Breed-based restrictions in rental properties represent one of the most controversial and legally complex areas of landlord-tenant law. Landlords who impose breed restrictions often cite liability concerns, insurance requirements, and property damage prevention. However, an increasing number of states and municipalities are rejecting breed-based discrimination, recognizing that individual dogs’ behavior and temperament are more relevant to safety and liability than breed alone.
Understanding which breeds are commonly restricted, the legal enforceability of breed restrictions by jurisdiction, the emerging anti-discrimination movement, and behavior-based alternatives to breed bans is essential for both landlords seeking to protect their properties and tenants seeking to house their dogs. This comprehensive guide examines breed restriction laws, explores the scientific and legal challenges to breed-based policies, and provides practical guidance on developing effective, legally compliant dog policies.
Understanding Breed Restrictions in Rental Housing
A breed restriction is a provision in a rental agreement or lease that prohibits specific dog breeds or breed mixes from rental properties. Breed restrictions typically target larger or traditionally aggressive breeds, with pit bulls being the most commonly restricted breed across the United States.
Historical Context of Breed Restrictions
Breed restrictions emerged in rental housing primarily in response to insurance industry practices. In the 1990s and 2000s, insurance companies began denying coverage or imposing surcharges for properties with dogs of breeds they deemed dangerous based on incident statistics. Landlords adopted breed restrictions to comply with insurance requirements and reduce perceived liability exposure.
The practice expanded rapidly, and breed restrictions became widespread in rental leases across the country. Many landlords adopted breed restrictions without carefully evaluating individual dogs’ temperament or behavior, relying instead on breed-based assumptions about dangerousness.
The Rise of Anti-Breed-Discrimination Movement
Beginning in the 2000s, animal welfare advocates, veterinary organizations, and legal scholars began challenging the scientific basis for breed discrimination. Multiple studies demonstrated that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggression or dangerous behavior. Organizations including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, and animal welfare advocates began advocating for behavior-based assessments rather than breed-based restrictions.
In response, several states and municipalities enacted laws prohibiting breed discrimination in housing. These jurisdictions recognized that breed-based restrictions violate fair housing principles and fail to achieve legitimate safety goals. The movement toward behavior-based policies continues to gain momentum nationally.
Most Commonly Restricted Breeds
Certain breeds appear on restriction lists far more frequently than others. The most commonly restricted breeds include:
Most frequently restricted breed; includes American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and mixes with pit bull characteristics.
Large breed frequently restricted due to size and historical use as guard dogs; associated with liability concerns.
Large Japanese breed restricted in some properties due to size and perceived aggression risk.
Medium-sized breed with independent temperament frequently restricted despite size.
Energetic breed sometimes restricted due to high exercise needs and historical unpredictability.
Large breed sometimes restricted despite common use as service and police dogs.
High-energy breeds sometimes restricted due to size and prey drive.
Medium-large breed occasionally restricted despite popularity as family dogs.
States with Breed Discrimination Prohibitions
Several states have enacted laws explicitly prohibiting landlords from discriminating based on dog breed. These jurisdictions recognize that breed-based restrictions are unenforceable and may violate fair housing or animal welfare laws.
States Prohibiting Breed Restrictions
California
California Civil Code Section 1834 prohibits breed-based restrictions in rental housing. Landlords may not deny housing or charge additional fees based on dog breed alone. Landlords may evaluate individual dogs based on behavior and history, but breed-based assumptions are impermissible.
Illinois
Illinois law prohibits breed-based rental housing discrimination. Landlords and property owners cannot restrict housing based on breed. Individual dog assessment based on behavior and dangerous history is permitted, but breed-based restrictions are explicitly prohibited.
New York
New York law prohibits breed discrimination in housing. Landlords may not impose breed restrictions, refuse to rent to owners of specific breeds, or charge higher deposits or fees based on breed. Individual dog assessment based on demonstrated dangerous behavior is allowed.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island prohibits breed-based housing discrimination. Landlords cannot restrict housing based on breed alone. Property owners must evaluate individual dogs based on behavior and temperament rather than breed.
Maryland
Maryland has moving toward limiting breed restrictions through legislative reform and court decisions. Some municipalities have enacted breed discrimination bans.
