One stop legal reference
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS UNDER
THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
March 5, 2008
Introduction
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) are jointly responsible for enforcing the
federal Fair Housing Act1 (the “Act”), which prohibits
discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, familial status, and disability.2 One type of disability discrimination
prohibited by the Act is a refusal to permit, at the expense of the person with
a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be
occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such
person full enjoyment of the premises.3 HUD and DOJ frequently respond to complaints
alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by refusing reasonable
modifications to persons with disabilities.
This Statement provides technical assistance regarding the rights and
obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers under the Act
relating to reasonable modifications.4
1 The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3601-3619.
2 The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of
“disability.” Both terms have the same
legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott,
524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that the definition of “disability” in the
Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim “from the definition
of ‘handicap’ contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988”). This document uses the term “disability,”
which is more generally accepted.
3 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A).
4 This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable accommodations. For further information see the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice: Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act, dated May 17, 2004. See also 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
This Statement also does not discuss in depth the obligations of housing providers who are recipients of federal financial assistance to make and pay for structural changes to units and common and public areas that are needed as a reasonable accommodation for a person’s disability. See Question 31.
This Statement is not intended to provide specific guidance
regarding the Act’s design and construction requirements for multifamily
dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991. Some of the reasonable modifications
discussed in this Statement are features of accessible design that are required
for covered multifamily dwellings pursuant to the Act’s design and construction
requirements. As a result, people
involved in the design and construction of multifamily dwellings are advised to
consult the Act at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(c), the implementing regulations at
24 C.F.R. § 100.205, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, and the Fair
Housing Act Design Manual. All of these
are available on HUD’s website at www.hud.gov. Additional technical guidance on the design
and construction requirements can also be found on HUD’s website and the Fair
Housing Accessibility FIRST website at: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Questions and
Answers
1. What types of discrimination against
persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit?
The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating
against housing applicants or residents because of their disability or the
disability of anyone associated with them and from treating persons with
disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act makes it unlawful for any person to
refuse “to permit, at the expense of the [disabled] person, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if
such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the
premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is
reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter
agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed
before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”5 The Act also makes it unlawful for any
person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies,
practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford ...
person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling.” The Act also prohibits housing
providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or, with some
narrow exceptions6, placing conditions on their residency, because
those persons may require reasonable modifications or reasonable
accommodations.
5 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable
modifications may be found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203.
6 The Act contemplates certain limits to the
receipt of reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications. For example, a tenant may be required to
deposit money into an interest bearing account to ensure that funds are
available to restore the interior of a dwelling to its previous state. See,
e.g., Question 21 below. A reasonable
accommodation can be conditioned on meeting reasonable safety requirements,
such as requiring persons who use motorized wheelchairs to operate them in a
manner that does not pose a risk to the safety of others or cause damage to
other persons’ property. See Joint
Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 11.
2. What is a reasonable modification under
the Fair Housing Act?
A reasonable modification is a structural change made to
existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability, in
order to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. Reasonable modifications can include
structural changes to interiors and exteriors of dwellings and to common and
public use areas. A request for a
reasonable modification may be made at any time during the tenancy. The Act makes it unlawful for a housing
provider or homeowners’ association to refuse to allow a reasonable
modification to the premises when such a modification may be necessary to
afford persons with disabilities full enjoyment of the premises.
To show that a requested modification may be necessary,
there must be an identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested
modification and the individual’s disability. Further, the modification must be
“reasonable.” Examples of modifications
that typically are reasonable include widening doorways to make rooms more
accessible for persons in wheelchairs; installing grab bars in bathrooms;
lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for persons in wheelchairs;
adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible for persons in wheelchairs;
or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area. These examples of reasonable modifications
are not exhaustive.
3. Who is responsible for the expense of
making a reasonable modification?
The Fair Housing Act provides that while the housing
provider must permit the modification, the tenant is responsible for paying the
cost of the modification.
4. Who qualifies as a person with a
disability under the Act?
The Act defines a person with a disability to include (1)
individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities; (2) individuals who are regarded as having such
an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of such an impairment.
The term “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is
not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and
hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy,
multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency
Virus infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than
addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and
alcoholism.
