Colorado HOA Pet Restrictions

Colorado pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview, how pet restrictions work in Colorado

Colorado has no statute regulating pets in a homeowners' association. Pet restrictions come from the recorded declaration and the rules an association adopts under its statutory rule-making power. The principal legal limit is federal and state fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement, and enforcement of any pet-rule violation runs through the fining and collections framework HB 22-1137 enacted and later amendments refined.¹³ The governing statute is the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, CCIOA, C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq. — a single unified statute enacted in 1991, effective July 1, 1992, covering condominiums, planned communities, and cooperatives together, with no pet-keeping right anywhere in its text.¹ Colorado has nothing comparable to California's Civil Code § 4715, and its list of owner-protective provisions — flags, signs, religious symbols, solar and other renewable-energy devices, xeriscape landscaping — leaves pets off the list entirely.^3,22 The one mandatory overlay is the assistance-animal accommodation duty under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, CADA, administered by the Colorado Civil Rights Division within the Department of Regulatory Agencies and by HUD.^7,8 Nationally, Colorado sits with the large majority of states — a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act jurisdiction where pet authority runs through the declaration, distinguished less by any pet statute than by an active, recently reformed enforcement framework. What follows lays out the source of pet authority, the fair housing constraints, the operational rules, and recent legislative activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The source of pet-restriction authority

Pet restrictions in Colorado carry no statutory basis. The recorded declaration imposes them, and the executive board's rules, adopted under CCIOA's grant of power to "adopt and amend bylaws and rules and regulations," C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(1)(a), back them up — unless the declaration limits that authority.² Because CCIOA runs as a single unified statute covering condominiums, planned communities, and cooperatives, built on the 1982 Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, no condominium-versus-planned-community split exists in the pet analysis, and no § 4715-style statutory pet right applies to any community type.¹ A retroactivity wrinkle affects older communities: under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-117, only an enumerated set of CCIOA provisions reaches communities created before July 1, 1992, while the rest of the article applies to communities formed on or after that date.⁴ For pet questions, the practical result comes out the same either way, since pet authority runs through the declaration, and CCIOA's rule-making and enforcement provisions govern how any pet rule gets adopted and pursued. Colorado's owner-protective provisions in C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5 — barring associations from prohibiting flags, signs, religious symbols on entry doors, solar and other renewable-energy devices, and xeriscape and drought-tolerant landscaping — leave pets off that list, so no statutory pet-keeping right can be inferred from that section.³ On any pet question, precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory, first; then the declaration; then the bylaws; then board rules, with CCIOA and the HB 22-1137 framework governing how rules get adopted and enforced. The pet rule that actually governs any given community is the declaration, read against the fair housing floor — not a statute.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints, assistance animals

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing and requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and services whenever necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling — a duty codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), reaching homeowners' associations and condominium associations alike.⁵ Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or a pet restriction counts as a reasonable accommodation. Assistance animals aren't pets, so no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees and deposits simply don't reach them.⁹ The FHA's "assistance animal" runs broader than the ADA's "service animal": it covers animals that perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement at all for a support animal.⁹ Where a disability or disability-related need isn't obvious, an association may request reliable documentation of the disability and the need — but it can't require registration, certification, an identification card, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, detailed medical records, or any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for the assistance animal.⁹ An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding — that it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden, fundamentally alter operations, or that the specific animal poses a direct threat or would cause substantial physical damage 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.⁹ One significant development bears watching: on September 17, 2025, HUD withdrew its operative sub-regulatory guidance, FHEO Notice 2020-01, issued January 28, 2020, along with FHEO Notice 2013-01, in a memorandum titled "Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents," later formalized by a Federal Register notice published April 6, 2026. The withdrawal removed HUD's detailed documentation-and-process guidance but didn't amend or repeal the Fair Housing Act, which remains in full force — HUD itself stated that "any actions that do not comply with the text of the Fair Housing Act continue to be subject to enforcement by the Department."⁶ The statutory accommodation duty, the case law applying it, and CADA all keep controlling, even though the withdrawn guidance no longer supplies a HUD-endorsed checklist. The ADA stands apart: it governs public accommodations and government programs generally, not the internal residential operations of an association, and it doesn't displace the FHA's broader assistance-animal protections for residents — though it may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented out to non-residents.¹⁰