States with Limited Breed Restrictions
Several other states allow breed restrictions but impose limitations:
- Colorado: Restrictions allowed but must be based on individual dog’s behavior, not breed alone
- Delaware: Breed restrictions permitted but must be reasonable
- Massachusetts: No statewide prohibition, but some municipalities ban breed restrictions
- Michigan: Breed restrictions permitted if based on liability concerns
- Minnesota: Restrictions allowed but individual assessment required
- Missouri: Breed restrictions permitted; state focuses on dangerous individual dogs
- Nevada: Restrictions allowed but liability-based
- Ohio: Restrictions permitted with limitations
- Pennsylvania: Breed restrictions permitted
- Tennessee: Restrictions permitted
- Texas: Restrictions permitted; state focuses on dangerous individual dogs
- Virginia: Restrictions permitted
- Washington: Breed restrictions permitted but may be challenged
Legal Challenges to Breed Restrictions
Scientific Arguments Against Breed Discrimination
Legal challenges to breed restrictions increasingly rely on scientific evidence demonstrating that breed is not a reliable predictor of dangerous behavior. Key scientific arguments include:
Lack of Reliable Correlation
Multiple studies demonstrate that breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior. Aggression is influenced by individual temperament, socialization, training, and environmental factors rather than breed.
American Veterinary Medical Association Position
The AVMA states that breed alone is not a valid criterion for determining which individual dogs pose a threat. The organization recommends evaluating individual dogs based on behavioral history and risk factors.
Misidentification Issues
Shelter and veterinary staff frequently misidentify dog breeds, particularly mixed breeds. Studies show that visual identification of breed is unreliable, undermining the accuracy of breed-based restrictions.
Temperament Testing
Standardized temperament tests show that breed does not predict passing or failing results. Individual dogs within the same breed show wide variation in temperament and behavior.
Fair Housing Arguments
Some legal challenges to breed restrictions invoke fair housing principles. Arguments include:
- Breed restrictions may have disparate impact on protected classes if enforced discriminatorily
- Restrictions may violate fair housing if they prevent reasonable accommodation for service animals
- Selective enforcement of breed restrictions against certain tenants may constitute discrimination
Dangerous Dog Statutes as Alternative Basis
Rather than breed-based restrictions, many jurisdictions have adopted “dangerous dog” or “vicious dog” statutes that focus on individual dogs’ behavior and history. These statutes define dangerous or vicious dogs based on actions (prior attacks, injuries to humans, aggressive incidents) rather than breed.
Legal challenges to breed restrictions often argue that dangerous dog statutes provide an adequate, legally permissible alternative that better serves legitimate safety interests than breed-based bans.
States Using Dangerous Dog Standards Instead of Breed Restrictions
Several states have explicitly rejected breed-based restrictions in favor of dangerous dog statutes. These jurisdictions evaluate individual dogs based on documented dangerous behavior rather than breed assumptions.
Ohio’s Dangerous Dog Law
Ohio’s dangerous dog statute (Ohio Revised Code Section 955.01) defines a dangerous dog based on behavior and history rather than breed. A dog is dangerous if it:
- Has killed or caused serious injury to a person
- Chases or harasses people on public or private property
- Is owned by a person convicted of animal fighting
- Is used in dogfighting
This approach focuses on actual behavior and documented incidents rather than breed assumptions.
Texas Dangerous Dog Statute
Texas law (Texas Health and Safety Code Section 822.001) similarly defines dangerous dogs based on behavior. A dog is dangerous if it:
- Has attacked a person and caused injury
- Has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal
- Is used or trained for dogfighting
Texas allows breed restrictions in some contexts but recognizes that dangerous dog determinations should be based on individual conduct.
Insurance Industry and Breed Restrictions
Insurance Company Practices
Many landlords and property owners adopt breed restrictions because insurance companies require them as conditions of coverage or impose surcharges for properties with restricted breeds. Understanding insurance company practices is important for landlords considering whether to maintain breed restrictions.
