An Illinois aging-in-place bill would have written a renovation right into association law; it stalled
An Illinois aging-in-place bill would have written a renovation right into association law; it stalled
2026-09-10 · Illinois · Legislation · Did not pass
What happened. SB 1683 would have provided that an Illinois community association may not prohibit any resident or owner from making reasonable renovations, modifications or other changes to the inside or outside of their home where the change accommodates the resident's or owner's health condition or disability, so long as the changes do not extend beyond certain boundaries. It was re-referred to Assignments in the 2025 deadline sweep and did not pass.1
What governs instead
Nothing changed, which means the existing framework still applies: the federal Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification duty and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Under that framework a resident with a disability may make reasonable modifications at their own expense, the association may condition approval on restoration of the interior when the resident leaves where reasonable, and the association must engage in an interactive process rather than refuse outright.
The two things SB 1683 would have changed
“Health condition” is broader than “disability.” Fair housing law turns on disability as defined by statute. A resident with a serious health condition that does not meet that definition — recovering from surgery, managing a progressive condition not yet substantially limiting — has no accommodation right. SB 1683's phrase “health condition or disability” would have covered them.
An affirmative right, not a defence. Fair housing law operates through a complaint: the resident asks, the association refuses, the resident files with IDHR or HUD or sues. SB 1683 would have written the right into association law directly, which changes who bears the cost of the dispute.
Why this is a growing problem in Illinois
The state's condominium stock and its owners are both aging, and the modifications at issue are mundane: grab bars, a ramp at a townhouse entry, a widened doorway, a stairlift, a lever handle, a raised bed for a resident who can no longer kneel.
Nearly all of them touch something an association controls. A ramp alters the exterior. A stairlift in a common stairwell attaches to a common element. A widened doorway in a condominium may involve a demising wall. So the aging-in-place question arrives at Illinois boards as an architectural review question, and gets processed by a committee whose written standards say nothing about accommodation.
Where boards get this wrong
Two failure modes, both common.
Applying the aesthetic standard. A design committee that evaluates a ramp against the same criteria it applies to a porch has already made a mistake. The fair-housing analysis asks whether the modification is reasonable and necessary because of the disability — not whether it matches the elevation.
An Illinois appellate decision this year makes the related point on ordinary architectural control: a design committee's authority runs to setting standards for permitted improvements, not to banning them outright.
Treating delay as neutral. It is not. A resident who cannot enter their home safely is being harmed while the request sits, and an extended review is itself evidence of a failure to accommodate.
The claim that is not a defence
Boards frequently resist on liability grounds — what if someone is injured on the ramp. In the analogous assistance-animal context Illinois has expressly immunised housing providers from liability for injuries caused by a permitted assistance animal, which tells you how the legislature views the liability objection in accommodation cases generally.
What a board can do without the statute
Separate the two tracks in writing. An accommodation request is not an architectural application, and routing it through the same form guarantees it is evaluated on the wrong criteria. Adopt a short accommodation procedure that names a decision-maker, sets a response deadline the board can actually meet, and states what documentation may be requested — which, where the disability and the need are apparent, is none.
Illinois already requires something structurally similar for accessible parking: under 765 ILCS 605/18.12 the board must adopt an accommodation policy and decide within 45 days. Borrowing that deadline for modification requests is a defensible standard and costs nothing to adopt.
What to watch next
Whether a 2027 version narrows the phrase “health condition,” which is the provision most likely to have drawn objection — it is undefined, and an undefined entitlement to modify the exterior of a home is a hard sell to any association lobby.
Related Illinois HOA Topics
Stay on top of Illinois HOA law
Every week: new Illinois legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.