2C. Colorado law overlay

CADA, C.R.S. § 24-34-501 et seq., bars housing discrimination based on disability, and at C.R.S. § 24-34-502.2 requires the same reasonable-accommodation analysis in rules, policies, practices, and services — backing the identical assistance-animal result under state law.⁷ The Colorado Civil Rights Division, within the Department of Regulatory Agencies, enforces CADA's housing provisions; HUD certifies it as a Fair Housing Assistance Program agency, so a housing-discrimination charge commonly gets dual-filed with the Division and HUD.⁸ Colorado also regulates the documentation side: state law directs licensed health professionals responding to a patient's request for assistance-animal documentation to make written findings about disability and disability-related need, which bears on what an association may treat as reliable documentation.¹¹ HB 22-1137 constrains how a pet-rule violation may be enforced. Codified largely at C.R.S. § 38-33.3-209.5, it requires written notice with an opportunity to cure before a fine, notice in the owner's identified preferred language, and an offer of a payment plan before certain collection steps, and it prohibits daily fines while capping the fine for a non-safety violation at $500.^13,14 Later sessions kept adjusting the framework — HB 24-1233, HB 24-1337, and HB 25-1043, all covered in Section 4.^15,16,17 On misrepresentation, Colorado has enacted C.R.S. § 18-13-107.7, making intentional misrepresentation of a service animal a petty offense with escalating fines, plus a companion provision addressing misrepresentation of entitlement to an assistance animal; C.R.S. § 24-34-803 is Colorado's public-accommodations and housing service-animal-access statute.^11,10 On dangerous dogs, C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5 makes unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog a crime and defines a dangerous dog by conduct, not breed. The same section bars a municipality from regulating dangerous dogs "in a manner that is specific to breed" — a limit restraining local government, not private CC&Rs, so Colorado has no statewide breed-preemption rule reaching declarations.¹² Denver voters repealed the city's 1989 pit bull ban on November 3, 2020 through Ballot Measure 2J, which passed with roughly 66% approval and replaced the ban with a breed-restricted permit system — illustrating the shifting municipal landscape, though that shift restrains local government only and doesn't disturb an association's contractual authority under its declaration.²³

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

3A. Enforceable pet restrictions

Properly adopted, restrictions on the number, size, weight, and type of animals, along with leash and waste-management rules in common areas, generally hold up as an exercise of the association's rule-making power under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(1)(a) — provided the rule stays reasonable and consistent with the declaration and other law.² Every one of them yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement under the FHA and CADA and can't be applied to an assistance animal.^5,7

3B. Handling an assistance-animal request

For a request tied to a non-obvious disability, the association may ask for reliable documentation of the disability and the disability-related need for the animal, and it should respond in a timely, good-faith, interactive manner.⁹ It may not demand certification, registration, an identification card, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, or detailed medical records.⁹ A denial holds up only on an individualized finding of undue financial and administrative burden, fundamental alteration, or a direct threat or substantial physical damage the specific animal poses that can't be reduced by another accommodation — never on breed, size, or generalized concern.⁹

3C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

An association may charge pet fees or deposits for ordinary pets only where the declaration or rules authorize it — Colorado has no pet-fee statute, so any charge is a matter for the governing documents, subject to the HB 22-1137 limits on fees and charges tied to enforcement.¹³ It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance premium for an assistance animal.⁹

3D. Enforcement and disclosure

C.R.S. § 38-33.3-209.5 governs enforcement of a pet-rule violation. The association must give written notice with an opportunity to cure, provide notice in the owner's identified preferred language, and, for a violation that doesn't threaten public safety or health, allow two consecutive 30-day cure periods before taking legal action; a health-or-safety violation carries a 72-hour cure period instead.¹⁴ Daily fines are prohibited, the fine for a non-safety violation can't exceed $500, interest on unpaid amounts is capped at 8% per year, and the association may not foreclose on a lien consisting only of fines.¹⁴ Before certain collection steps, the association must offer a payment plan, and referral to a collection agency or attorney requires a recorded board vote.¹³ Owners retain board hearing rights under the association's covenant-enforcement policy. Pet restrictions reach buyers through CCIOA's disclosure regime: the governing documents get disclosed under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-209.4, the binding statement of assessments and status letter under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-316, and associated fees under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-317 — so a buyer receives the declaration and rules that contain any pet restriction before closing.¹⁸

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

4A. Recent bills

A third bill, HB 24-1233, effective August 7, 2024, removed door posting as a delinquency-notice method and required delivery by certified mail plus two of telephone, text, or email — further shaping how any fine-based claim gets noticed.¹⁵

4B. Recent appellate rulings

No decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Colorado Supreme Court in the past 36 months squarely addresses HOA pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation. The leading Colorado-based authority remains federal: the U.S. Attorney's Office resolved Fair Housing Act claims against the Creekside Condominium Homeowners Association of Snowmass Village, which had repeatedly denied a resident's assistance-animal accommodation, through a consent order U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico approved for the District of Colorado on January 7, 2020 — requiring a $50,000 payment to residents Jason Neilson and Kirsten Swick, new accommodation and assistance-animal policies, and annual Fair Housing Act training.²⁴ That matter is a federal district-court consent order, not a state appellate ruling, and it predates the current 36-month window; it's noted here only as illustrative context.