The term “substantially limits” suggests that the limitation
is “significant” or “to a large degree.”
The term “major life activity” means those activities that
are of central importance to daily life, such as seeing, hearing, walking,
breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and
speaking. This list of major life
activities is not exhaustive.
5. Who is entitled to a reasonable
modification under the Fair Housing Act?
Persons who meet the Fair Housing Act’s definition of
“person with a disability” may be entitled to a reasonable modification under
the Act. However, there must be an
identifiable relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the
individual’s disability. If no such
nexus exists, then the housing provider may refuse to allow the requested
modification.
Example 1: A tenant, whose
arthritis impairs the use of her hands and causes her substantial difficulty in
using the doorknobs in her apartment, wishes to replace the doorknobs with
levers. Since there is a relationship
between the tenant’s disability and the requested modification and the
modification is reasonable, the housing provider must allow her to make the
modification at the tenant’s expense.
Example 2: A homeowner with
a mobility disability asks the condo association to permit him to change his
roofing from shaker shingles to clay tiles and fiberglass shingles because he
alleges that the shingles are less fireproof and put him at greater risk during
a fire. There is no evidence that the shingles permitted by the homeowner’s
association provide inadequate fire protection and the person with the
disability has not identified a nexus between his disability and the need for
clay tiles and fiberglass shingles. The
homeowner’s association is not required to permit the homeowner’s modification
because the homeowner’s request is not reasonable and there is no nexus between
the request and the disability.
6. If a disability is not obvious, what
kinds of information may a housing provider request from the person with a
disability in support of a requested reasonable modification?
A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the
nature and severity of an individual’s disability. However, in response to a request for a
reasonable modification, a housing provider may request reliable
disability-related information that (1) is necessary to verify that the person
meets the Act’s definition of disability (i.e., has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities), (2)
describes the needed modification, and (3) shows the relationship between the
person’s disability and the need for the requested modification. Depending on the individual’s circumstances,
information verifying that the person meets the Act’s definition of disability
can usually be provided by the individual herself (e.g., proof that an
individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security Income or
Social Security Disability Insurance benefits7 or a credible
statement by the individual). A doctor
or other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service
agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the
individual’s disability may also provide verification of a disability. In most cases, an individual’s medical
records or detailed information about the nature of a person’s disability is
not necessary for this inquiry.
Once a housing provider has established that a person meets
the Act’s definition of disability, the provider’s request for documentation
should seek only the information that is necessary to evaluate if the
reasonable modification is needed because of a disability. Such information must be kept confidential
and must not be shared with other persons unless they need the information to
make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable modification request or
unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring
disclosure).
7 Persons who meet the definition of
disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) or
Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) benefits in most cases meet the
definition of a disability under the Fair Housing Act, although the converse may
not be true. See, e.g., Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp, 526 U.S.
795, 797 (1999) (noting that SSDI provides benefits to a person with a
disability so severe that she is unable to do her previous work and cannot
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work whereas a person pursuing
an action for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities
Act may state a claim that “with a reasonable accommodation” she could perform
the essential functions of the job).
7. What kinds of information, if any, may
a housing provider request from a person with an obvious or known disability
who is requesting a reasonable modification?
A housing provider is entitled to obtain information that is
necessary to evaluate whether a requested reasonable modification may be
necessary because of a disability. If a
person’s disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the housing provider, and
if the need for the requested modification is also readily apparent or known,
then the provider may not request any additional information about the
requester’s disability or the disability-related need for the modification.
If the requester’s disability is known or readily apparent
to the provider, but the need for the modification is not readily apparent or
known, the provider may request only information that is necessary to evaluate
the disability-related need for the modification.
Example 1: An applicant with
an obvious mobility impairment who uses a motorized scooter to move around asks
the housing provider to permit her to install a ramp at the entrance of the
apartment building. Since the physical disability (i.e., difficulty walking)
and the disability-related need for the requested modification are both readily
apparent, the provider may not require the applicant to provide any additional
information about her disability or the need for the requested modification.
Example 2: A deaf tenant
asks his housing provider to allow him to install extra electrical lines and a
cable line so the tenant can use computer equipment that helps him communicate
with others. If the tenant’s disability
is known, the housing provider may not require him to document his disability;
however, since the need for the electrical and cable lines may not be apparent,
the housing provider may request information that is necessary to support the
disability-related need for the requested modification.
