Alabama HOA Pet Restrictions

Alabama pet restrictions at a glance

Key Findings

• Pet authority in Alabama runs on the declaration, not a statute. Neither condominium act nor the Homeowners' Association Act says anything about pets — those statutes hand over rule-making power and corporate procedure, nothing more. The real pet rule lives in the recorded declaration, read against the fair housing floor.
• Alabama grants no right to keep a pet. The state has nothing like California's Civil Code § 4715. A no-pet declaration stands enforceable, checked only by fair housing law.
• Fair housing law sets the controlling limit — settled at the state level, unsettled at the federal level. HUD withdrew its FHEO-2020-01 guidance effective September 17, 2025, then narrowed FHA enforcement on May 22, 2026 to animals individually trained to provide disability-related assistance. Alabama's own statute, § 24-8A-1 et seq., enforced through ADECA and available in private lawsuits, keeps protecting qualifying assistance animals, emotional support animals included — associations shouldn't read the federal pullback as erasing their exposure.
• Alabama carries more animal statutes than its thin HOA-legislative record would suggest, yet none of them creates a pet-keeping right: a housing assistance-animal statute, misrepresentation statutes covering both housing and public accommodations, and the Emily's Law dangerous-dog framework.
• Alabama doesn't preempt municipal breed-specific legislation. Several cities run their own breed ordinances, so breed restrictions come down to the declaration and local law — subject always to the fair housing limit that bars applying a breed rule to an assistance animal absent an individualized direct-threat finding.
• Recent Alabama legislative and appellate activity on HOA pets amounts to nothing. The bills and cases that do exist concern condominium procedure and restrictive-covenant enforcement, not animals.

Details

Section 1: Overview — how pet restrictions work in Alabama

Alabama has no statute regulating pets in a homeowners association. Pet restrictions trace back to the recorded declaration — the CC&Rs — and to whatever rules the board adopts under it, with fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement standing as the one legal limit that always applies.¹ Rule-making authority splits by community type. Condominiums formed on or after January 1, 1991 draw board authority from the Alabama Uniform Condominium Act of 1991, Ala. Code § 35-8A-101 et seq. Condominiums formed earlier fall under the predecessor Alabama Condominium Ownership Act, Ala. Code § 35-8-1 et seq. Planned, non-condominium communities rely on the declaration itself, with the Alabama Homeowners' Association Act, Ala. Code § 35-20-1 et seq., and Title 10A supplying corporate formalities rather than any substantive pet rule.² None of these frameworks says a word about pets specifically.³ Alabama grants no statutory right to keep a pet over a no-pet declaration — unlike California, where Civil Code § 4715 gives an owner the right to keep at least one pet.⁴ Fair housing law supplies the operative overlay: the federal Fair Housing Act and the Alabama Fair Housing Law, reinforced by Alabama's own assistance-animal statute, require associations to reasonably accommodate assistance animals no matter what the pet restriction says.⁵ Nationally, Alabama sits with the large majority of states — a declaration-primary jurisdiction with no pet statute, resting on the same assistance-animal floor every state shares. What follows lays out the legal framework, the operational obligations, recent activity, and Alabama's place among the states.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The source of pet-restriction authority

Pet restrictions in Alabama run on contract and regulation, not statute. The recorded declaration imposes them, backed by whatever rules the board adopts under it. Where the rule-making power originates depends on community type. For condominiums formed on or after January 1, 1991, the Alabama Uniform Condominium Act confers association powers — including the power to adopt and enforce rules — at Ala. Code § 35-8A-302.⁶ Condominiums formed earlier operate under the predecessor Alabama Condominium Ownership Act, Ala. Code § 35-8-1 et seq., though certain provisions of the 1991 act reach those older condominiums for events occurring after that date.⁷ Planned communities answer to the Alabama Homeowners' Association Act, which applies to associations formed on or after January 1, 2016 (and to older associations that elect coverage). It requires organizing as a nonprofit corporation under Title 10A and authorizes the board, "to the extent authorized by the declaration and governing documents," to suspend member rights and impose reasonable fines.⁸ That leaves the declaration as the actual source of any pet rule in a planned community — the statute supplies corporate procedure, nothing more. The Act adds that the declaration prevails over other governing documents whenever they conflict.⁹ On a pet question, precedence runs in this order: mandatory federal and state fair housing law first, then the declaration, then the bylaws, then board rules. The rule that actually governs is the declaration, read against the fair housing floor — not a statute.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints: assistance animals

