Pet Clause: Pet Deposit vs Pet Rent vs Pet Fee, FHA Assistance Animals, Sample Language (2026)

The three pet-fee structures and their state-law treatment

Landlords typically use one or a combination of three fee structures for pet-related charges. Each has distinct state-law treatment, particularly in states with security deposit caps.

The pet deposit is a refundable amount collected at signing, held in trust during the tenancy, and returned at move-out less any deductions for pet-related damage. In states with security deposit caps, the pet deposit counts against the cap. California's AB 12 one-month cap means the pet deposit plus regular deposit together cannot exceed one month. New York's RPL 238-a one-month cap is similarly absolute. Pennsylvania's 68 P.S. 250.511a two-month-first-year structure applies to combined deposits. In non-cap states (Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio), pet deposits are uncapped at state level, though local rules and the common-law reasonableness standard apply.

Pet rent is a monthly additional rent amount, typically 25 to 75 dollars per pet, paid for as long as the pet resides in the unit. The defining characteristic is that pet rent is rent, not deposit. It does not count against state deposit caps because it is rent. It is not refundable. The economic effect mimics a non-refundable deposit but the legal characterisation as rent puts it outside the cap framework. In cap states, pet rent has become the dominant structure precisely because it avoids the cap.

Pet fee is a non-refundable amount collected at signing, retained regardless of move-out condition. The label is unstable in states with deposit caps. Courts apply substance-over-form analysis: a charge collected at signing that is non-refundable and unrelated to a specific service is treated as a deposit subject to the cap. California Civil Code 1950.5(m) explicitly prohibits non-refundable deposits. Texas Property Code 92.108 treats any refundable amount as deposit regardless of label. Pet fees survive only if they are genuinely tied to a specific service (cleaning at move-in to remove prior pet residue, for example) and are reasonable in amount.

The combination of pet deposit (where it fits within the cap) and pet rent (which does not face the cap) is the most common modern structure in cap states. Pet fee is largely retreating from sophisticated landlord practice because of substance-over-form challenges. Non-cap states have more flexibility but the common-law reasonableness standard still applies.

The Fair Housing Act and assistance animals

The Fair Housing Act (42 USC sections 3601 to 3619) prohibits discrimination based on disability in nearly all rental housing. The disability-discrimination provision requires landlords to make reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Waiving a no-pets policy for an assistance animal is the textbook example of reasonable accommodation under the FHA.

HUD's January 2020 notice (FHEO-2020-01) and the 2024 clarifying guidance set out the framework for assistance animals. Service animals are dogs (and in limited cases miniature horses) individually trained to perform tasks for a person with a disability. Emotional support animals (also called comfort animals or companion animals) provide companionship that alleviates a symptom of a disability without specific task training. Both qualify as assistance animals under the FHA's broader definition for housing accommodation, even though the ADA's narrower definition recognises only trained service animals.

A landlord cannot refuse to rent to a person with an assistance animal, cannot charge a pet deposit or pet rent or pet fee for the assistance animal, and cannot impose breed or size restrictions that would exclude the animal. The landlord may require reasonable documentation of the disability and of the disability-related need for the animal if the disability is not obvious. The landlord may not require detailed medical records or specific information about the nature of the disability.

Documentation typically takes the form of a letter from a healthcare provider with whom the tenant has a treating relationship. HUD's 2020 notice clarifies that internet-purchased ESA certifications without an underlying provider relationship are not reliable documentation. Several states have enacted laws addressing the proliferation of online ESA mills, including California's AB 468 (2021), which requires sellers of ESA documentation to provide warnings and limits the marketing.

The narrow exception to the accommodation requirement is when the specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause substantial physical damage to property that cannot be reduced by reasonable accommodation. The threat or damage must be based on actual conduct or characteristics of the specific animal, not on stereotypes about a breed or species. Past behaviour is the typical evidence; assumptions are not. Even where a threat exists, the landlord must first explore whether reasonable accommodation could address it.

Breed restrictions and the emerging state-law limits

Breed-specific lease restrictions (commonly excluding pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, and similar breeds) have been the dominant landlord practice for decades. The restrictions typically derive from insurance company requirements: many homeowner and landlord policies exclude liability coverage for certain breeds, leaving the landlord personally exposed for any incident.

The trend in state law has been to limit breed-specific restrictions. California AB 988 (2018) prohibits insurers from refusing to issue or cancelling homeowner policies based on dog breed, indirectly affecting landlord-imposed breed restrictions because the insurance justification weakens. Nevada AB 226 (2017) prohibits local ordinances that ban specific dog breeds. New York City has limited breed-specific provisions in some Housing Authority policies. Maryland reversed its prior case-law treatment of pit bulls as inherently dangerous under Tracey v. Solesky (2012) through HB 73 (2014).