8. Who must comply with the Fair Housing
Act’s reasonable modification requirements?
Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to allow an individual to make reasonable modifications when such modifications may be necessary to afford a person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises – may be held liable unless they fall within an exception to the Act’s coverage. Courts have applied the Act to individuals, corporations, associations and others involved in the provision of housing and residential lending, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners and condominium associations, lenders, real estate agents, and brokerage services. Courts have also applied the Act to state and local governments, most often in the context of exclusionary zoning or other land-use decisions. See, e.g., City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729 (1995); Project Life v. Glendening, 139 F. Supp. 2d 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff’d, 2002 WL 2012545 (4th Cir. 2002).
9. What is the difference between a
reasonable accommodation and a
reasonable modification under the
Fair Housing Act?8
Under the Fair Housing Act, a reasonable modification is a
structural change made to the premises whereas a reasonable accommodation is a
change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service. A person with a disability may need either a
reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification, or both, in order to
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and
common use spaces. Generally, under the
Fair Housing Act, the housing provider is responsible for the costs associated
with a reasonable accommodation unless it is an undue financial and
administrative burden, while the tenant or someone acting on the tenant’s
behalf, is responsible for costs associated with a reasonable
modification. See Reasonable
Accommodation Statement, Questions 7 and 8.
Example 1: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant wants to install grab bars in the bathroom. This is a reasonable modification and must be
permitted at the tenant’s expense.
Example 2: Because of a
hearing disability, a tenant wishes to install a peephole in her door so she
can see who is at the door before she opens it. This is a reasonable
modification and must be permitted at the tenant’s expense.
Example 3: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside the building in a
common area. This is a reasonable
modification and must be permitted at the tenant’s expense. See also Questions 19, 20 and 21.
Example 4: Because of a
vision disability, a tenant requests permission to have a guide dog reside with
her in her apartment. The housing provider has a “no-pets” policy. This is a
request for a reasonable accommodation, and the housing provider must grant the
accommodation.
8 Housing providers that receive federal
financial assistance are also subject to the requirements of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of l973. 29 U.S.C. §
794. Section 504, and its implementing
regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, prohibit discrimination based on disability,
and obligate housing providers to make and pay for structural changes to
facilities, if needed as a reasonable accommodation for applicants and tenants with
disabilities, unless doing so poses an undue financial and administrative
burden. See Question 31.
10. Are reasonable modifications restricted
to the interior of a dwelling?
No. Reasonable
modifications are not limited to the interior of a dwelling. Reasonable modifications may also be made to
public and common use areas such as widening entrances to fitness centers or
laundry rooms, or for changes to exteriors of dwelling units such as installing
a ramp at the entrance to a dwelling.
11. Is a request for a parking space because
of a physical disability a reasonable accommodation
or a reasonable modification?
Courts have treated requests for parking spaces as requests
for a reasonable accommodation and have placed the responsibility for providing
the parking space on the housing provider, even if provision of an accessible
or assigned parking space results in some cost to the provider. For example, courts have required a housing
provider to provide an assigned space even though the housing provider had a
policy of not assigning parking spaces or had a waiting list for available parking. However, housing providers may not require
persons with disabilities to pay extra fees as a condition of receiving
accessible parking spaces.
Providing a parking accommodation could include creating
signage, repainting markings, redistributing spaces, or creating curb
cuts. This list is not exhaustive.
12. What if the structural changes being
requested by the tenant or applicant are in a building that is subject to the
design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the requested
structural changes are a feature of accessible design that should have already
existed in the unit or common area, e.g., doorways wide enough to accommodate a
wheelchair, or an accessible entryway to a unit.
The Fair Housing Act provides that covered multifamily
dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, shall be designed and
constructed to meet certain minimum accessibility and adaptability
standards. If any of the structural
changes needed by the tenant are ones that should have been included in the
unit or public and common use area when constructed then the housing provider
may be responsible for providing and paying for those requested structural
changes. However, if the requested structural
changes are not a feature of accessible design that should have already existed
in the building pursuant to the design and construction requirements under the
Act, then the tenant is responsible for paying for the cost of the structural
changes as a reasonable modification.