The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing. It defines discrimination to include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling" (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)).¹⁰ Homeowners associations and condominium associations count as covered housing providers.¹¹ Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy counts as a reasonable accommodation, and because assistance animals aren't pets, no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees or deposits simply don't reach them. The FHA's "assistance animal" category has always run broader than the "service animal" the Americans with Disabilities Act defines: it covers both animals individually trained to perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, and the support-animal branch carries no training requirement at all. That's the biggest source of confusion on this topic, because residential HOA obligations flow from the FHA, not from the ADA's narrower service-animal definition — a dog, or in some cases a miniature horse, individually trained to do work or perform tasks.

HUD's assistance-animal guidance has shifted, and the current state of play matters. HUD's Notice FHEO-2020-01, issued January 28, 2020, laid out best practices on documentation and on the line between service animals and support animals.¹² HUD withdrew that notice, along with its 2013 predecessor, effective September 17, 2025, as part of a deregulatory review.¹³ Then, on May 22, 2026, HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued an enforcement memorandum — signed by FHEO Assistant Secretary Craig W. Trainor — stating that FHEO "will find reasonable cause and recommend charges only for those cases involving animals trained to provide disability-related assistance." The memo treats requests involving animals trained for specific disability-related tasks as presumptively reasonable, while treating requests to waive pet policies for untrained emotional support animals as not presumptively reasonable. It states plainly that FHEO no longer expects housing providers to extend trained-animal accommodations to untrained emotional support animals, citing Executive Order 14219 and attaching the decision in Henderson v. Five Properties LLC.¹⁴ HUD calls this a shift in enforcement policy, not a change to the statute — the FHA text and existing case law stand unchanged, and complainants keep the right to sue in court.¹⁵ Where documentation is properly required for a non-obvious disability, an HOA may request reliable documentation, but it may not require registration, certification, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, detailed medical records, or a pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for the assistance animal. An HOA may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding — undue financial or administrative burden, fundamental alteration, or a direct threat the specific animal poses that no other accommodation could reduce. A denial can't rest on breed, size, or generalized fear, and the owner still answers for the animal's conduct and any damage it causes.¹⁶ The ADA governs public accommodations and government programs generally, not the internal residential operations of an HOA — though it can reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented out to non-residents.

2C. Alabama law overlay

The Alabama Fair Housing Law, Ala. Code § 24-8-1 et seq., bars housing discrimination based on disability and backs the same accommodation analysis. The statute puts the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs — ADECA — in charge of receiving and investigating complaints, and a complainant can also file with HUD.¹⁷ Alabama went further than most states: the Alabama Assistance and Service Animal Integrity in Housing Act, Ala. Code § 24-8A-1 et seq. (Act 2018-235, effective June 1, 2018), defines an "assistance animal" as an animal, other than a service animal, that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA or Section 504 — emotional support animals included, when they qualify.¹⁸ Because the Alabama statute cross-references the FHA and runs through the state's own fair housing mechanism, the state-law protection for support animals doesn't rise or fall with HUD's federal enforcement posture. Section 24-8A-3 lets a landlord request reliable documentation of a disability and of a disability-related need, but only where one or the other isn't readily apparent or already known, and it requires keeping that documentation confidential. "Reliable documentation," under § 24-8A-2(4), means documentation from the person's own medical provider — nothing else qualifies.¹⁹ The Act also criminalizes misrepresenting entitlement to an assistance or service animal (§ 24-8A-4) and providing false documentation or fitting a non-assistance animal with a vest or harness (§ 24-8A-5): a first offense draws a $500 civil penalty or a Class C misdemeanor, a second draws a Class B misdemeanor.²⁰ Separately, in the public-accommodations context, Ala. Code § 21-7-4 protects the right to be accompanied by a service animal, and Act 2019-478, effective September 1, 2019, made misrepresenting oneself as a service-animal user or trainer a Class C misdemeanor.²¹ Alabama's dangerous-dog framework carries a name: Emily's Law, Ala. Code § 3-6A-1 et seq. (Act 2018-182), for Emily Mae Colvin, 24, killed by a pack of dogs on December 7, 2017 in Jackson County. Senators Steve Livingston and Andrew Scofield sponsored the bill, SB232; Governor Kay Ivey signed it March 8, 2018, and it took effect June 1, 2018. The law creates a court process to declare a dog dangerous and imposes containment, registration, and liability requirements on the owner. A court's dangerous-dog adjudication doesn't displace an association's own authority over the animal under the declaration, and Emily's Law leaves local ordinance power intact.²² Alabama has no statute preempting municipal breed-specific legislation. The City of Irondale bans pit bulls under its municipal code, with registration, confinement, muzzle, and liability-insurance conditions for dogs already registered; the City of Lanett bans both pit bulls and presa canario dogs, with violations punishable by seizure, a fine up to $500, and up to 30 days in jail. Breed restrictions, in other words, remain a matter for the declaration and local ordinance.²³

