Michigan HOA Pet Restrictions

Michigan pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview, how pet restrictions work in Michigan

Michigan has no statute regulating pets in community associations. Pet restrictions come from a community's governing documents — the master deed and bylaws in a condominium, or the recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions in a traditional homeowners association — and from the rules adopted under them, with fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement standing as the principal outside limit.¹ The threshold question in Michigan is what kind of community is involved. A large share of Michigan communities, including many developments of detached single-family homes, are organized as site condominiums governed by the Condominium Act rather than as covenant-based homeowners associations, so the Condominium Act reaches far more communities here than condominium statutes do in most states.² Traditional planned communities that are not condominiums make up the other category, operating under recorded CC&Rs backed by the Nonprofit Corporation Act.⁴ Michigan has enacted no statutory right to keep a pet that overrides a no-pet provision, which sets it apart from California, where Civil Code section 4715 bars any governing document from prohibiting an owner from keeping at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules; Michigan is not a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act state.⁵ Over every community sits fair housing law: the federal Fair Housing Act, plus Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act and Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, enforced by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.⁶ Nationally, Michigan belongs to the large majority of states where pet authority is governing-instrument based, distinguished mainly by its heavy use of the condominium form, with the federal assistance-animal requirement forming the floor common to every state.⁷ What follows lays out the legal framework, the operational rules, recent activity, and Michigan's place in the national picture.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The source of pet-restriction authority and the site-condominium form

Pet restrictions in Michigan carry no statutory basis of their own. The master deed and bylaws impose them in a condominium, including a site condominium, or the CC&Rs impose them in a traditional homeowners association, together with rules adopted under those instruments.³ The controlling variable is how the community is organized. A site condominium is a condominium in which the units are building sites or lots rather than enclosed portions of a building. The term isn't separately defined in the Condominium Act, but the Act governs these developments, and Michigan uses the form so extensively that many communities of detached homes are condominiums under the Condominium Act rather than covenant-based homeowners associations.² That's why the first question for any Michigan community is whether it's a site condominium, governed by the Condominium Act's master deed and bylaws, or a traditional CC&R-based HOA. The distinction isn't cosmetic: a condominium is administered under the Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., which requires that administration be governed by recorded bylaws attached to the master deed.¹ A traditional planned community, by contrast, has no comprehensive Michigan statute. Its recorded CC&Rs serve as the primary governing document, backed by the Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq., which supplies corporate formalities — elections, meetings, voting, records, and director duties — for the nonprofit corporation most such associations are.⁴ Michigan is not a UCIOA state, and it has no statutory pet-keeping right, so nothing in state law overrides a validly adopted no-pet or restricted-pet provision. The order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory, first; then the master deed and bylaws or the CC&Rs; then the rules adopted under them. The rule that actually governs any Michigan community is the governing instrument, read against the fair housing floor — not a pet statute. Michigan courts enforce recorded condominium bylaws as written, subject to that floor, and the Condominium Act requires co-owners to comply with the master deed, bylaws, and rules.⁸

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, or services whenever necessary to give 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).⁹ Condominium associations and homeowners associations both fall under it. Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy counts as a recognized reasonable accommodation, and because assistance animals are not pets, no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees and deposits simply do not reach them.¹⁰ The category matters. Under the Fair Housing Act, an assistance animal runs broader than a service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act: the fair housing category covers animals that perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement at all for a support animal.¹⁰ HUD's guidance on assessing these requests was Notice FHEO-2020-01, issued January 28, 2020. HUD withdrew that notice on September 17, 2025, in a memorandum stating the withdrawal "is not necessarily final," and formalized the withdrawal in a Federal Register notice on the ground that the guidance was not statutorily prescribed and did not decrease compliance burdens. The withdrawal did not change the Fair Housing Act itself or the reasonable-accommodation duty, and the HUD and Department of Justice Joint Statement on reasonable accommodations remains available.¹¹ For a non-obvious disability or need, an association may request reliable documentation of the disability and the disability-related need — but it may not require registration, certification, licensing, or an ID card, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, detailed medical records, or any pet deposit, fee, or additional insurance for the animal.¹⁰ An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding: that the accommodation imposes an undue financial and administrative burden, fundamentally alters operations, or that the specific animal poses a direct threat or would cause substantial physical damage no other accommodation could reduce. Denial cannot rest on breed, size, or generalized fear.⁹ The owner remains responsible for the animal's conduct and any damage it causes. The Americans with Disabilities Act governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations; it may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents, but it does not displace the broader Fair Housing Act protections residents hold.¹²