Although the design and construction provisions only apply
to certain multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy since 1991, a tenant
may request reasonable modifications to housing built prior to that date. In
such cases, the housing provider must allow the modifications, and the tenant
is responsible for paying for the costs under the Fair Housing Act.
For a discussion of the design and construction requirements
of the Act, and their applicability, see HUD’s website at: www.hud.gov and the
Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST website at: www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Example 1: A tenant with a
disability who uses a wheelchair resides in a ground floor apartment in a
non-elevator building that was built in 1995.
Buildings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 are covered by
the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. Because the building is a non-elevator
building, all ground floor units must meet the minimum accessibility
requirements of the Act. The doors in
the apartment are not wide enough for passage using a wheelchair in violation
of the design and construction requirements but can be made so through
retrofitting. Under these circumstances, one federal court has held that the
tenant may have a potential claim against the housing provider.
Example 2: A tenant with a
disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built in 1987. The doors in the unit are not wide enough for
passage using a wheelchair but can be made so through retrofitting. If the tenant meets the other requirements
for obtaining a modification, the tenant may widen the doorways, at her own
expense.
Example 3: A tenant with a
disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built in 1993 in
compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing
Act. The tenant wants to install grab bars in the bathroom because of her disability. Provided that the tenant meets the other
requirements for obtaining a modification, the tenant may install the grab bars
at her own expense.
13. Who is responsible for expenses
associated with a reasonable modification, e.g., for upkeep or maintenance?
The tenant is responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a
modification that is used exclusively by her.
If a modification is made to a common area that is normally maintained
by the housing provider, then the housing provider is responsible for the
upkeep and maintenance of the modification.
If a modification is made to a common area that is not normally
maintained by the housing provider, then the housing provider has no
responsibility under the Fair Housing Act to maintain the modification.
Example 1: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant, at her own expense, installs a lift inside her
unit to allow her access to a second story.
She is required to maintain the lift at her expense because it is not in
a common area.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant installs a
ramp in the lobby of a multifamily building at her own expense. The ramp is
used by other tenants and the public as well as the tenant with the disability.
The housing provider is responsible for maintaining the ramp.
Example 3: A tenant leases a
detached, single-family home. Because of
a mobility disability, the tenant installs a ramp at the outside entrance to
the home. The housing provider provides
no snow removal services, and the lease agreement specifically states that snow
removal is the responsibility of the individual tenant. Under these circumstances, the housing
provider has no responsibility under the Fair Housing Act to remove snow on the
tenant’s ramp. However, if the housing provider normally provides snow removal
for the outside of the building and the common areas, the housing provider is
responsible for removing the snow from the ramp as well.
14. In addition to current residents, are
prospective tenants and buyers of housing protected by the reasonable
modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act?
Yes. A person may
make a request for a reasonable modification at any time. An individual may request a reasonable
modification of the dwelling at the time that the potential tenancy or purchase
is discussed. Under the Act, a housing
provider cannot deny or restrict access to housing because a request for a
reasonable modification is made. Such conduct would constitute discrimination. The modification does not have to be made,
however, unless it is reasonable. See
Questions 2, 16, 21 and 23.
15. When and how should an individual request
permission to make a modification?
Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes
a reasonable modification request whenever she makes clear to the housing
provider that she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the
premises because of her disability. She
should explain that she has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known
to the housing provider, the type of modification she is requesting, and the
relationship between the requested modification and her disability.
An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a
reasonable modification unless she requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not
require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time.
A person with a disability need not personally make the reasonable modification
request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is
acting on her behalf. An individual
making a reasonable modification request does not need to mention the Act or
use the words “reasonable modification.” However, the requester must make the
request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request
for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.
Although a reasonable modification request can be made
orally or in writing, it is usually helpful for both the resident and the
housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings
regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was made. To
facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or
prospective residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to
determine if the provider has a preference regarding the manner in which the
request is made. However, housing
providers must give appropriate consideration to reasonable modification
requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the
provider's preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.
16. Does a person with a disability have to
have the housing provider’s approval before making a reasonable modification to
the dwelling?
Yes. A person with a
disability must have the housing provider’s approval before making the
modification. However, if the person
with a disability meets the requirements under the Act for a reasonable
modification and provides the relevant documents and assurances, the housing
provider cannot deny the request.