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

Ordinary pet restrictions generally hold up in Alabama once properly adopted in the declaration or in rules the declaration authorizes — limits on the number of animals, size and weight limits, restrictions on type, leash and waste rules in common areas. Both condominiums and planned communities enforce these, and all of them draw their force from the declaration, not from any statute.²⁴ Alabama courts will enforce restrictive covenants, but they apply equitable defenses too, so a restriction needs proper adoption and consistent application to survive a challenge.²⁵ Every one of these restrictions yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement.

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

An association that receives a request should respond promptly and in good faith. Where the disability or the disability-related need isn't readily apparent, it may ask for reliable documentation from the requester's own medical provider — but it can't demand certification, a specific breed, or training records for a support animal (Ala. Code §§ 24-8A-2, 24-8A-3).²⁶ A denial holds up only on an individualized direct-threat or undue-burden analysis tied to that specific animal, never on breed, size, or generalized concern.²⁷ That standard applies equally to condominiums and planned communities.

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

An association may charge pet fees or deposits for ordinary pets, but only if the declaration or rules authorize it — statute leaves that entirely to the governing documents.²⁸ It may not charge a pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance premium for an assistance animal, since an assistance animal doesn't count as a pet under the fair housing accommodation standard.²⁹

D. Enforcement and disclosure

The association's fining authority does the enforcing. In planned communities, Ala. Code § 35-20-11 authorizes the board — to the extent the declaration allows — to suspend member rights and levy reasonable fines, typically after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Condominium associations enforce through the powers the condominium act and the declaration confer.³⁰ Governing documents, pet restrictions included, get recorded, and post-2016 planned communities must also file with the Alabama Secretary of State, which keeps a searchable public database. That means recorded covenants run with the land and bind purchasers when a unit changes hands.³¹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

Alabama's HOA-related legislative and appellate activity in the relevant windows has stayed procedural — no qualifying bill or ruling addressing pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation turned up. Absent state activity specific to pets, the federal Fair Housing Act framework and Alabama's own assistance-animal statute keep controlling.

A. Recent bills

No Alabama bill in the past 24 months takes up HOA pet rules, assistance or emotional-support animals in housing, or service-animal misrepresentation. The condominium bills that moved through the 2026 Regular Session dealt with declaration-amendment procedure and dispute remedies — not animals. HB260, "Condominiums; consents and waivers, arbitration and mediation," would have amended several sections of the Uniform Condominium Act to bar using consents, waivers, and powers of attorney to obtain owner authorization for altering a declaration. Introduced January 15, 2026, it died in committee.³² Its Senate companion, SB121, introduced January 13, 2026, didn't pass either.³³ A dangerous-dog bill, HB277, from the 2025 Regular Session and also titled Emily's Law, never advanced out of committee.³⁴ None of these bills touches pet rules or assistance animals.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No Alabama appellate decision in the past 36 months touches HOA pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation. Two recent association rulings deal with other matters entirely. In Englund v. Dauphin Island Property Owners Association (SC-2024-0414, Supreme Court of Alabama, decided August 29, 2025), the Court reversed a permanent injunction that would have forced homeowners to tear down portions of a nearly finished house over a setback-covenant violation, applying the relative-hardship and clean-hands doctrines to restrictive-covenant enforcement.³⁵ In Ross v. West Wind Condominium Association (CL-2025-0064, Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, 2025), the court took up a condominium assessment and foreclosure dispute.³⁶ Neither case involves pets or assistance animals, but both confirm the path Alabama civil association appeals travel: through the Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court, not the Court of Criminal Appeals.³⁷