2C. Michigan law overlay

Two Michigan statutes reinforce the federal floor, and the two need to be kept distinct. The Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq., is the disability-specific statute — it bars disability discrimination in housing and backs the same assistance-animal accommodation analysis as the Fair Housing Act.¹³ The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., is the general civil rights statute that includes housing.¹⁴ The Michigan Department of Civil Rights enforces both, alongside HUD. The leading published Michigan authority on an emotional-support-animal accommodation is Riverbrook v Fabode, in which the Court of Appeals recognized that a housing provider may seek reliable information to determine whether a requester has a disability and requires the animal; on further review, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified that neither 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B) nor MCL 37.1506a of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act requires expert-witness testimony in every case.¹⁵ Michigan also has a public-accommodations service-animal-access statute in its Penal Code, MCL 750.502c, requiring public accommodations to permit service animals used by persons with disabilities, and a separate service-animal misrepresentation statute, MCL 752.61 to 752.64, making it a misdemeanor to falsely represent possession of a service animal or service animal in training in a public place.¹⁶ Michigan has no equivalent statute penalizing misrepresentation of an emotional support animal. Those public-accommodations provisions stand apart from the housing analysis. On dangerous animals, Michigan uses the Dangerous Animals Act, MCL 287.321 et seq., which lets a district court adjudicate an animal dangerous and order confinement or destruction, and it imposes strict liability on a dog owner for bite injuries under MCL 287.351.¹⁷ Michigan does not preempt local breed regulation. The Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency reported that roughly 30 local governments have adopted breed-specific ordinances, and the government-versus-private distinction stays precise: a municipal ordinance is public law, while a pet restriction in a master deed or CC&R is private contract.¹⁸

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions, what holds up

Restrictions properly adopted in the master deed and bylaws of a condominium or site condominium, or in the CC&Rs of a traditional HOA, generally hold up — including limits on the number of animals, size and weight caps, permitted types, and leash and waste rules in common areas.¹⁹ A condominium's bylaws must be recorded to bind co-owners, and Michigan courts enforce recorded pet provisions as written.⁸ Every one of those restrictions yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement under fair housing law.⁹

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

When a request arrives, the association may ask whether the requester has a disability and a disability-related need for the animal only when those aren't obvious; for a non-obvious disability, it may request reliable documentation, but it may not demand certification, registration, or a specific breed.¹⁰ The association should respond in a timely, good-faith, interactive manner.⁹ A denial holds up only on an individualized direct-threat or undue-burden finding tied to the specific animal, never on breed, size, or generalized fear.⁹

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

An association may charge pet fees or deposits for ordinary pets if the governing instruments authorize the charge — a matter of the master deed, bylaws, or CC&Rs, not statute.³ It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for an assistance animal.¹⁰

D. Enforcement and disclosure

For condominiums and site condominiums, the board enforces pet violations under the Condominium Act and the bylaws, including fines levied after notice and a hearing under MCL 559.206 and enforcement actions under MCL 559.207; traditional HOAs enforce under their CC&Rs and corporate authority.²⁰ Enforcement authority to fine or lien must be grounded in the governing documents. Pet restrictions reach buyers through the recorded governing documents, and for a new condominium, the Condominium Act requires the developer to deliver condominium documents and a disclosure statement to the initial purchaser.²¹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No Michigan bill enacted or pending within the past 24 months governs association pet rules or assistance animals directly. The most recent related legislative effort — a package to bar local breed-specific ordinances, House Bills 5039, 5040, and 5041 of 2023 — was introduced on September 26, 2023, referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, and died without a hearing at the end of the 2023-2024 session; it has not been reintroduced in the 2025-2026 session.²² In the absence of a Michigan pet statute, the federal assistance-animal framework and the governing documents control.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No published Michigan appellate decision within the past 36 months addresses association pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation squarely. The closest in-window decision is a premises-liability ruling that bears on association liability when a condition on common elements causes harm.

