Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications in HOAs

Section 1: Overview — Accommodations, modifications, and association authority

The Fair Housing Act's disability provisions override covenant-based architectural authority whenever a resident with a disability needs a change to a rule or to the physical premises in order to use and enjoy a dwelling, and a community association that treats its declaration or architectural guidelines as a reason to refuse acts at its own legal peril. The Act creates two separate duties that readers routinely confuse. Reasonable modifications, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A), are physical or structural changes to a dwelling or to common-use areas.¹ Reasonable accommodations, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), are exceptions or adjustments to rules, policies, practices, or services.² The implementing regulations sit at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203 (modifications) and § 100.204 (accommodations).³ Who pays differs by duty. In private housing the requesting resident generally bears the cost of a modification, including a modification to common elements, as the 2008 guidance discussed below confirms, while the provider bears the cost of an accommodation.⁴ The operative detail lives in two agency documents, the DOJ/HUD Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations (2004) and the DOJ/HUD Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications (2008).⁵ Denial runs narrow, limited to undue financial and administrative burden, fundamental alteration, and direct threat, and no fee, surcharge, or deposit may condition the granting of an accommodation.⁶ An assistance-animal request runs through the same accommodation duty, and Assistance Animals & Pet Restrictions covers it separately.⁷ The sections that follow set out the statutory framework, the operational map for associations, and recent federal activity.

Section 2: The statutory and regulatory framework

2A. The two duties and the disability definition

The reasonable-accommodation duty appears at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), which makes it unlawful to refuse "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."² The implementing regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.204, extends that duty to "a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas."⁸ An accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule or practice. A claimant generally must show a disability, that the provider knew or should have known of it, that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling (a disability-related nexus), that the accommodation is reasonable, and that the provider refused it.⁹

The reasonable-modification duty appears at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A), which makes it unlawful to refuse "to permit, at the expense of the handicapped 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."¹ A modification is a structural change. The regulation is 24 C.F.R. § 100.203.¹⁰ The Act defines disability at 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h), using the term "handicap," which means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having one.¹¹ The statute's "handicap" and the more commonly used "disability" carry the same legal meaning.¹²

The distinction is operational, not semantic. It determines who pays, what conditions a provider may attach, and which analysis applies to a given request.¹³ A request to keep an assistance animal despite a no-pets policy is an accommodation, not a modification, and Assistance Animals & Pet Restrictions covers it.⁷

2B. The joint statements and the interactive process

The operative detail comes from two documents HUD and DOJ issued jointly: the Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act, dated May 17, 2004, and the Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications Under the Fair Housing Act, dated March 5, 2008.⁵ Both are FHEO-weighted technical guidance rather than legislative rules, but the enforcing agencies treat both as authoritative.

No magic words are required. A request need not cite the statute, use the phrase "reasonable accommodation" or "reasonable modification," or come in writing, and a family member or someone acting on the resident's behalf may make it.¹⁴ The requester need only make clear that a change is needed because of a disability. Where the disability or the disability-related need is not obvious, a provider may request information necessary to verify that the person meets the Act's definition of disability and to establish the disability-related need, but a provider may not ordinarily inquire into the nature or severity of the disability, and in most cases neither medical records nor a diagnosis are required. The provider must keep any information it obtains confidential.¹⁵ Both statements direct providers toward an interactive process, and both treat delay as a substantive risk, because an undue delay in responding may itself amount to a failure to permit a modification or to provide an accommodation.¹⁶

2C. Cost, conditions, restoration, and design and construction

In private housing, the requesting resident pays for a modification to the interior of a unit.¹⁷ The same rule applies to a modification of common-use areas. The 2008 Joint Statement states that reasonable modifications are not limited to the interior of a dwelling, and it expressly treats a resident-installed ramp in a common area as a modification that the provider must permit at the resident's expense.¹⁸ The association need not fund the work. Ongoing upkeep splits differently: where a resident modifies a common area that the provider normally maintains, the provider maintains it afterward; where the resident uses the modification exclusively, the resident maintains it.¹⁹ Parking counts as an accommodation rather than a modification, so its cost falls on the provider, a point Section 3 takes up.²⁰