C. Active legislative debates

No active Alabama proposal touches assistance animals, service-animal misrepresentation, or breed law — the 2026 Regular Session adjourned on April 9, 2026 without one.³⁸

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

States split into two groups on HOA pets. A small group grants a statutory pet-keeping right or spells out detailed pet provisions, and California's Civil Code § 4715 — the right to keep at least one pet in a common interest development — offers the clearest example.³⁹ The large majority, Alabama included, leave pet authority entirely to the recorded declaration, with no pet statute at all. Every state shares the same federal floor, the FHA's assistance-animal requirement, so for an operator running communities across state lines, the assistance-animal analysis stays broadly uniform nationwide even as each community's declaration sets its own enforceable pet restrictions.⁴⁰ Alabama stands out for going beyond that federal baseline: it has enacted a housing-specific assistance-animal statute, Ala. Code § 24-8A-1 et seq., plus service-animal misrepresentation and dangerous-dog statutes. What it hasn't done is create a pet-keeping right or a statewide breed preemption.⁴¹

HOA Weekly's Alabama Pet Restrictions coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal framework applies to Alabama associations regardless of what the state framework says, and its evolving HUD enforcement posture bears watching each quarter.

Recommendations

1. Treat the declaration as the governing pet instrument, then check it against the fair housing floor. Before enforcing any number, size, weight, breed, or type restriction, confirm it actually appears in or is authorized by the recorded declaration, was adopted through the right procedure, and gets applied consistently. The most common failure point is a restriction that exists only in an informally adopted rule, or one enforced selectively — the Englund line of cases shows courts will reach for equitable defenses.
2. Build a written assistance-animal accommodation process and actually use it. Standardize an intake form, a documentation request limited to what §§ 24-8A-2 and 24-8A-3 permit — reliable documentation from the requester's own medical provider, and only where the disability or need isn't obvious — a confidentiality protocol, and a decision-letter template. Don't request certification, registration, ID cards, breed, training records for a support animal, or medical records, and don't charge any pet fee, deposit, or insurance premium for an assistance animal.
3. Don't over-read the 2026 HUD enforcement shift. The May 22, 2026 memorandum narrows what HUD itself will pursue, but it didn't amend the FHA, didn't change case law, and didn't touch Alabama's own statute or the private right to sue. The safer posture keeps running individualized, good-faith evaluations rather than adopting blanket denials of untrained emotional support animals. Watch for the benchmark that would change this: a HUD notice-and-comment rule, which HUD has signaled it may pursue, or an Alabama statutory amendment adopting a training requirement. Until one of those happens, evaluate each request on its own facts.
4. Deny only on an individualized record. Reserve denial for undue financial or administrative burden, fundamental alteration, or a direct-threat or unavoidable substantial-damage finding tied to the specific animal and backed by objective evidence. Document the analysis every time. Breed, size, and generalized fear don't count as defensible grounds.
5. Map municipal breed ordinances for every property. Since Alabama doesn't preempt breed-specific legislation, confirm whether each community sits in a jurisdiction such as Irondale or Lanett with a breed ordinance, then reconcile the declaration, the local ordinance, and the assistance-animal carve-out. A breed rule can't reach an assistance animal without an individualized direct-threat finding.
6. Coordinate the dangerous-dog and enforcement tracks separately. An Emily's Law adjudication and the association's own authority run on different tracks — an association may enforce declaration-based remedies over an animal regardless of a court's dangerous-dog ruling. Route pet-fine enforcement through the notice-and-hearing procedure in § 35-20-11, or the condominium act, with civil appeals headed to the Court of Civil Appeals.