The leading published Michigan authority specific to assistance-animal documentation, Riverbrook v Fabode, 333 Mich App 645 (2020), predates this window but remains controlling on the reliability of accommodation documentation.¹⁵

C. Active legislative debates

The most consequential recent development is federal, not state: HUD withdrew Notice FHEO-2020-01 on September 17, 2025, removing the detailed assistance-animal guidance while leaving the Fair Housing Act's accommodation duty intact.¹¹ At the state level, the breed-preemption package has not been revived, and the Misrepresentation of Emotional Support Animals Act — HB 4910 and HB 4911 of 2019-2020, passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor on December 30, 2020 — has not been reintroduced.²²

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Michigan sits with the large majority of states on HOA pets. A small group of states grants a statutory pet-keeping right, and California's Civil Code section 4715 is the clearest example, barring any governing document from prohibiting an owner from keeping at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules.⁵ Michigan belongs to the larger group, where pet authority is governing-instrument based with no pet statute of its own, and every state shares the same federal floor: the Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal requirement.⁶ For a multi-state operator, the practical consequence is that a Michigan manager must first determine whether a community is a site condominium under the Condominium Act or a traditional CC&R-based HOA before applying pet rules, while the assistance-animal analysis stays uniform across states. Michigan's distinctive feature is its extensive use of the site-condominium form, so the Condominium Act governs far more communities here than condominium statutes do elsewhere.

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

1. Condominium Act, 1978 PA 59, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
2. Michigan LARA, Condominium Buyer's Handbook (site condominium definition) ↩
3. MCL 559.108 (master deed) and MCL 559.153 (bylaws govern administration) ↩
4. Nonprofit Corporation Act, 1982 PA 162, MCL 450.2101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
5. California Civil Code section 4715 (statutory pet-keeping right) ↩
6. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. (Office of the Law Revision Counsel) ↩
7. Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
8. MCL 559.165 (compliance with master deed, bylaws, and rules) ↩
9. HUD and DOJ, Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act ↩
10. HUD, Fact Sheet on HUD's Assistance Animals Notice (FHEO-2020-01) ↩
11. 42 U.S.C. 3604 (Fair Housing Act); FHEO-2020-01 issued January 28, 2020 and withdrawn September 17, 2025 ↩
12. 42 U.S.C. 3604 (Fair Housing Act, discrimination in sale or rental) ↩
13. Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1101 et seq. ↩
14. Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 et seq. ↩
15. Riverbrook v Fabode, 333 Mich App 645; 963 NW2d 415 (2020), and Michigan Supreme Court order (Nov. 29, 2022) ↩
16. MCL 750.502c (service-animal access) and MCL 752.61 to 752.64 (misrepresentation) ↩
17. Dangerous Animals Act, 1988 PA 426, MCL 287.321 et seq.; dog-bite liability, MCL 287.351 ↩
18. Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, SB 741 analysis (approximately 30 local breed ordinances; no statewide preemption) ↩
19. MCL 559.156 (permissible bylaw provisions) and MCL 559.154 (mandatory provisions) ↩
20. MCL 559.206 (default by co-owner; fines after notice and hearing) and MCL 559.207 (enforcement action) ↩
21. MCL 559.184a and related disclosure provisions of the Condominium Act ↩
22. House Bills 5039, 5040, and 5041 of 2023 (breed-preemption package; died in committee) ↩
23. Janini v London Townhouses Condominium Association, 514 Mich 86 (2024) (Michigan Supreme Court opinion) ↩