Texas Criminal Activity and Nuisance Evictions: Chapter 125, Drug Activity, and Third-Party Liability

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 125 (the Texas nuisance statute) and various Property Code provisions allow landlords to evict tenants engaged in criminal activity, drug-related conduct, or other behavior that creates nuisance for neighbors and the community. For DFW multifamily operators, criminal-activity and nuisance tenant issues are most commonly handled through lease enforcement and eviction rather than Chapter 125 nuisance proceedings, but the nuisance framework remains an option for severe or persistent issues that lease-based remedies haven’t resolved. The legal framework is more than just a tool for ending problem tenancies. It’s also a defense for landlords against claims by victims of tenant criminal activity (a third party injured on the property may sue the landlord, and proper handling of nuisance issues can be a defense). Below, we work through the Chapter 125 nuisance framework, the lease provisions that support criminal-activity evictions, the eviction procedure for these cases, and the broader liability framework that affects how landlords should respond to tenant criminal conduct.

The Chapter 125 nuisance framework

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 125 defines a public nuisance as including:

• A place where prostitution, gambling, or sexual misconduct is performed.
• A place where controlled substances are sold, possessed, or used for non-medical purposes.
• A place where stolen property is sold or stored.
• A place where firearms or weapons are sold illegally.
• A place where gang-related activity occurs.
• A place that discharges sewage or other waste materials in violation of law.
• Other places that meet the statute’s specific criteria.

Where a property qualifies as a nuisance, the statute provides:

• Civil action to abate. Local prosecutors, the attorney general, or in some cases private citizens can sue to abate the nuisance.
• Closure orders. Courts can order properties closed for one year or longer for serious nuisances.
• Property forfeiture. Some cases support forfeiture of property used for criminal purposes.
• Damages. The injured public can sometimes recover damages.
• Injunctive relief. Specific remedies tailored to the nuisance.

The Chapter 125 framework is primarily a public-enforcement tool. But landlords are affected because their property can be the subject of nuisance proceedings, and they can be parties to proceedings. Chapter 125 is not a strict-liability “place” test: § 125.0015(a) requires that the defendant maintain the place, and for a landlord it also requires knowledge of the nuisance activity and a failure to abate it. A landlord who did not know of the activity, or who acted to abate it (for example, by pursuing eviction), has a defense.

Lease provisions on criminal activity

Most modern Texas residential leases include criminal activity provisions that:

• Prohibit any criminal activity on the premises.
• Specifically prohibit drug-related activity.
• Allow termination for criminal activity by the tenant, household members, or guests.
• Establish that criminal activity is a material breach justifying immediate termination.

These lease provisions support eviction without the cure periods that might apply to ordinary lease violations. The lease’s “no criminal activity” provision typically allows the landlord to terminate on shorter notice when the activity is serious.

The HUD lease addendum used in federally subsidized housing (Section 8, public housing) typically has specific criminal activity provisions that supplement the lease.

Eviction procedure for criminal activity

For criminal activity evictions:

• Lease violation. The lease’s criminal activity provision is the primary basis. The activity is documented (police reports, arrests, observed conduct).
• Notice to vacate. Section 24.005 notice (typically three days, longer for federally backed properties under CARES Act). Some landlords use shorter notice based on lease language for serious violations, because the three-day period in § 24.005 is a default that a lease may shorten, not a statutory floor.
• JP forcible detainer. Filed in JP court. Subject to SB 38 procedural framework.
• Trial. Subject to SB 38’s 10-21 day window.
• Evidence. The landlord must prove the criminal activity occurred. Police reports, arrest records, observed conduct, witnesses, and other documentation.
• Defenses. Tenant may dispute that the activity occurred or was attributable to the tenant. Tenant may also claim retaliation if eviction follows tenant complaint to police.

Drug-related criminal activity

Drug-related criminal activity is a special category with specific rules:

• Federal regulation. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(6); 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)) requires public housing leases to treat drug-related criminal activity as grounds for termination, and similar rules affect other federally subsidized properties.
• Strict liability in some leases. Some leases impose strict liability, so eviction can proceed regardless of whether the tenant was personally involved if drug activity occurred at the property.
• Innocent tenant defense. This is largely backwards for public housing. In Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002), the Supreme Court held that § 1437d(l)(6) permits no-fault eviction for drug-related activity by a household member or guest even if the tenant did not know of it. A housing authority has discretion not to evict an innocent tenant, but the statute does not bar eviction, so an innocent-tenant defense is weak in that setting.
• Documentation requirements. Specific proof requirements may apply, including some chain-of-custody and prosecution-related documentation.

