Oklahoma Commercial Mold Regulations: What Property Owners Need to Know

The Regulatory Landscape: Mostly Empty

Property managers usually call me with one of two assumptions about Oklahoma's mold regulations. Either they think there are strict rules they're probably violating, or they think there are no rules and they can ignore the problem.

Both are wrong, but in different ways. And the gap between what people assume and what actually exists is where problems — and lawsuits — grow.

Here's what most people find surprising: Oklahoma has no specific mold regulations for commercial buildings. No state-mandated exposure limits. No required testing schedules. No licensing requirements for mold inspectors or remediation contractors. No state agency that regulates indoor mold the way, say, the EPA regulates air quality or OSHA regulates workplace safety.

When I tell property managers this, about half of them look relieved. Finally, one less regulation to worry about. The other half get a look that I can only describe as "that doesn't sound right." That second group has better instincts.

Why "No Regulations" Isn't Good News

In nursing, we had a concept called "standard of care" — the baseline of what a competent professional would do in a given situation. It didn't matter whether a specific regulation mandated every action. What mattered was whether your care met the standard that your peers would consider reasonable and appropriate.

Commercial mold works the same way. The absence of specific Oklahoma mold regulations doesn't create a vacuum. It creates a space where other frameworks fill in:

Federal OSHA: The General Duty Clause

OSHA doesn't have specific mold exposure limits. But the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act) requires employers to provide a workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm."

Mold contamination in a commercial building occupied by employees? That's potentially a recognized hazard. If employees report health symptoms and the employer has done nothing to assess or address the condition, the General Duty Clause applies. OSHA has cited employers under this clause for indoor air quality problems, including mold.

Translation: you don't need a specific mold regulation to get in trouble with OSHA. You just need employees breathing contaminated air and evidence that you knew about it — or should have known about it — and didn't act.

EPA Guidelines

The EPA provides guidance on mold assessment and remediation through documents like "Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings." These aren't regulations — they're guidelines. But they establish what the federal government considers appropriate practice. And when a court or regulatory body asks "what should a reasonable property owner have done?", EPA guidance tends to be part of the answer.

ADA Considerations

If mold contamination renders a space unusable or threatens occupant health, there may be ADA implications related to providing a safe and accessible environment. This is more nuanced and typically arises in specific complaint situations, but it's another framework that fills the regulatory gap.

Common Law Liability

This is the big one. In the absence of specific regulation, courts look at common law principles: duty of care, negligence, and what a "reasonable person" in your position would have done. If a tenant or employee sues over mold exposure, the question isn't "did you comply with Oklahoma mold regulations?" — because there aren't any to comply with. The question is "did you act reasonably?"

Acting reasonably means investigating complaints, maintaining the building properly, responding to water events promptly, and documenting your actions. The absence of regulation makes your documentation MORE important, not less — because there's no regulatory checklist to demonstrate compliance with. You have to demonstrate reasonableness based on your own records.

"No regulation doesn't mean no liability. It means the standard is 'reasonable care' — and what's reasonable is determined after the fact by people who weren't there. Your documentation is the only witness who can testify to what you actually did."

Industry Standards That Define "Reasonable"

In the absence of Oklahoma-specific regulation, industry standards become the benchmark. These are the frameworks courts and insurance companies reference when determining whether a property owner acted appropriately:

IICRC S520

The Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification's Standard for Professional Mold Remediation defines how remediation should be conducted. It's voluntary — nobody mandates it — but it's the industry benchmark. If your remediation contractor follows S520, you're defensible. If they wing it? That's harder to defend. Understanding these standards matters for both property owners and contractors.

AIHA Laboratory Standards

The American Industrial Hygiene Association accredits laboratories for environmental analysis. Using an AIHA-accredited lab for your mold samples isn't legally required in Oklahoma. But if results are challenged in litigation, results from accredited labs carry more weight than results from the cheapest lab on the internet.

ASHRAE Standards

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standards address indoor air quality, humidity control, and ventilation rates. These define what "adequate" looks like for building HVAC systems. If your building's HVAC doesn't meet ASHRAE guidelines and mold develops as a result, the connection between inadequate systems and predictable outcomes becomes harder to dispute.

EPA Guidance Documents

While not regulations, EPA's published guidance on mold represents the federal government's position on appropriate practice. In the absence of state regulation, this guidance carries significant weight in legal and insurance contexts.

What Other States Do (And What That Means for Oklahoma)

Texas has specific mold assessment and remediation licensing requirements. New York has detailed guidelines for mold remediation. Several states have adopted various forms of mold regulation. Oklahoma hasn't — yet.

But here's what property managers should understand: the trend is toward more regulation, not less. States that haven't regulated mold tend to eventually follow states that have. And when litigation in Oklahoma involves mold, attorneys increasingly reference standards from more regulated states to establish what "reasonable" looks like.

Building your practices now around industry standards and documented due diligence positions you well whether Oklahoma regulations change or not. If regulation comes, you're already compliant. If it doesn't, you're already defensible. Either way, you're ahead.

What "Reasonable Care" Actually Looks Like

If you want to demonstrate that you acted reasonably as a commercial property owner in Oklahoma, here's what that looks like in practice:

The Practical Reality

The lack of Oklahoma mold regulations creates a paradox: property owners have more freedom in how they handle mold, but that freedom comes with more responsibility for demonstrating their approach was reasonable. In a regulated state, you follow the rule. In Oklahoma, you establish your own standard — and that standard better hold up when questioned.

In the Army, we operated by doctrine — published standards and procedures. But doctrine didn't cover every situation. When doctrine didn't apply, you were expected to exercise professional judgment based on your training and experience. Leaders who defaulted to "there's no specific order covering this, so I didn't do anything" didn't last long. Leaders who applied good judgment in ambiguous situations earned trust — and survived.

Same principle. Oklahoma's regulatory silence on mold isn't permission to ignore it. It's an invitation to demonstrate professional judgment. The property owners who document that judgment thoroughly are the ones who sleep well when tenant complaints escalate or insurance carriers start asking questions.

I help commercial property owners create the documentation that demonstrates reasonable care. Whether that's baseline assessments, responsive investigations, or periodic monitoring — the goal is building a record that shows you took the building's environmental condition seriously, investigated appropriately, and acted on what you found.

Because "we didn't know" is a terrible defense. And in the information age, courts have increasingly limited patience for property owners who claim ignorance of conditions they could easily have tested for.