On conditions, the 2008 Joint Statement is specific. A provider may require that the resident obtain any necessary building permits and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner, and it may require a description of the proposed work before granting approval.²¹ A provider may not insist on a particular contractor, may not require the resident to obtain additional or special liability insurance, and may not require an increased or new security deposit as a condition of a modification.²² Restoration is primarily a rental concept and maps poorly onto associations. The statute limits any restoration obligation to the interior of a rental dwelling, and the 2008 Joint Statement confirms that a resident need not restore modifications to a common area or the exterior.²³ Interior restoration applies only where it is reasonable and where the provider requests it, and any escrow to fund such restoration is permitted only in narrow circumstances and never as a routine requirement.²⁴

One paragraph on design and construction: 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) requires that covered multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, be designed and constructed with certain accessible features. Section 3604(f)(7) defines "covered multifamily dwellings" as all units in buildings of four or more units that have one or more elevators, and the ground-floor units in other buildings of four or more units.²⁵ The enumerated requirements are accessible public and common-use portions, doors wide enough for wheelchair passage, and adaptive-design features inside the units: an accessible route into and through the dwelling; light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and usable kitchens and bathrooms in which a person using a wheelchair can maneuver.²⁶ This is background for expectations in older buildings, and it does not extend to single-family planned communities.

Section 3: What associations can and cannot do with accommodation and modification requests

A. Receiving and evaluating a request

No particular form or wording is required, and an association may not refuse a request because the resident did not use its preferred form.²⁷ A resident may make a request orally or in writing, at any time, and a family member or other person acting on the resident's behalf may make it.¹⁴ Where the disability or the need is not obvious, the association may seek only the limited verifying information described in Section 2B.¹⁵ The association should engage the interactive process, respond promptly, and document the decision, because undue delay in responding can amount to a constructive denial.¹⁶

B. Modifications in practice

An association must permit a reasonable modification to a unit or to common elements where a disability-related nexus exists and the modification is reasonable.²⁸ It may require necessary building permits, a description of the work, and workmanlike performance, but it may not require a specific contractor, additional liability insurance, or a deposit.²² In private housing the requesting resident pays for the modification, including work in common areas, and the association funds neither.¹⁸ The statute limits any restoration obligation to rental interiors, and an association should confirm that point rather than assume it reaches owner-occupied units or common elements.²³

C. Accommodations in practice

An association must make exceptions to its rules where a resident needs them for equal use and enjoyment. Assigned accessible parking is the standard example: where parking is unassigned or first-come, an association may have to grant a disability-related exception and assign a space.²⁰ In Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995), the Second Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction requiring a Brooklyn cooperative to give a resident with multiple sclerosis a parking space despite a first-come waiting-list policy. That decision reviewed preliminary relief in one circuit, and it is not a nationwide rule that every association must assign accessible parking on request.²⁹ Exceptions to rules restricting mobility devices, and adjustments to occupancy or guest rules to permit a caregiver or live-in aide, are also accommodations where the resident shows a disability-related need.³⁰ A request to keep an assistance animal notwithstanding a pet restriction is an accommodation, and Assistance Animals & Pet Restrictions covers it.⁷

D. Architectural review, denial, and records

Covenant-based architectural review does not displace the federal duty.³¹ An association may apply neutral aesthetic standards to how a resident carries out a modification where doing so does not defeat the modification's purpose and imposes no added cost on the resident, but it may not insist on a more costly design without paying the difference, and it may not use its review process to delay a needed modification indefinitely or to deny it through conditions no requester could meet.³² The recognized grounds for denial are undue financial and administrative burden, fundamental alteration of the provider's operations, and direct threat to the health or safety of others or of substantial physical damage to property.³³ An association may impose no fee, surcharge, or deposit as a condition of granting an accommodation, though it may charge for actual damage a resident's modification or use causes if it does so under a practice it applies to all residents.³⁴ Associations should document each request, the interactive process, and the basis for the decision.³⁵

Section 4: Recent rulemaking, litigation, and legislative activity

A. Recent rulemaking and guidance

No revision to the reasonable-accommodation or reasonable-modification provisions of 24 C.F.R. part 100, subpart D, and no new HUD/DOJ joint statement on these duties, has issued in the past 36 months, so the 2004 and 2008 Joint Statements remain the operative federal guidance.⁵ DOJ has continued to enforce the Act's separate design-and-construction requirements against builders and design professionals, which bears on older-building expectations for associations.³⁶

