In the fight to improve the conditions of substandard housing, legal remedies sometimes are needed to complement enlightened policies and legislation by ensuring compliance with the law. For example, HUD and EPA work with the Justice Department to enforce the 1996 federal lead hazard disclosure rule, which requires property owners to inform prospective tenants and/or buyers of known lead hazards in properties built before 1978. In enforcing the disclosure rule, these federal agencies often reach agreements by which violators undertake lead poisoning prevention efforts, in addition to paying fines for noncompliance.

Enforcement of local health and housing codes can play a critical role in addressing housing-related health hazards. Housing and building codes, for example, typically contain provisions governing moisture, pests, and ventilation. By factoring health considerations into inspections and enforcement actions, code inspectors can significantly increase the identification and control of health hazards and prevent the persistence of housing conditions that pose health risks.

Legal action also may be needed to hold corporations or individuals accountable for wrong-doing. For this reason, a growing number of governmental entities as well as private individuals have filed suit against lead pigment manufacturers to clean up hazards related to lead-based paint in housing and other buildings and to recover the public health costs of lead poisoning. The State of Rhode Island won its case in February 2006. Counties in California and Texas; municipalities including San Francisco, Oakland, and Milwaukee; school districts in California, Mississippi, and Texas; and the New York City Housing Authority have also filed or joined suits. Lead-poisoned children have also sued the lead industry in a number of locales.