Insurance Company Policies Regarding Breed
Insurance companies vary in their breed policies. Some major insurers:
- Refuse to insure properties with any pit bulls, regardless of individual dog’s temperament
- Impose 50-100% surcharges for certain breeds
- Require individual dog assessment and behavioral evaluation as alternative to breed-based denial
- Focus on liability incidents and dangerous behavior rather than breed
- Have relaxed breed restrictions in recent years as science challenged breed-based assumptions
Challenging Insurance-Based Breed Restrictions
Some insurers are increasingly willing to work with property owners on individual dog assessments rather than automatic breed-based denials. Property owners faced with insurance company demands for breed restrictions might consider:
- Shopping for insurance companies with less restrictive breed policies
- Requesting individual dog evaluation rather than breed-based determination
- Obtaining behavioral assessment or temperament testing for specific dogs
- Demonstrating property owner’s commitment to dangerous dog assessment
- Consulting with insurance brokers about alternatives to breed restrictions
- Advocating for change in insurance company policies based on scientific evidence
Behavior-Based Alternatives to Breed Restrictions
Individual Dog Assessment Framework
Rather than breed-based restrictions, landlords can develop comprehensive individual dog assessment frameworks. This approach evaluates each dog based on behavioral history, temperament, training, and owner responsibility rather than breed.
Key Elements of Behavior-Based Assessment
Behavioral History
Assessment should consider whether the dog has any history of aggression, attacks, or dangerous incidents. Veterinary records, prior incident reports, and owner testimony are relevant.
Temperament Testing
Standardized temperament tests evaluate individual dogs’ responses to various stimuli and situations. Tests like the American Temperament Test Society evaluation provide objective behavioral data independent of breed.
Training and Socialization
Dogs with documented professional training and demonstrated good socialization pose lower risk. Evidence of obedience training, behavior classes, or certification programs supports approval.
Owner Responsibility
Assessment should consider owner’s demonstrated commitment to proper care, control, and training. Owners with prior dog experience, responsible pet ownership history, and willingness to maintain proper containment are lower-risk.
Size and Strength Considerations
Rather than breed-specific restrictions, assessment should consider actual dog size and strength (measurable factors) and owner’s ability to control the dog.
Age and Health Status
Younger dogs’ trainability, older dogs’ behavioral stability, and any health conditions affecting behavior are relevant factors.
Sample Behavior-Based Policy
Tenant may keep one dog not exceeding 60 pounds, subject to behavioral evaluation and approval. Dogs of any breed may be considered.
2. BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
Tenant must provide:
a) History of dog’s background and training
b) Proof of current vaccinations and health status
c) References from previous housing or veterinarians
d) Evidence of obedience training or behavioral certification
3. TEMPERAMENT EVALUATION
Landlord may require behavioral evaluation by certified animal behaviorist if concerns arise. Dog must demonstrate appropriate behavior around people and other animals.
4. BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS
Tenant’s dog must not:
a) Display aggression toward people or animals
b) Bark excessively or disturb neighbors
c) Escape or roam freely
d) Threaten the safety of other residents
e) Damage property beyond normal wear and tear
5. DANGEROUS DOG STANDARD
Dogs with documented history of attacking or severely injuring humans or animals may be restricted. Restrictions will be based on specific incidents and behavior, not breed.
6. ONGOING ASSESSMENT
If behavioral concerns arise, Landlord will provide notice and opportunity to address concerns through training or professional intervention before removal.
Temperament Testing Programs
Landlords can require or encourage temperament testing as an alternative to breed restrictions. Several standardized programs exist:
- American Temperament Test Society (ATTS): Standardized evaluation of dog response to various stimuli
- Canine Good Citizen Program (AKC): Evaluates basic obedience and social manners
- Certification from certified animal behaviorists
- Training certification from recognized training organizations
Dogs passing these evaluations demonstrate behavioral competence independent of breed.
Legal Enforceability Analysis: Breed Restrictions by State
Strong Enforceability
| State | Enforceability Level | Key Restrictions |
|---|---|---|
| California | Not Enforceable | Breed discrimination prohibited; individual assessment required |
| Illinois | Not Enforceable | Breed discrimination explicitly prohibited in rental housing |
| New York | Not Enforceable | Breed discrimination prohibited; behavior-based assessment allowed |
| Rhode Island | Not Enforceable | Breed-based restrictions prohibited; individual assessment required |
| Texas | Enforceable | Breed restrictions allowed; dangerous dog standard alternative |
| Florida | Enforceable | Breed restrictions allowed but must be reasonable |
| Pennsylvania | Enforceable | Breed restrictions allowed; landlord discretion |
| Ohio | Limited | Breed restrictions allowed but dangerous dog standard preferred |
Municipal Breed Restrictions and Local Ordinances
City-Level Breed Bans
Even in states allowing breed restrictions, many municipalities have enacted local breed-restriction prohibitions or dangerous dog ordinances. Property owners must comply with both state and local law, whichever is more restrictive.