4C. Active legislative debates

Colorado's HOA fining and collections framework has changed in every recent session, and follow-on work from a 2023 homeowners' association task force keeps shaping new proposals. A 2024 effort to reinstate community association manager licensing, HB 24-1078, failed, and HUD's late-2025 withdrawal of its assistance-animal guidance is prompting associations to revisit their accommodation policies.^6,19

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Among the states, Colorado belongs to the large majority where HOA pet authority runs through the declaration with no pet statute — in contrast to the small group with a statutory pet-keeping right, of which California's Civil Code § 4715, guaranteeing at least one pet subject to reasonable rules, offers the clearest example.²² Every state shares the same federal floor, the Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal accommodation requirement, which applies regardless of state law.⁵ For an operator running communities across state lines, the binding constraint on pet enforcement in Colorado isn't a pet statute — it's the HB 22-1137 fining and collections rules, layered on top of the uniform assistance-animal analysis.¹³ Colorado remains a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act jurisdiction whose owner-protective provisions cover flags, signs, solar, and xeriscape, but never pets.³

HOA Weekly's Colorado Pet Restrictions coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal framework applies to Colorado associations regardless of what the state framework says.

Footnotes

1. Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq. (2025 compilation, Colorado Division of Real Estate), effective July 1, 1992, unified coverage of condominiums, planned communities, and cooperatives ↩
2. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302, Powers of unit owners' association, subsection (1)(a) (adopt and amend bylaws and rules and regulations) ↩
3. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5, Prohibitions contrary to public policy (flags, signs, religious symbols, renewable-energy devices, xeriscape and drought-tolerant landscaping; pets not listed) ↩
4. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-117, Applicability to preexisting common interest communities (enumerated provisions reaching pre-July 1, 1992 communities) ↩
5. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (duty to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services) ↩
6. HUD, "Notification of Withdrawal of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents," 91 FR 17291 (Apr. 6, 2026), withdrawing FHEO 2020-01 (Jan. 28, 2020) and FHEO 2013-01 effective Sept. 17, 2025 ↩
7. C.R.S. § 24-34-502.2, Unfair or discriminatory housing practices against individuals with disabilities prohibited (reasonable-accommodation duty), Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. § 24-34-501 et seq. ↩
8. Colorado Civil Rights Division (Department of Regulatory Agencies), Housing Discrimination, HUD-certified Fair Housing Assistance Program agency; charges dual-filed with CCRD and HUD ↩
9. HUD FHEO Notice 2020-01, Assistance Animals (Jan. 28, 2020): assistance animals are not pets; support animals need no training; permissible and impermissible inquiries; no pet fees or deposits; direct-threat and undue-burden standards. Notice withdrawn Sept. 17, 2025 (see fn. 6); retained as historical statement of the FHA standard that the statute continues to require ↩
10. C.R.S. § 24-34-803, Rights of individuals with service animals (public accommodations, housing, employment; ADA-based service-animal access) ↩
11. C.R.S. § 18-13-107.7, Intentional misrepresentation of a service animal (petty offense, escalating fines from $25 to $500); companion provision on misrepresentation of entitlement to an assistance animal ↩
12. C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5, Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog (defines dangerous dog by conduct; subsection (5)(a) bars municipal breed-specific regulation of dangerous dogs) ↩
13. HB 22-1137, "Homeowners' Association Board Accountability and Transparency" (2022), effective Aug. 10, 2022 (notice and cure, preferred-language notice, payment-plan offer, board-vote referral, fine and fee limits) ↩
14. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-209.5 (as amended by HB 22-1137): no daily fines (1.7)(b)(I); 72-hour cure for health/safety violations (1.7)(b)(II); two 30-day cure periods and $500 fine cap for non-safety violations (1.7)(b)(III), (V); 8% interest cap and no foreclosure on fines-only lien (8) ↩
15. HB 24-1233, HOA delinquency payment enforcement procedures (2024), effective Aug. 7, 2024 (removed door posting; certified mail plus two of telephone, text, or email) ↩
16. HB 24-1337, Real Property Owner Unit Association Collections (2024), effective Aug. 7, 2024 (pre-foreclosure mediation offer, attorney-fee cap of the lesser of $5,000 or 50% of amount owed, right of redemption) ↩
17. HB 25-1043, Owner Equity Protection in HOA Foreclosure Sales (2025), became law June 4, 2025, effective Oct. 1, 2025 (strict-compliance standard, added notice content, Division of Real Estate reporting) ↩
18. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-209.4 (annual disclosures / governing documents), 38-33.3-316 (binding status letter and statement of assessments), and 38-33.3-317 (records and fees), CCIOA disclosure regime ↩
19. Taft, "New Laws Protect Homeowners in HOA Foreclosures, Regulate Metro Districts Acting as HOAs" (2024), noting HB 24-1078 (community association manager licensing) failed ↩
20. California Civil Code § 4715 (governing documents may not prohibit an owner from keeping at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules), the contrasting statutory pet-keeping right ↩
21. Context on Denver's 2020 repeal of its pit bull ban via Ballot Measure 2J; municipal breed limits restrain local government, not private CC&Rs (see also C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5(5)(a), fn. 12) ↩
22. U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Colorado, "U.S. Attorney's Office Resolves Fair Housing Act Claims Against Snowmass Village Homeowners Association" (consent order approved Jan. 7, 2020; Creekside Condominium HOA; $50,000 to Jason Neilson and Kirsten Swick; new policies and FHA training) ↩