Most states still permit breed-specific lease provisions, but the trend is clearly toward behaviour-based rather than breed-based restrictions. A lease that excludes dogs with bite histories, dogs that have been declared dangerous by animal control, or dogs above a defined weight (commonly 40 to 80 pounds) is generally more defensible than a breed list. Behaviour-based restrictions also align with insurance company guidance, which is increasingly behaviour-focused rather than breed-focused.

Importantly, breed and behaviour restrictions cannot override the FHA's assistance-animal framework. A landlord with a no-pit-bulls policy must still accept a pit bull assistance animal absent direct-threat evidence specific to that animal. The pit-bull assistance animal case (HUD v. Dutra) and similar enforcement actions have established that breed-based exclusions of assistance animals constitute FHA discrimination.

Insurance company restrictions and the underwriting layer

Most landlord insurance policies have pet-related restrictions written into the underwriting. The restrictions typically exclude liability coverage for certain breeds (the same list of pit bulls, Rottweilers, etc., that appears in many lease provisions) and may limit coverage for incidents involving any dogs above a defined weight. The insurance restriction is the principal reason landlords adopt breed-specific lease provisions: without insurance coverage, any incident leaves the landlord personally liable.

Some insurers have moved toward behaviour-based rather than breed-based underwriting. State Farm, USAA, and several other major carriers have publicly stated that they do not exclude based on breed and instead consider the individual dog's history. This shift has accelerated since California AB 988 and similar state regulatory pressure.

For landlords, the practical guidance is to verify the specific insurance policy's pet restrictions before drafting the lease. A lease that excludes breeds the insurance does not exclude may impose unnecessary restrictions and miss rentals. A lease that permits breeds the insurance excludes may leave the landlord personally exposed. Aligning the lease pet clause with the insurance underwriting is the simplest compliance.

For tenants, the practical guidance is that the assistance-animal exception under the FHA does not require the landlord to obtain insurance for the assistance animal. The landlord must accept the animal as reasonable accommodation, but the landlord's insurance constraints remain a fact. Some landlords address this by requiring the tenant with an assistance animal to carry renter's insurance with adequate liability coverage for the animal. The requirement is permissible as long as it is consistent with policy for other tenants and does not impose disability-specific burdens.

Sample pet clauses

No-pets policy with FHA assistance-animal acknowledgment

Pets permitted with deposit and rent (cap-state compliant)

Behaviour-based restriction (preferred over breed list)

Visiting pets and guest animals

Common pet-clause mistakes

The most common pet-clause mistake is failing to address assistance animals. A blanket no-pets clause without an FHA acknowledgment is non-compliant on its face and may expose the landlord to FHA enforcement. Always include explicit recognition that the assistance-animal framework overrides the pet restrictions.

The second most common mistake is mislabelling pet charges in cap states. A pet deposit collected on top of a maximum regular deposit in California, New York, or Pennsylvania creates a deposit balance exceeding the state cap and is unenforceable as to the excess. The drafting fix is to either reduce the regular deposit to fit the pet deposit within the cap, or to restructure as pet rent (which is not subject to the cap).

The third common mistake is using breed-specific exclusions without insurance verification. A lease excluding pit bulls when the landlord's insurance does not exclude pit bulls imposes a restriction that loses prospective tenants without serving any insurance purpose. Conversely, a lease permitting pit bulls when the insurance excludes them leaves the landlord personally exposed. Always align the lease with the insurance.

The fourth common mistake is failing to define what constitutes a pet on the premises. A lease that addresses only resident pets and is silent on visiting pets, foster pets, and short-term pet-sitting creates ambiguity that often resolves against the landlord. The drafting fix is to address these scenarios explicitly, typically with a time threshold (24 or 48 hours) above which the visiting animal becomes subject to the regular pet provisions.

Related pages

For pet-specific addendum forms (separately attached to the master lease), see the addendum library. For deposit-cap-aware drafting, see the security deposit clause. For state-specific deposit-cap context, see the California, New York, and Pennsylvania pages. For the full clause library, see essential clauses.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

• Fair Housing Act, 42 USC sections 3601-3619: law.cornell.edu
• HUD FHEO-2020-01 notice (Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation): hud.gov
• ADA service animal guidance: ada.gov
• California AB 988 (2018) insurance breed discrimination: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California AB 468 (2021) on emotional support animal documentation: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• Nevada AB 226 (2017) prohibiting breed-specific local ordinances: leg.state.nv.us