B. Recent federal court decisions

C. Legislation and active debates

The Eleanor Smith Inclusive Home Design Act of 2026 (H.R. 9932, 119th Congress), introduced July 23, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, would require visitability features in newly constructed, federally assisted single-family homes and townhouses. It targets federally assisted construction and does not amend the FHA disability duties that bind associations.⁴¹ The Housing Crisis Response Act of 2025 (H.R. 6771, 119th Congress) would direct HUD to amend its Section 504 rules to raise accessibility percentages in certain federally assisted multifamily projects, again outside the association-specific accommodation and modification framework.⁴²

Section 5: Interaction with state law and related coverage

Federal law sets a floor, not a ceiling. Most states have their own fair housing statutes that mirror or exceed the federal accommodation and modification duties, and HUD-certified "substantially equivalent" state and local agencies participate in enforcement through the Fair Housing Assistance Program. In 2024, FHAP agencies processed roughly 21 percent of the 32,321 fair housing complaints tracked nationally, while private nonprofit fair housing organizations processed most complaints and HUD and DOJ handled the remainder.⁴³ Some state common-interest-community statutes and building codes address disability-related modifications directly, and some state accessibility codes impose design requirements that exceed the federal design-and-construction standard, so associations should confirm current requirements on their own state legislature's site rather than assume the federal rule is the whole picture.⁴⁴ Readers should consult their state's Architectural Review, ADUs & Modifications, and Fence & Exterior pages for those overlays.

HOA Weekly's federal accommodations coverage updates quarterly as HUD, DOJ, and the federal courts act, and state overlays appear in the Architectural Review, ADUs & Modifications, and Fence & Exterior columns across the state matrix.

Footnotes

1. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) (Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives) ↩
2. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives) ↩
3. 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.203, 100.204 (eCFR) ↩
4. DOJ/HUD Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications Under the Fair Housing Act (Mar. 5, 2008), Questions 3 and 9 ↩
5. DOJ/HUD Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004); DOJ/HUD Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications (Mar. 5, 2008) ↩
6. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 7, 8, and 11 ↩
7. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 6, Example 3 ↩
8. 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a) (eCFR) ↩
9. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 6 and 7 ↩
10. 24 C.F.R. § 100.203 (eCFR) ↩
11. 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) (Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives) ↩
12. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, note 2 (the Act uses "handicap"; both terms have the same legal meaning) ↩
13. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 9 ↩
14. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 15 ↩
15. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 6 and 7 ↩
16. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 17; 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 15 ↩
17. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 3 ↩
18. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 9 (Example 3) and 10 ↩
19. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 13 ↩
20. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 11 ↩
21. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 21 ↩
22. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 21, 22, 23, and 27 ↩
23. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 26; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) ↩
24. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 24 and 28 ↩
25. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) and § 3604(f)(7) (definition of "covered multifamily dwellings") ↩
26. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i)–(iii) ↩
27. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 12 and 13 ↩
28. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 2 and 5 ↩
29. Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming preliminary injunction; abuse-of-discretion review) ↩
30. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 6, 8, and 11 ↩
31. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Question 8 (Act applies to homeowners and condominium associations) ↩
32. 2008 Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications, Questions 19 and 20 (aesthetic design and more-costly materials) ↩
33. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Questions 5, 7, and 8; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9) (direct threat) ↩
34. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 11 (no extra fee or deposit; damage may be charged under a practice applied to all) ↩
35. 2004 Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 13 (records to show requests received proper consideration) ↩
36. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Recent Accomplishments of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section (updated May 18, 2026), United States v. Lettire Constr. Corp. (S.D.N.Y.) ↩
37. U.S. Dep't of Justice, United States v. Kailua Village Condominium Association, et al. (D. Haw.) case page ↩
38. U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Hawaii, press release (Feb. 10, 2025) ↩
39. Bock v. Brentwood Homeowners' Ass'n, No. 1:24-cv-00207-BLW, Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Idaho Aug. 30, 2024) ↩
40. Bock v. Brentwood Homeowners' Ass'n, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowner's Ass'n, 760 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2014)) ↩
41. H.R. 9932, Eleanor Smith Inclusive Home Design Act of 2026, 119th Cong. (introduced July 23, 2026) ↩
42. H.R. 6771, Housing Crisis Response Act of 2025, 119th Cong., § 113 (promoting housing accessibility and visitability) ↩
43. National Fair Housing Alliance, 2025 Fair Housing Trends Report (32,321 complaints in 2024; FHAP agencies 20.90 percent, private FHOs 74.12 percent, HUD 4.85 percent, DOJ 0.14 percent) ↩
44. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(8) (Act does not limit state or local laws affording greater access) ↩