What the Tenant Should Want
Tenants sometimes read these provisions as landlord protection at their expense. In practice, a clear exhaust provision protects the tenant as much as the landlord.
- Clarity on the cadence. A tenant who knows the lease requires Table 12.4 compliance can budget for it and isn’t surprised by a default notice.
- A defined standard for “clean.” Bare metal per Section 12.6.5 is a standard the tenant’s vendor can be held to — and a standard the tenant can point to if the landlord claims the system wasn’t maintained.
- Protection against inherited problems. A tenant moving into a space whose previous occupant left five years of deposits should insist on a bare-metal cleaning before commencement, documented, so the first fire marshal inspection doesn’t cite the new tenant for the old tenant’s grease. Our post on opening a new restaurant covers the pre-opening compliance picture.
- Protection against shared-duct disputes. Where another tenant’s system shares a duct or fan, the tenant wants the lease to say who maintains the shared section — otherwise it’s a dispute waiting for a fire marshal to referee.
- Documentation for insurance. The tenant’s own carrier wants the same file the landlord does. One set of reports serves both.
SIGNATURE APPROACH
From Cooktop to Rooftop, the exhaust system crosses the lease line — the hood is the tenant’s, the roof is the landlord’s, and the duct between them belongs to whoever the fire marshal is talking to. Our Phil Ackland Certified Technicians service multi-tenant properties across the Southwest on one schedule with one file delivered to both parties, and rooftop containment that keeps the landlord’s roof Grease-Free and Fire-Safe. The peace of mind that comes with it belongs to everyone on the lease.
7. When Things Have Already Gone Wrong
Most landlords and tenants read a post like this after a problem, not before. The sequence for a leased restaurant that has just received a fire marshal citation for its exhaust system:
- Read the citation for who it names. Tenant, landlord, or both. That’s who the fire marshal expects to hear from. Our post on what happens after a failed inspection covers the response.
- Read the lease for who pays. Separately from who’s cited. If the lease is silent, general maintenance language usually puts it on the tenant, but the landlord should expect to front the correction if the tenant won’t move fast enough.
- Fix it first, allocate later. A reinspection deadline doesn’t wait for a lease dispute. Whoever can get a certified vendor on site fastest should, with written notice to the other party reserving rights.
- Get the full system cleaned, not the cited component. If the fire marshal cited the duct, the fan and roof are almost certainly in the same condition. A partial correction produces a second citation.
- Document the correction with a written report, photographs, and the vendor’s certification, delivered to the fire marshal and to both parties.
- Amend the lease. The problem happened because the lease didn’t prevent it. Add the five provisions above before the next cadence comes due.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the landlord or the tenant responsible for hood cleaning?
Both, in different ways. The fire code holds the owner or operator of the cooking operation and the holder of the certificate of occupancy responsible, and the fire marshal cites whoever is in front of them — usually the tenant for a standalone space and often the landlord in a multi-tenant building. The lease assigns who pays and who schedules, and that assignment doesn’t change who gets cited. Most well-drafted leases put the work on the tenant at the NFPA 96 standard, with reports delivered to the landlord and the roof addressed separately.
If my lease says the tenant handles kitchen maintenance, am I protected as a landlord?
Partly. The lease gives you a claim against the tenant for the cost of correcting a problem. It doesn’t remove you from the fire marshal’s citation, the insurance carrier’s questions, or the liability if a duct fire damages the building and the adjoining tenants. Protection comes from the lease requiring a certified vendor at the NFPA 96 cadence, delivering reports to you, addressing the roof by name, and giving you the right to cure at the tenant’s cost.
Who is responsible for the exhaust fan on the roof?
Whoever the lease says — and the lease should say. The fan sits on the landlord’s roof, is part of the tenant’s exhaust system, and discharges grease that damages the landlord’s membrane. The working approach is to assign fan cleaning to the tenant as part of the whole-system NFPA 96 service, require rooftop grease containment at the tenant’s cost, and make the tenant responsible for roof damage caused by grease discharge. Splitting the fan from the hood between two vendors produces two partial reports and no compliant system.
Should the lease split the hood (tenant) from the duct and fan (landlord)?