17. What if the housing provider fails to act
promptly on a reasonable modification request?
A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to
a reasonable modification request. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable
modification request may be deemed a failure to permit a reasonable
modification.
18. What if the housing provider proposes
that the tenant move to a different unit in lieu of making a proposed
modification?
The housing provider cannot insist that a tenant move to a
different unit in lieu of allowing the tenant to make a modification that
complies with the requirements for reasonable modifications. See Questions 2, 21 and 23. Housing providers should be aware that persons
with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge regarding the
functional limitations posed by their disability.
Example: As a result of a
mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at his expense, to
install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized
wheelchair. The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible
because the route to the front door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes that in lieu of
installing the ramp, the tenant move to a different unit in the building. The tenant is not obligated to accept the
alternative proposed by the housing provider, as his request to modify his unit
is reasonable and must be approved.
19. What if the housing provider wants an
alternative modification or alternative design for the proposed modification
that does not cost more but that the housing provider considers more
aesthetically pleasing?
In general, the housing provider cannot insist on an
alternative modification or an alternative design if the tenant complies with
the requirements for reasonable modifications.
See Questions 2, 21 and 23. If
the modification is to the interior of the unit and must be restored to its
original condition when the tenant moves out, then the housing provider cannot
require that its design be used instead of the tenant’s design. However, if the modification is to a common
area or an aspect of the interior of the unit that would not have to be restored
because it would not be reasonable to do so, and if the housing provider’s
proposed design imposes no additional costs and still meets the tenant’s needs,
then the modification should be done in accordance with the housing provider’s
design. See Question 24 for a discussion
of the restoration requirements.
Example 1: As a result of a
mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at his expense, to
install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized
wheelchair. The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible
because the route to the front door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes an alternative
design for a ramp but the alternative design costs more and does not meet the
tenant’s needs. The tenant is not
obligated to accept the alternative modification, as his request to modify his
unit is reasonable and must be approved.
Example 2: As a result of a
mobility disability, a tenant requests permission to widen a doorway to allow
passage with her wheelchair. All of the
doorways in the unit are trimmed with a decorative trim molding that does not
cost any more than the standard trim molding. Because in usual circumstances it
would not be reasonable to require that the doorway be restored at the end of
the tenancy, the tenant should use the decorative trim when he widens the
doorway.
20. What if the housing provider wants a more
costly design for the requested modification?
If the housing provider wishes a modification to be made
with more costly materials, in order to satisfy the landlord’s aesthetic
standards, the tenant must agree only if the housing provider pays those
additional costs. Further, as discussed
in Questions 21 and 23 below, housing providers may require that the tenant
obtain all necessary building permits and may require that the work be
performed in a workmanlike manner. If
the housing provider requires more costly materials be used to satisfy her
workmanship preferences beyond the requirements of the applicable local codes,
the tenant must agree only if the housing provider pays for those additional
costs as well. In such a case, however,
the housing provider’s design must still meet the tenant’s needs.
21. What types of documents and assurances
may a housing provider require regarding the modification before granting the
reasonable modification?
A housing provider may require that a request for a
reasonable modification include a description of the proposed modification both
before changes are made to the dwelling and before granting the modification. A description of the modification to be made
may be provided to a housing provider either orally or in writing depending on
the extent and nature of the proposed modification. A housing provider may also require that the
tenant obtain any building permits needed to make the modifications, and that
the work be performed in a workmanlike manner.
The regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act state that
housing providers generally cannot
impose conditions on a proposed reasonable modification. For example, a housing provider cannot
require that the tenant obtain additional insurance or increase the security
deposit as a condition that must be met before the modification will be
allowed. However, the Preamble to the Final Regulations also indicates that
there are some conditions that can be placed on a tenant requesting a
reasonable modification. For example, in
certain limited and narrow circumstances, a housing provider may require that
the tenant deposit money into an interest bearing account to ensure that funds
are available to restore the interior of a dwelling to its previous state,
ordinary wear and tear excepted.
Imposing conditions not contemplated by the Fair Housing Act and its
implementing regulations may be the same as an illegal refusal to permit the
modification.
22. May a housing provider or homeowner’s
association condition approval of the requested modification on the requester
obtaining special liability insurance?
