A no-pets policy usually costs more than the pets do
No-pets is the default for a lot of owners. Feels like the safe call. The vacancy math tends to say otherwise.
Two things that rarely get weighed before "no pets" goes on the listing.
First, the pool it cuts. Around 58% of renters have a pet now, up from 46% before the pandemic. Zillow ran 11 million listings last year and pet-friendly units leased about 8 days faster. Pet owners also tend to stay put, since finding another place that takes the dog is a hassle. So no-pets isn't screening for better tenants. It's shrinking the applicant pool and stretching days-on-market.
Second, and this is the one that bites in Florida, the rule doesn't even cover every animal. Service animals and ESAs aren't pets under the Fair Housing Act. A no-pets policy doesn't apply to them, you can't charge a pet fee, deposit, or pet rent, and denying a legitimate request is a fair housing violation. Reasonable-accommodation denials are one of the most common complaints filed. And before someone brings up HUD dropping the ESA guidance in 2025, they pulled the memo, not the obligation. That one lives in the statute, so nothing actually changed.
The takeaway is: a real pet policy beats a no-pets policy. Screening, a reasonable deposit, monthly pet rent to cover the wear. Captures the more of prospects and prices the risk instead of pretending it away.
Couple of gray areas worth naming. The ESA letter-mill thing is real, you can ask for reliable documentation when the need isn't obvious, but it's a thin line. And breed and size limits get complicated fast once insurance is in the picture.
Curious where others land on this? No-pets, pet-friendly with a policy, or somewhere in between?
Most Popular Reply
#1 Tenant Screening Contributor
- Honolulu, HI
For most of my career I always had a NO Pet policy. Some of our clients specifically wanted to allow them, which was fine...with their signature on it. Cats are horrible creatures when not properly cared for, and dogs with separation anxiety can do tremendous amounts of damage and/or alienate neighbors due to barking/whining. Personally, I'm a dog lover, but sorry, not in rentals.
My turnover rate for the past 20+ years was well over 4 years, AND, our turnover costs for tenants we placed was much less than a month's rent 95% of the time. Most moves were due to tenants moving to larger rentals, and a fair number were able to relocate to another of the units we managed.
Once ESA's became a "thing" in the rental market, and the abuse was clearly evident, we worked with RE Attorneys to arrive at a set of policies specifically for Assistance Animals. These were implemented and proved very effective over at least a 10 year period, across nearly 1000 rental and COA/HOA units. Our policy pretty clearly stopped gamers from following through with an application to rent, or providing a "request for accommodation". The handful of legit requests over those years raised no objections or complaints regarding our policy requirements.
The fact is, Fair Housing requires you to evaluate any "request for accommodation" on an individual basis, whether for an ESA, a ramp, grab bars, or other requests. The requests must be "reasonable", and not an excessive burden on the property owner.
Our Assistance Animal Policy was pretty straightforward.
We required a current (recent 12 months) Veterinarians Health Report on the animal, showing vaccination status and overall health/condition. Reasonable.
We required, unless contraindicated by the Vet, that all animals be spayed or neutered to prevent aggressive behavior or commercial use (as in puppy mills). Reasonable.
We required handler to keep the animal on a leash or in a carrier when in confined common areas, such as elevators, hallways, and stairwells, UNLESS this would interfere with the tasks the animal performs. Reasonable.
We required handler to clean up after the animal in common areas immediately. Reasonable.
We prohibited offensive odors from emanating from the residence due to the animal. Reasonable.
We prohibited aggressive or nuisance behavior by the animal UNLESS this was a form of the service or task they provided. Reasonable.
We required annual updates of both the request for accommodation (assuming the need for the animal is not obvious, such as guide dogs for the blind) and the animal health report. Reasonable
We also required the request for accommodation letter be signed and properly composed by a local, verifiable source (which can include medical professionals or social workers with proper State or other ID and local clinic contact information). For handlers new to the region (less than 12 months), we would accept documentation from their previous region, however "internet" certificates or letters were not acceptable. Reasonable
The key for having an Assistance Animal Policy is quite simply, formalizing it, and including it at every step as a part of every rental, whether Pets or No Pets. It is a separate policy. By acting proactively and informing every potential applicant, mentioning on every ad, posting in every Multi-Fam common area lobby, and attaching to every rental agreement, the gamers will be well aware, and choose not to deal with you; your tenants will usually not try to sneak one in six months down the road, BUT, if they do and you discover it, you can refresh their memory and require them to comply. Unless they have a new medical/emotional issue, they will most likely remove the animal...because they "forgot" about your rules.
You WILL be asking for trouble if you do not establish and act proactively with your policy. Once an ESA has been declared, YOU are behind the 8-ball, and anything you do could be interpreted in favor of the tenant, in court.
Of course, as always, check local laws for any unique restrictions, but the basis of Fair Housing disability issues always invokes the term "reasonable"...much like damages due to "wear and tear". What IS reasonable/normal for your jurisdiction. Some Judges take different views, but if you look at each of the restrictions noted above, logically, do they, individually, look UNreasonable? Even the argument that a person "can not afford" a Vet is poor at best. Anyone with any animal is expected to properly care for it, and that would include vaccinations and occasional visits with a Vet. Any person needs to be responsible enough to care for their animals.
One last note, I actually include most of those same requirements as part of the Pet Policy for units where they are allowed. And of course, both Pet and Assistance Animal owners remain responsible for actual physical damages by all animals.