Caveats

• Federal enforcement remains unsettled. HUD withdrew FHEO-2020-01, effective September 17, 2025, then narrowed enforcement in the May 22, 2026 memorandum. That memorandum is enforcement guidance, not a regulation — HUD has signaled it may pursue formal rulemaking, and neither the outcome nor the timing is known yet. Statements about HUD's posture reflect the last verification date and deserve a re-check each quarter.
• State law offers the more durable protection in Alabama, and the HUD memo didn't touch it. The Alabama Assistance and Service Animal Integrity in Housing Act, enforced through ADECA and available in private litigation, keeps protecting qualifying assistance animals, emotional support animals included. An association relying solely on the federal enforcement pullback would misjudge its exposure.
• Some table entries reflect the governing document, not a statute. Wherever the table or text says "not specified by statute," the declaration and board rules control — those documents vary community by community and need a direct read.
• Two recent cases appear here for structural and covenant-enforcement points only. Englund and Ross don't concern pets or assistance animals. Confirm the precise holding language of Ross v. West Wind Condominium Association (CL-2025-0064) against the full opinion on the Alabama appellate portal before relying on it for anything beyond its subject matter and procedural posture.
• This page offers regulatory intelligence, not legal advice. An association facing a specific accommodation request or enforcement dispute should consult Alabama community-association counsel.

Footnotes

1. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) ↩
2. Ala. Code §§ 35-8A-101, 35-8-1, 35-20-1 ↩
3. Ala. Code § 35-8A-302 (powers of association) ↩
4. Cal. Civ. Code § 4715 ↩
5. Ala. Code § 24-8-1 et seq.; § 24-8A-1 et seq. ↩
6. Ala. Code § 35-8A-302 ↩
7. Ala. Code § 35-8A-102 (applicability) ↩
8. Ala. Code §§ 35-20-5, 35-20-11 ↩
9. Ala. Code § 35-20-8 (priority of declaration) ↩
10. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) ↩
11. HUD-DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (2004) ↩
12. HUD Fact Sheet on the Assistance Animals Notice (FHEO-2020-01, Jan. 28, 2020) ↩
13. HUD withdrawal of FHEO-2020-01, effective Sept. 17, 2025 ↩
14. HUD FHEO Enforcement Memorandum, May 22, 2026 (signed by Assistant Secretary Craig W. Trainor) ↩
15. DREDF, HUD's Policy Reversal on Emotional Support Animals (2026) ↩
16. HUD-DOJ Joint Statement (direct-threat and undue-burden analysis) ↩
17. Ala. Code § 24-8-3 (ADECA); § 24-8-12 ↩
18. Ala. Code § 24-8A-2 (definitions) ↩
19. Ala. Code §§ 24-8A-3, 24-8A-2(4) (documentation) ↩
20. Ala. Code §§ 24-8A-4, 24-8A-5 ↩
21. Ala. Code § 21-7-4(h)-(i) (Act 2019-478) ↩
22. Ala. Code § 3-6A-1 et seq. (Emily's Law; Act 2018-182, SB232) ↩
23. Alabama municipal breed ordinances (Irondale pit bull prohibition; Lanett pit bull and presa canario prohibition) ↩
24. Ala. Code § 35-20-11 (board powers) ↩
25. Englund v. Dauphin Island POA (Ala. 2025) ↩
26. Ala. Code §§ 24-8A-2, 24-8A-3 ↩
27. HUD-DOJ Joint Statement (individualized direct-threat standard) ↩
28. Ala. Code § 35-20-11 ↩
29. HUD Fact Sheet (no deposits or fees for assistance animals) ↩
30. Ala. Code § 35-20-11 ↩
31. Ala. Code § 35-20-5 (Secretary of State filing) ↩
32. Alabama HB260 (2026 Regular Session) ↩
33. Alabama SB121 (2026 Regular Session) ↩
34. Alabama HB277 (2025 Regular Session) ↩
35. Englund v. Dauphin Island POA, SC-2024-0414 (Ala. Aug. 29, 2025) ↩
36. Ross v. West Wind Condominium Ass'n, CL-2025-0064 (Ala. Civ. App. 2025) ↩
37. Ala. Code §§ 12-3-10, 12-2-7 (appellate jurisdiction) ↩
38. Alabama Legislature, 2026 Regular Session (adjourned Apr. 9, 2026) ↩
39. Cal. Civ. Code § 4715 ↩
40. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) ↩
41. Ala. Code § 24-8A-1 et seq. ↩