No. Imposition of
such a requirement would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Example: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside his unit. The housing provider informs the tenant that
the ramp may be installed, but only after the tenant obtains separate liability
insurance for the ramp out of concern for the housing provider’s potential
liability. The housing provider may not
impose a requirement of liability insurance as a condition of approval of the
ramp.
23. Once the housing provider has agreed to a
reasonable modification, may she insist that a particular contractor be used to
perform the work?
No. The housing provider cannot insist that a particular
contractor do the work. The housing provider may only require that whoever does
the work is reasonably able to complete the work in a workmanlike manner and
obtain all necessary building permits.
24. If a person with a disability has made
reasonable modifications to the interior of the dwelling, must she restore all
of them when she moves out?
The tenant is obligated to restore those portions of the
interior of the dwelling to their previous condition only where “it is
reasonable to do so” and where the housing provider has requested the
restoration. The tenant is not
responsible for expenses associated with reasonable wear and tear. In general, if the modifications do not
affect the housing provider’s or subsequent tenant’s use or enjoyment of the
premises, the tenant cannot be required to restore the modifications to their
prior state. A housing provider may
choose to keep the modifications in place at the end of the tenancy. See also Question 28.
Example 1: Because the
tenant uses a wheelchair, she obtained permission from her housing provider to
remove the base cabinets and lower the kitchen sink to provide for greater
accessibility. It is reasonable for the
housing provider to ask the tenant to replace the cabinets and raise the sink
back to its original height.
Example 2: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the housing provider to
install grab bars in the bathroom. As
part of the installation, the contractor had to construct reinforcements on the
underside of the wall. These
reinforcements are not visible and do not detract from the use of the
apartment. It is reasonable for the
housing provider to require the tenant to remove the grab bars, but it is not
reasonable for the housing provider to require the tenant to remove the
reinforcements.
Example 3: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the housing provider to
widen doorways to allow him to maneuver in his wheelchair. In usual circumstances, it is not reasonable
for the housing provider to require him to restore the doorways to their prior
width.
25. Of the reasonable modifications made to
the interior of a dwelling that must be restored, must the person with a
disability pay to make those restorations when she moves out?
Yes. Reasonable restorations of the dwelling required as a
result of modifications made to the interior of the dwelling must be paid for
by the tenant unless the next occupant of the dwelling wants to retain the
reasonable modifications and where it is reasonable to do so, the next occupant
is willing to establish a new interest bearing escrow account. The subsequent
tenant would have to restore the modifications to the prior condition at the
end of his tenancy if it is reasonable to do so and if requested by the housing
provider. See also Question 24.
26. If a person with a disability has made a
reasonable modification to the exterior of the dwelling, or a common area, must
she restore it to its original condition when she moves out?
No. The Fair Housing
Act expressly provides that housing providers may only require restoration of
modifications made to interiors of the dwelling at the end of the tenancy.
Reasonable modifications such as ramps to the front door of the dwelling or
modifications made to laundry rooms or building entrances are not required to
be restored.
27. May a housing provider increase or
require a person with a disability to pay a security deposit if she requests a
reasonable modification?
No. The housing
provider may not require an increased security deposit as the result of a
request for a reasonable modification, nor may a housing provider require a
tenant to pay a security deposit when one is not customarily required. However, a housing provider may be able to
take other steps to ensure that money will be available to pay for restoration
of the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy. See Questions 21 and
28.
28. May a housing provider take other steps
to ensure that money will be available to pay for restoration of the interior
of the premises at the end of the tenancy?
Where it is necessary in order to ensure with reasonable
certainty that funds will be available to pay for the restorations at the end
of the tenancy, the housing provider may negotiate with the tenant as part of a
restoration agreement a provision that requires the tenant to make payments
into an interest-bearing escrow account.
A housing provider may not routinely require that tenants place money in
escrow accounts when a modification is sought.
Both the amount and the terms of the escrow payment are subject to
negotiation between the housing provider and the tenant.
Simply because an individual has a disability does not mean
that she is less creditworthy than an individual without a disability. The decision to require that money be placed
in an escrow account should be based on the following factors: 1) the extent
and nature of the proposed modifications; 2) the expected duration of the
lease; 3) the credit and tenancy history of the individual tenant; and 4) other
information that may bear on the risk to the housing provider that the premises
will not be restored.
