SF2242 requires the seller (grantor) of a single‑family residence to conduct a radon test under rules the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services will adopt. If results meet or exceed the EPA level at which mitigation is recommended, the seller must install a mitigation system and then perform a follow‑up test showing the system reduces radon below the EPA recommended level before conveyance.
The bill enforces compliance by instructing county recorders not to record deeds for covered single‑family residences unless the deed is accompanied by a sworn affidavit signed by both grantor and grantee affirming compliance. The statute ties the rule to zoning (single‑family residential use), assigns rulemaking to the department under chapter 17A, and applies to conveyances on or after the act’s effective date—creating an immediate pre‑closing obligation for sellers of affected properties.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the grantor of a home defined as a 'single‑family residence' to conduct EPA‑level radon testing before sale and to install or repair a mitigation system if test results meet or exceed the EPA mitigation threshold. The deed cannot be recorded unless the parties file a sworn affidavit confirming compliance and satisfactory test results.
Who It Affects
Sellers (grantors) and buyers (grantees) of detached single‑family homes and townhouses on property zoned single‑family residential, county recorders who process deeds, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services for rulemaking, and contractors who perform radon testing and mitigation.
Why It Matters
The bill makes radon testing and remediation a closing‑condition rather than a disclosure item, shifting financial and timing responsibility onto sellers and using deed recording as the enforcement lever—potentially changing closing workflows, underwriting, and seller negotiations in Iowa housing transactions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SF2242 creates a pre‑conveyance compliance regime for radon in homes the bill defines as 'single‑family residences'—detached houses and townhouses on land zoned for single‑family use. By connecting the rule to zoning, the bill excludes duplexes, multifamily buildings, and condominiums; that zoning tether will matter when determining whether a given sale triggers the statute.
Under the bill, the seller must conduct a radon test following the testing protocol the Department of Health and Human Services adopts. The statute does not itself spell out testing methodology or timing; instead it delegates those operational details to the department under chapter 17A.
If the initial test meets or exceeds the EPA level at which mitigation is recommended, the seller must install a mitigation system and then run a follow‑up test to verify levels fall below the EPA recommendation.If a mitigation system already exists but is not functioning, the seller must repair or replace it before conveyance. The law requires both the seller and buyer to sign a sworn affidavit stating the conveyance complies with the statute and that the latest radon test showed levels at or below the EPA recommended threshold.
County recorders are instructed to refuse to record a deed for a covered residence unless that affidavit accompanies the deed, which makes the recording office the practical gatekeeper for compliance.Because the statute uses deed recording as its enforcement mechanism and delegates technical standards to administrative rulemaking, the immediate operational effects will depend on the department’s forthcoming rules: how it defines testing windows relative to closing, what constitutes an acceptable testing provider or device, and what proof of mitigation efficacy looks like. The bill applies to conveyances occurring on or after the effective date, so sellers and title professionals will need to integrate testing and remediation into the pre‑closing checklist once rules are issued.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The county recorder must refuse to record a deed conveying a covered single‑family residence unless a sworn affidavit signed by both grantor and grantee accompanies the deed.
If initial radon testing meets or exceeds the EPA mitigation recommendation, the seller must install a mitigation system and then perform a follow‑up test demonstrating radon levels are below the EPA recommended level prior to conveyance.
Existing radon mitigation systems that are present but not functioning must be repaired or replaced by the seller before the sale is completed.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services will adopt rules under chapter 17A to specify testing protocols, standards for mitigation verification, and administrative procedures—those rules will determine practical compliance steps.
The statute limits its scope to dwellings on property zoned for single‑family residential use and explicitly excludes duplexes, multifamily dwellings, and condominiums.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines 'single‑family residence' and ties coverage to zoning
This section adds a statutory definition that covers existing and newly built detached dwellings and townhouses intended for one household and located on property zoned single‑family residential. By excluding duplexes, multifamily dwellings, and condominiums, the bill narrows which conveyances trigger testing and mitigation obligations. Practically, the zoning requirement creates a line‑drawing task: sellers, buyers, title companies, and county recorders will need to confirm zoning status as part of pre‑closing due diligence.