Drug-related eviction often involves coordination with police and prosecutors. The landlord may benefit from waiting until criminal proceedings clarify what happened.

VAWA and innocent victim protection

The federal Violence Against Women Act protects victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking from being evicted because of the criminal conduct of an abuser. Specifically:

• A landlord cannot evict a tenant because the tenant is a victim of family violence.
• A landlord cannot evict a tenant because the abuser engaged in criminal activity at or near the property.
• A landlord cannot evict a tenant because the tenant called police about the abuse.
• The landlord can bifurcate the lease, terminating the abuser’s tenancy while preserving the victim’s.

The intersection of criminal activity eviction and VAWA is fact-specific. A landlord facing a situation where one tenant is engaging in domestic violence against another tenant should be careful to preserve the victim’s tenancy while addressing the abuser’s conduct.

See the VAWA and Domestic Violence Tenants page.

Third-party liability: landlord exposure

When a tenant engages in criminal activity that injures a third party (a guest, neighbor, or visitor), the landlord may face liability claims:

• Negligent admission. Claims that the landlord rented to a tenant whose criminal history made the activity foreseeable.
• Negligent retention. Claims that the landlord knew of the tenant’s criminal activity but didn’t act to evict.
• Premises liability. Claims about the property’s security (locks, lighting, security cameras, etc.) related to the criminal activity.
• Negligence per se. If the criminal activity violates specific statutes designed to protect the injured party, the landlord may face negligence per se claims.

Texas courts limit landlord liability for tenant criminal activity but don’t eliminate it. The factors that increase liability:

• Specific knowledge of the tenant’s prior criminal conduct.
• Failure to evict despite knowledge.
• Inadequate security on the property.
• Specific warnings the landlord ignored.

The factors that limit liability:

• Reasonable application screening.
• Prompt response to known issues.
• Reasonable security measures.
• Compliance with industry standards.

Application screening for criminal history

Application screening for criminal history is a complex area:

• Texas state law allows landlords to consider criminal history but doesn’t require it.
• The federal Fair Housing Act still supports disparate-impact challenges to blanket criminal-history bars, so individualized assessment remains the prudent practice, though HUD withdrew its 2016 criminal-records guidance in 2025 and it is no longer a HUD mandate.
• Specific cities (Dallas in some cases) may have additional restrictions on use of criminal history.

Best practice: consider criminal history individually, with attention to (a) the offense’s nature and severity, (b) how recent the offense was, (c) the relevance of the offense to tenancy (violent crimes, drug crimes, theft offenses are more relevant than minor or unrelated offenses), and (d) evidence of rehabilitation.

See the Application Screening and FCRA page.

What the file needs to contain

For criminal activity evictions, the landlord should document:

• Lease provisions on criminal activity. The specific provision being relied upon.
• The criminal activity. Police reports, arrest records, court documents, witness statements, observed conduct.
• Notice to the tenant. Date, content, method of delivery, proof of receipt.
• Tenant’s response. Any tenant explanation or defense.
• Other affected residents. Witnesses among neighbors who can testify about the activity’s impact.
• Prior incidents. If this is part of a pattern, document the pattern.
• Coordination with police. Communications with law enforcement about the property.

Documentation supports the eviction case and protects against later third-party liability claims.

Common criminal activity eviction mistakes

• Skipping the lease’s specific provisions. The lease’s “no criminal activity” provision is the basis for the eviction. Citing general lease violations rather than the specific provision is procedurally weaker.
• Insufficient documentation of the activity. The landlord must prove the activity occurred. Hearsay, rumor, or vague accusations don’t support eviction.
• Treating arrests as proof of guilt. An arrest is not a conviction. The landlord must show the activity actually occurred, not just that someone was arrested.
• Failing to coordinate with police. Police-led criminal proceedings can produce evidence (search warrants, arrest reports, court testimony) useful in the eviction. Coordinate when possible.
• Premature eviction in VAWA cases. Evicting a domestic violence victim because of an abuser’s criminal activity is a VAWA violation. Always assess whether VAWA applies before filing.
• Overstating the innocent-tenant defense. In public housing, HUD v. Rucker permits no-fault eviction for a household member’s or guest’s drug-related activity even if the tenant was unaware, so treat any innocent-tenant argument as a discretionary plea to the housing authority, not a bar to eviction.
• Retaliation timing. If the tenant has recently complained about anything (criminal activity in the unit, code violations, etc.), the eviction faces § 92.331 retaliation analysis. Document non-retaliatory reasons.