If the housing provider decides to require payment into an
escrow account, the amount of money to be placed in the account cannot exceed
the cost of restoring the modifications, and the period of time during which
the tenant makes payment into the escrow account must be reasonable. Although a housing provider may require that
funds be placed in escrow, it does not automatically mean that the full amount
of money needed to make the future restorations can be required to be paid at
the time that the modifications are sought.
In addition, it is important to note that interest from the account
accrues to the benefit of the tenant. If
an escrow account is established, and the housing provider later decides not to
have the unit restored, then all funds in the account, including the interest,
must be promptly returned to the tenant.
Example 1: Because of a
mobility disability, a tenant requests a reasonable modification. The modification
includes installation of grab bars in the bathroom. The tenant has an excellent
credit history and has lived in the apartment for five years before becoming
disabled. Under these circumstances, it
may not be reasonable to require payment into an escrow account.
Example 2: Because of a
mobility disability, a new tenant with a poor credit history wants to lower the
kitchen cabinets to a more accessible height.
It may be reasonable for the housing provider to require payment into an
interest bearing escrow account to ensure that funds are available for
restoration.
Example 3: A housing
provider requires all tenants with disabilities to pay a set sum into an
interest bearing escrow account before approving any request for a reasonable
modification. The amount required by the
housing provider has no relationship to the actual cost of the
restoration. This type of requirement
violates the Fair Housing Act.
29. What if a person with a disability moves
into a rental unit and wants the carpet taken up because her wheelchair does
not move easily across carpeting? Is
that a reasonable accommodation or modification?
Depending on the circumstances, removal of carpeting may be
either a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification.
Example 1: If the housing provider has a practice of not permitting
a tenant to change flooring in a unit and there is a smooth, finished floor
underneath the carpeting, generally, allowing the tenant to remove the carpet
would be a reasonable accommodation.
Example 2: If there is no
finished flooring underneath the carpeting, generally, removing the carpeting
and installing a finished floor would be a reasonable modification that would
have to be done at the tenant’s expense. If the finished floor installed by the
tenant does not affect the housing provider’s or subsequent tenant’s use or
enjoyment of the premises, the tenant would not have to restore the carpeting
at the conclusion of the tenancy. See
Questions 24 and 25.
Example 3: If the housing provider has a practice of replacing the
carpeting before a new tenant moves in, and there is an existing smooth,
finished floor underneath, then it would be a reasonable accommodation of his
normal practice of installing new carpeting for the housing provider to just
take up the old carpeting and wait until the tenant with a mobility disability moves
out to put new carpeting down.
30. Who is responsible for paying for the
costs of structural changes to a dwelling unit that has not yet been
constructed if a purchaser with a disability needs different or additional
features to make the unit meet her disability-related needs?
If the dwelling unit is not subject to the design and
construction requirements (i.e., a detached single family home or a multi-story
townhouse without an elevator), then the purchaser is responsible for the
additional costs associated with the structural changes. The purchaser is
responsible for any additional cost that the structural changes might create
over and above what the original design would have cost.
If the unit being purchased is subject to the design and
construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act, then all costs associated
with incorporating the features required by the Act are borne by the
builder. If a purchaser with a
disability needs different or additional features added to a unit under
construction or about to be constructed beyond those already required by the
Act, and it would cost the builder more to provide the requested features, the
structural changes would be considered a reasonable modification and the
additional costs would have to be borne by the purchaser. The purchaser is responsible for any
additional cost that the structural changes might create over and above what
the original design would have cost.
Example 1: A buyer with a
mobility disability is purchasing a single family dwelling under construction
and asks for a bathroom sink with a floorless base cabinet with retractable
doors that allows the buyer to position his wheelchair under the sink. If the cabinet costs more than the standard
vanity cabinet provided by the builder, the buyer is responsible for the
additional cost, not the full cost of the requested cabinet. If, however, the alternative cabinet
requested by the buyer costs less than or the same as the one normally provided
by the builder, and the installation costs are also the same or less, then the
builder should install the requested cabinet without any additional cost to the
buyer.