Conditions deed recording on a sworn compliance affidavit
This amendment prevents county recorders from recording a deed for a covered single‑family residence unless the deed is accompanied by a sworn affidavit signed by both the grantor and grantee affirming compliance with the new radon statute. Using deed recording as an enforcement tool is administratively straightforward—county recorders can check for an affidavit—but it shifts responsibility for detecting noncompliance to clerks and creates a hard stop in the closing process if documentation is missing or disputed.
Mandates radon testing, mitigation, and verification before conveyance
This is the core operational provision: sellers must test according to department rules; if results reach the EPA mitigation threshold, sellers must install mitigation and then perform a verification test showing levels are below the EPA recommendation. The section also requires repair or replacement of existing but nonfunctioning mitigation systems. It does not spell out testing windows, acceptable testers or devices, or documentation form, instead directing the Department of Health and Human Services to adopt implementing rules under chapter 17A.
Applies the requirements prospectively to future conveyances
The bill applies to conveyances occurring on or after the act’s effective date. That means current listings or long‑pending sales may be unaffected until the effective date, but any conveyance after that date must meet the statute’s testing and mitigation requirements. The provision places the timing question squarely in title and escrow planning for post‑effective‑date deals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homebuyers of single‑family residences — receive a statutory guarantee that sellers completed testing and, where necessary, remediated radon before closing, lowering the buyer’s immediate exposure to elevated radon.
- Public health authorities — gain a statutory tool to reduce radon exposure in owner‑occupied, single‑family homes and a centralized rulemaking channel to set testing and mitigation standards.
- Radon testing and mitigation contractors — likely see increased demand for pre‑closing services and system installations or repairs as sellers comply with the new requirements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sellers (grantors) of covered properties — must pay for testing, any required mitigation installations or repairs, and potential closing delays tied to remediation.
- County recorders and local recording offices — inherit an administrative compliance check (presence of an affidavit) that could increase rejections, inquiries, and staff workload unless procedures are streamlined.
- Title companies, escrow agents, and lenders — must incorporate new documentation checks and may face delayed closings or underwriting questions when radon remediation is required or disputed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is buyer protection versus transactional and financial friction: SF2242 protects prospective homeowners by requiring pre‑closing testing and remediation, but it does so by shifting cost and timing burdens onto sellers and by using deed‑recording refusal as a blunt enforcement tool—an approach that reduces buyer risk but can delay closings, increase seller costs, and create disputes unless the implementing rules carefully calibrate standards and processes.
The bill creates strong incentives to achieve radon compliance by blocking deed recording without an affidavit, but it leaves key operational definitions and timelines to the department’s forthcoming rules. That delegation is practical—specialized testing standards are best handled administratively—but it also means the statute’s real‑world impact will depend on how prescriptive the department is about testing windows relative to closing, acceptable devices and laboratories, and what constitutes an adequate verification test.
Those rule choices will determine whether testing becomes a routine pre‑closing item or a frequent source of last‑minute closings and disputes.
Another unresolved tension concerns who bears remediation costs and how the statute interacts with existing property disclosure and contract law. The bill places the financial burden on the seller, which protects buyers but may price some sellers, particularly lower‑equity or low‑income homeowners, into difficult choices or slow market activity.
The law also uses recording refusal as enforcement rather than civil penalty or administrative fine, which is a blunt instrument that could push disputes into escrow or litigation if parties disagree about test validity, mitigation efficacy, or zoning classification. Finally, the statute does not define 'functioning' for existing systems nor specify whether remedial work requires licensed contractors or certain warranties—gaps that the implementing rules must fill to avoid inconsistent enforcement and transactional friction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.