No. NFPA 96 Section 12.6.5 requires the entire system to be cleaned to bare metal, and inspection under Section 12.6.1.1 is of the system. Two vendors on two schedules produce two partial reports, and the junction between hood and duct belongs to neither. Assign the whole system to one party and give the other party the reports.
What should a restaurant lease say about hood cleaning?
Five things: assignment of the whole exhaust system to one party at the NFPA 96 Table 12.4 cadence or stricter; a landlord-approved certified vendor; delivery of every written report to the landlord; rooftop grease containment and roof damage responsibility addressed by name; and the landlord’s right to inspect and to cure at the tenant’s cost. A turnover condition requiring a bare-metal cleaning at surrender is a useful sixth.
What happens when two restaurant tenants share an exhaust duct or fan?
Each tenant’s vendor cleans up to the junction and the shared section goes uncleaned unless the lease assigns it. In multi-tenant buildings with shared infrastructure, the cleanest solution is for the landlord to contract one vendor for every exhaust system in the building and pass cost through by tenant. Otherwise the lease must say explicitly who maintains the shared run and the fan.
As a new tenant, how do I avoid being cited for the previous tenant’s grease?
Require a bare-metal cleaning of the entire system per NFPA 96 Section 12.6.5, documented with a written report, before lease commencement or before you open — and get a hood survey showing duct routing and access panels so you know what you’re taking on. Put the pre-commencement cleaning in the lease or the work letter. Your first fire marshal inspection will find whatever is in the duct, and it won’t matter to the inspector who put it there.
Does the landlord need to keep hood cleaning records if the tenant does the work?
Yes. The fire marshal, the insurance carrier, the lender, and a buyer at sale all ask the landlord. The lease should require the tenant to deliver every written report within a set number of days, and the landlord should file them by tenant and date alongside the hood survey, vendor certification, containment records, and roof condition photos.
Who is liable for roof damage from exhaust fan grease?
Whoever the lease says; if the lease is silent, it becomes a dispute. The tenant’s cooking deposits the grease, the landlord owns the roof, and roofing warranties exclude grease damage. The working approach is a lease provision making the tenant responsible for rooftop containment and for any membrane or drain damage caused by grease discharge from their system, with roof condition photos at each service as the baseline.
Can the landlord hire its own hood cleaning vendor and bill the tenant?
Only if the lease allows it. A cure right — landlord may perform required maintenance the tenant fails to perform, after notice, and recover the cost as additional rent — is standard in well-drafted restaurant leases and is the landlord’s practical enforcement tool. Without it, the landlord’s remedy for a non-compliant exhaust system is a default proceeding, which is slower than a fire marshal’s reinspection deadline.
How does Facilitec Southwest work with landlords and property managers?
Building-wide hood surveys for multi-tenant properties, single-vendor service for every kitchen in the building on one schedule, written reports delivered to both landlord and tenant, rooftop grease containment installation and service, roof condition documentation at each visit, and pre-commencement and turnover cleanings with reports for the lease file. Service across TX, OK, LA, NM, and AR. See our grease containment service and maintenance program.
NFPA 96, 2024 Edition — Section 12.6.1 (responsibility of the owner or operator; properly trained, qualified, and certified person); Section 12.6.1.1 (inspection); Table 12.4 (inspection frequency); Section 12.6.4 (accessibility of the entire system); Section 12.6.5 (cleaning to bare metal); Section 12.6.10 (access panel tags); Section 12.6.13 (service label); Section 12.6.15 (written report); Section 7.8.2.1 (rooftop terminations and grease collection). Fire code enforcement against owners and operators follows each state’s adopted fire code and local ordinance; see our State-by-State Fire Code Adoption post for the regional picture. Lease provisions described in Section 4 are plain-language descriptions of commonly used concepts and are not legal drafting; landlords and tenants should have counsel draft and review lease language for their jurisdiction. Certificate of occupancy practice varies by city; in some jurisdictions the tenant holds a C of O for the premises and in others the landlord holds it for the building, which affects who the fire marshal addresses. Roofing warranty exclusions for grease and chemical exposure are general industry practice; consult the specific roofing manufacturer’s warranty. Field Notes describe composite service situations with identifying details changed. Phil Ackland Certified Technicians follow NFPA 96 guidelines for cleaning and inspection of grease buildup. This article is a compliance and operational reference, not legal, real estate, or AHJ-specific advice.