Examples of Municipal Breed Bans
- Denver, Colorado: Banned pit bulls despite state law allowing breed restrictions
- San Francisco, California: Supplements state law with local dangerous dog ordinance
- Chicago, Illinois: Municipal dangerous dog ordinance complements state breed-discrimination prohibition
- Multiple Massachusetts cities: Have enacted breed-discrimination bans despite no statewide law
Landlords should research both state law and local ordinances when determining what breed restrictions they can legally impose.
Practical Guidance for Landlords
Evaluating Your Jurisdiction’s Law
- Research whether your state prohibits breed discrimination in housing
- Review local municipal ordinances regarding breed restrictions
- Consult with local attorney about enforceability in your jurisdiction
- Review your insurance company’s breed policies and requirements
- Determine whether alternatives to breed restrictions are available
- Consider adopting behavior-based assessment instead of breed restrictions
Transitioning from Breed Restrictions to Behavior-Based Policies
Landlords currently using breed restrictions may consider transitioning to behavior-based policies for several reasons:
- Legal enforceability concerns in jurisdictions moving toward breed-discrimination bans
- Scientific evidence that behavior is better predictor than breed
- Insurance company willingness to accept behavior-based alternatives
- Ability to house more dogs while maintaining safety standards
- Fairness to responsible owners of restricted breeds
Implementation Steps
- Consult with attorney about enforceability of current breed restrictions
- Review insurance company policies regarding behavior-based alternatives
- Develop comprehensive behavior-based assessment framework
- Establish temperament testing or professional evaluation procedures
- Train staff on behavior-based assessment protocols
- Gradually transition existing policies to new standards
- Document all behavioral assessments for individual dogs
- Establish clear procedures for addressing behavioral concerns
Practical Guidance for Tenants
Challenging Breed Restrictions
If you have a dog of a restricted breed and are denied housing, you may have legal rights to challenge the restriction depending on your jurisdiction.
Steps to Challenge Breed Restrictions
- Research your state’s laws regarding breed discrimination in housing
- Obtain written explanation of breed restriction from landlord
- Research local ordinances that may prohibit breed restrictions
- Consult with tenant rights attorney about your legal options
- Gather evidence of your dog’s temperament and training
- Offer temperament testing or behavioral evaluation as alternative
- File complaint with fair housing agency if appropriate in your jurisdiction
- Consider litigation if violation of state or local breed-discrimination law
Strategies to Work With Landlords
Even in jurisdictions allowing breed restrictions, tenants may be able to work with landlords to achieve housing approval:
- Offer to provide temperament certification or behavioral evaluation
- Present evidence of dog’s training and good behavior
- Obtain veterinary references supporting dog’s temperament
- Provide higher pet deposit to offset perceived risk
- Obtain pet liability insurance for additional protection
- Present community references (neighbors, trainers) supporting dog’s safety
- Propose trial period with behavioral monitoring
Breed restrictions in rental housing remain legally enforced in many states but face increasing legal challenges and legislative restrictions. The scientific consensus that breed is not a reliable predictor of dangerous behavior, combined with growing recognition of breed discrimination principles, has shifted the legal landscape away from breed-based restrictions.
Landlords should carefully evaluate their jurisdiction’s laws regarding breed restrictions, consult with local attorneys about enforceability, and consider whether behavior-based assessment provides superior alternatives that are legally defensible and scientifically sound.
Tenants with restricted breeds should research their legal rights, understand whether their jurisdiction prohibits breed discrimination, and work with landlords to demonstrate their dogs’ behavioral appropriateness through temperament testing and behavioral documentation.
The future of dog restrictions in rental housing belongs to behavior-based frameworks that evaluate individual dogs based on actual temperament and documented incidents rather than breed-based assumptions. As more states and municipalities adopt breed-discrimination prohibitions and dangerous dog standards, the practice of breed-based rental restrictions continues to decline in legal enforceability and social acceptance.