Example 2: A buyer with a
mobility disability is purchasing a ground floor unit in a detached townhouse
that is designed with a concrete step at the front door. The buyer requests that the builder grade the
entrance to eliminate the need for the step. If the cost of providing the
at-grade entrance is no greater than the cost of building the concrete step,
then the builder would have to provide the at-grade entrance without additional
charge to the purchaser.
Example 3: A buyer with a
mobility disability is purchasing a unit that is subject to the design and
construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The buyer wishes to have grab bars installed
in the unit as a reasonable modification to the bathroom. The builder is responsible for installing and
paying for the wall reinforcements for the grab bars because these
reinforcements are required under the design and construction provisions of the
Act. The buyer is responsible for the costs of installing and paying for the
grab bars.
31. Are the rules the same if a person with a
disability lives in housing that receives federal financial assistance and the
needed structural changes to the unit or common area are the result of the
tenant having a disability?
Housing that receives federal financial assistance is
covered by both the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. Under regulations implementing
Section 504, structural changes needed by an applicant or resident with a
disability in housing receiving federal financial assistance are considered
reasonable accommodations. They must be
paid for by the housing provider unless providing them would be an undue
financial and administrative burden or a fundamental alteration of the program
or unless the housing provider can accommodate the individual’s needs through
other means. Housing that receives
federal financial assistance and that is provided by state or local entities
may also be covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Example 1: A tenant who uses
a wheelchair and who lives in privately owned housing needs a roll-in shower in
order to bathe independently. Under the
Fair Housing Act the tenant would be responsible for the costs of installing
the roll-in shower as a reasonable modification to his unit.
Example 2: A tenant who uses
a wheelchair and who lives in housing that receives federal financial
assistance needs a roll-in shower in order to bathe independently. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, the housing provider would be obligated to pay for and install the
roll-in shower as a reasonable accommodation to the tenant unless doing so was
an undue financial and administrative burden or unless the housing provider
could meet the tenant’s disability-related needs by transferring the tenant to
another appropriate unit that contains a roll-in shower.
HUD has provided more detailed information about Section
504’s requirements. See www.hud.gov
32. If a person believes that she has been
unlawfully denied a reasonable modification, what should that person do if she
wants to challenge that denial under the Act?
When a person with a disability believes that she has been
subjected to a discriminatory housing practice, including a provider’s wrongful
denial of a request for a reasonable modification, she may file a complaint
with HUD within one year after the alleged denial or may file a lawsuit in
federal district court within two years of the alleged denial. If a complaint is filed, HUD will investigate
the complaint at no cost to the person with a disability. There are several ways that a person may file
a complaint with HUD:
• By placing
a toll-free call to 1-800-669-9777 or TTY 1-800-927-9275;
• By completing the “on-line”
complaint form available on the HUD internet site: http://www.hud.gov; or
• By mailing a completed
complaint form or letter to: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Department
of Housing & Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5204, Washington,
DC 20410-2000
Upon request, HUD will provide printed materials in
alternate formats (large print, audio tapes, or Braille) and provide
complainants with assistance in reading and completing forms.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department brings
lawsuits in federal courts across the country to end discriminatory practices
and to seek monetary and other relief for individuals whose rights under the
Fair Housing Act have been violated. The
Civil Rights Division initiates lawsuits when it has reason to believe that a
person or entity is involved in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination or
when there has been a denial of rights to a group of persons that raises an
issue of general public importance. The
Division also participates as amicus curiae in federal court cases that raise
important legal questions involving the application and/or interpretation of
the Act. To alert the Justice Department to matters involving a pattern or
practice of discrimination, matters involving the denial of rights to groups of
persons, or lawsuits raising issues that may be appropriate for amicus
participation, contact:
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section – G St. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530
For more information on the types of housing discrimination
cases handled by the Civil Rights Division, please refer to the Housing and
Civil Enforcement Section’s website at
http://www.usdoj.gov
A HUD or Department of Justice decision not to proceed with
a Fair Housing Act matter does not foreclose private plaintiffs from pursuing a
private lawsuit. However, litigation can
be an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties. HUD and the Department of Justice encourage
parties to Fair Housing Act disputes to explore all reasonable alternatives to
litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as
mediation. HUD attempts to conciliate
all Fair Housing Act complaints. In
addition, it is the Department of Justice’s policy to offer prospective
defendants the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement negotiations,
except in the most unusual circumstances.