Proposed Pet Laws That Will Impact Landlords

By Nancy Abrams

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act are laws
intended to end discrimination against tenants in their homes and allow them
to have service animals. According to the ADA, service and emotional support
animals are not considered pets and therefore are not subject to a pet policy.

“Even if a lease says ‘no pets’ or restricts pets, landlords are required to make what is called a ‘reasonable accommodation’ to allow pets who serve as assistance animals, which includes emotional support animals,” according to the Humane Society. Those laws allow the landlord to use their discretion in determining whether or not tenants can own a pet as well as what breeds and sizes of animals are permitted. The law also grants landlords the right to impose fees related to pets. But laws about pets may soon change—in favor of the dogs. California legislators are considering a bill that would require landlords to accept all pets, regardless of whether they are service or emotional support animals or not. At the same time, Arizona is considering a law that applies to the acceptance of “restricted” breeds of dogs.

CALIFORNIA STATESMEN CONSIDER NEW DOG LAW

On February 20, 2024, legislation was introduced in the California State Assembly which, if passed, would require property owners in the state to accept renters’ common household pets. Landlords would be prohibited from asking about pets on applications and would also be limited in their ability to charge pet fees or deposits. Specifically, the proposed legislation restricts a landlord from barring a tenant from owning or keeping a standard household pet without valid justification. The bill also prevents landlords from charging tenants extra rent or security deposits for owning or keeping a traditional household pet. Landlords would only be allowed to ask about pet ownership after a tenant’s application has been approved. These restrictions do not apply to rental agreements signed before January 1, 2025. The bill’s author, San Francisco Assemblyman Matt Haney, points out that “landlords, including brand new buildings, can just say no dogs, no cats, period. And that is making our housing crisis a lot worse.”

“Seventy percent of California renters have pets but only 30% of available rentals accept them,” Haney said. “We want a renter to be considered first, and a decision made about whether they meet the requirements for an apartment and then, after that fact, they disclose that they have a pet. And only if there’s a reasonable rationale to deny them, that would be allowed.”

Debra Carlton, the California Apartment Association’s executive vice president of state government affairs said, “The bill does not allow for an increase in security deposits, potentially limiting landlords’ ability to cover pet-related damages.” In response, Haney stated that landlords would have the right to require tenants to purchase pet liability insurance to protect their properties. If enacted, AB 2216 would have a widespread impact on landlords, affecting their legal, financial, and operational makeup. JD Supra advises, “Advocates on both sides must find a balance between the needs and welfare of tenants with the rights and responsibilities of landlords.”

ARIZONA SENATORS MULL NEW DOG LAWS

At the same time, the Arizona Senate is considering their own pet bill that “would prohibit landlords and rental housing providers from setting dog breed restrictions at the properties,” according to Multifamily Dive. “Restrictions often apply to breeds considered dangerous or aggressive, but also frequently cover dogs in the working and sporting breed groups, who are larger and have high energy levels,” according to a recent MarketWatch report. “The dog breeds most commonly restricted, whether imposed by law or by individual landlords, include pit bulls, bulldogs, Rottweilers and German shepherds. “Around 43% of surveyed owners of “restricted” dog breeds have found it difficult to find affordable housing due to their dog and the restrictions compared to 31% of owners of non-restricted breeds,” continued MarketWatch. One in three pet owners of these restricted breeds were charged fees for their pets or were rejected by the landlord due to their pet.

---

Need a Lease Agreement?

A FREE account gets you access to over 200 free forms. Upgrade to a paid account (monthly, annually, or lifetime)

EZLandlord Forms Is Offering 15% 𝙊𝙛𝙛 For New Customers!

We cannot recommend these guys enough!

👉 State Specific Leases 👉 400 Forms to make your landlord-tenant relationship top notch 👉 200 FREE forms for those not ready to purchase 👉 4.8 Rating with over 5000 Reviews 👉 Pro Members get access to ALL leases and forms for $12 per month OR $75 if you purchase the annual membership 👉 YOU CAN BUY LIFETIME FORMS for $399

USE CODE 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐄𝟏𝟓 to get 15% OFF ALL first-time purchases, EVEN THE LIFETIME FORMS!

---

GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Aside from the ADA and the Fair Housing Act, there basically are no federal laws pertaining to pets. The majority of the states are enforcing breed-restrictive legislation and there are no state-level laws that prohibit the practice. Nevada, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Alaska have no breed restrictive legislation at all. There are only 10 states that ban breed restrictive legislation outright and limit local governments’ ability to enforce restrictions. Most of these states have some form of breed restriction, such as a required permit for pit bulls. In the great majority of states, there is breed-restrictive legislation currently being enforced and no state-level legislation prohibiting it.

CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED PET LAWS

According to JD Supra, “The prospect of AB 2216 requires landlords to potentially overhaul existing lease agreements and adapt day-to-day operational strategies to accommodate pets. Moreover, landlords will have to re-evaluate maintenance procedures to address increased wear and tear, adding to their operational burdens.” Landlords will also need to review their insurance coverage to determine whether they need to increase their liability coverage, which in turn could cause an increase in their premiums.

Additional financial implications should the new bill become law include the cost of any necessary property modifications, higher maintenance expenses and possible legal costs to ensure compliance and to contest any new pet-related lawsuits. Should the Arizona bill pass, landlords would still be permitted to restrict tenants from owning dogs. Arizona Sen. J.D. Mesnard, in a statement to AZ Family, expressed concern that the bill could lead to more landlords banning dogs altogether in order to keep banning specific breeds. The Arizona Multihousing Association is opposed to the bill as written.

Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, CEO of the AMA, told Multifamily Dive that property owners often must restrict certain breeds because of limits in the building’s insurance coverage. “This may leave a community uninsured or with insurance coverage that is extremely expensive,” Gilstrap LeVinus said.

Did you enjoy this article?

This is an example of what is included on our FREE weekly newsletter, Landlord Weekly.

Subscribers get access to our free forms, email templates, and guides! As well as…

▪️Landlord Tips ▪️ Early Access to Our Blogs ▪️ Landlord Specific Articles by Other Industry Pro’s ▪️ Podcast Links

To check out a sample of our newsletter, click one of the links below👇