Oregon HOA Pet Restrictions

Oregon pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview — How pet restrictions work in Oregon

Oregon has no statute regulating pets in homeowners associations or condominiums. Pet restrictions come from the recorded declaration or CC&Rs and the rules a board adopts, and the main legal limit on them is fair housing law's assistance-animal accommodation requirement.¹ Pet authority sits inside a two-statute framework: condominiums are governed by the Oregon Condominium Act, ORS Chapter 100, and planned communities — non-condominium HOAs — are governed by the Oregon Planned Community Act, ORS 94.550 to 94.783, with both statutes supplying governance, assessment, meeting, and enforcement structure while the declaration carries the substantive pet rules.² Oregon has enacted no statutory right to keep a pet that overrides a no-pet declaration, in contrast to California, where Civil Code section 4715 provides that "No governing documents shall prohibit the owner of a separate interest within a common interest development from keeping at least one pet within the common interest development, subject to reasonable rules and regulations of the association," and Oregon has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act — both chapters are bespoke Oregon law.¹¹ The dominant constraint on any Oregon pet restriction is the assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation requirement under the federal Fair Housing Act and Oregon's fair housing law, ORS Chapter 659A, enforced by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries alongside HUD.⁴ Nationally, Oregon sits with the large majority of states as a developed statutory jurisdiction where pet authority is declaration based, sharing with every state the federal assistance-animal floor. What follows sets out the legal framework, the operational rules an Oregon association must follow, and recent legislative and judicial activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The two-statute framework and the source of pet authority

Pet restrictions in Oregon carry no statutory basis. The recorded declaration or CC&Rs impose them, along with rules the board adopts under its governing documents.¹ The source of rule-making authority depends on community type. Condominiums are governed by the Oregon Condominium Act, which the statute itself titles at ORS 100.010 the "Oregon Condominium Act."¹² Planned communities, meaning non-condominium HOAs, are governed by the Oregon Planned Community Act, ORS 94.550 to 94.783, supplying the statutory framework for assessments, liens, governance, meetings, and records while the declaration carries the substantive pet rules.² The Planned Community Act classifies planned communities as Class I, Class II, or Class III based on lot count and assessment authority, and it applies to a community by that classification and creation date rather than by election.¹³ Chapter 100 and Chapter 94 are separate and parallel statutes; provisions are not interchangeable, and the threshold question for any pet dispute is which chapter governs the community.¹³ Oregon has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and the Nonprofit Corporation Act, ORS Chapter 65, supplies corporate formalities for associations organized as nonprofit corporations.² Oregon has no statutory pet-keeping right, and the governing instrument is the recorded declaration.

For any pet question, the order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory and unwaivable, first; then the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Act or Planned Community Act; then the declaration or CC&Rs; then the bylaws; then board rules.³ The rule that actually governs a given community is the declaration, read against the applicable chapter and the fair housing floor.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints: assistance animals

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing and makes it unlawful to refuse "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," under 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B).³ Homeowners and condominium associations are covered. Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or pet restriction counts as a 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 a granted assistance animal.³

The FHA category of assistance animal has historically run broader than the ADA category of service animal: it has included animals that perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement for support animals. That enforcement landscape shifted in 2025 and 2026. HUD's September 17, 2025 memo, "Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents," withdrew eight documents, including the January 28, 2020 notice "FHEO 2020-01: Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act" and "FHEO Notice 2013-01: Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-funded Programs."¹⁴ On May 22, 2026, HUD issued new enforcement guidance stating that, going forward, it will generally pursue Fair Housing Act animal-accommodation complaints where the animal is individually trained to do work or perform tasks directly related to a person's disability, aligning HUD enforcement with the ADA's trained-animal standard while still recognizing individually trained animals other than dogs.¹⁵ Two points matter for associations. First, the Fair Housing Act statute itself is unchanged, so the reasonable-accommodation duty and the private right of action in court remain — the change is a shift in HUD's enforcement priorities, not a change in law.¹⁵ Second, state fair housing law and private lawsuits are unaffected, so an Oregon association still faces exposure under ORS Chapter 659A and in court.⁴

Where a disability or disability-related need is not obvious, the association may request reliable documentation.⁵ It may not require registration, certification, or licensing of the animal, 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.⁵ Online emotional-support-animal registration products carry no legal requirement and satisfy no standard. 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 direct-threat finding must rest on "an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence," not on breed, size, or generalized fear.⁵ The owner remains responsible for the animal's conduct and for any damage it causes.

The ADA is distinct. It generally governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations, and its narrow service-animal definition — a dog, or in some cases a miniature horse, individually trained to perform tasks — does not by itself control a residential reasonable-accommodation request.⁵ The ADA may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents.

2C. Oregon law overlay: fair housing law and dog law

Oregon's fair housing law bars disability discrimination in real property transactions and makes it unlawful to refuse "reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when the accommodations may be necessary to afford the individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling," under ORS 659A.145(2)(g).⁴ It backs the same assistance-animal accommodation analysis as the FHA and operates alongside it. Enforcement runs through the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, whose Civil Rights Division enforces federal fair housing law and "substantially equivalent" state fair housing law under contract with HUD, and complainants may also file with HUD.¹⁶ Because BOLI enforces Oregon's own statute independently of HUD's enforcement priorities, the 2026 narrowing of HUD enforcement does not narrow Oregon's state-law duty.

Oregon separately regulates assistance animals in public accommodations at ORS 659A.143, a public-accommodations access statute, not the housing provision; it should not be used as the basis for a residential HOA accommodation analysis, which runs through ORS 659A.145 and the FHA.¹⁷ Oregon has not enacted a service-animal misrepresentation statute; two 2019 Regular Session bills, HB 2758, which would have created "the crime of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance animal," and HB 3098, failed, and none has been enacted since.⁸

On dog law, Oregon applies a mixed civil-liability rule rather than pure strict liability. Under ORS 31.360, in an action for injury caused by a dog, "(a) The plaintiff need not prove that the owner of the dog could foresee that the dog would cause the injury; and (b) The owner of the dog may not assert as a defense that the owner could not foresee that the dog would cause the injury," for the purpose of establishing economic damages; non-economic damages such as pain and suffering still require proof of the owner's knowledge of the dog's dangerousness or ordinary negligence.¹⁸ Oregon regulates potentially dangerous dogs under ORS Chapter 609, administered substantially at the county and city level, and the definition of a potentially dangerous dog at ORS 609.035 is behavior-based, keyed to menacing or injuring conduct rather than breed.⁹ Oregon has no statewide breed-specific ban; ORS 609.015 provides that the state dog-control statutes "do not limit the powers of cities and counties to adopt ordinances and regulations relating to the control of dogs," so any breed-specific rule comes from a local ordinance, and a private association's breed rule in its declaration is a separate matter from a government dangerous-dog adjudication.⁷

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

When properly adopted in the declaration or CC&Rs under the applicable chapter, restrictions on the number, size, weight, and type of animals, and leash and waste rules in common areas, generally hold up, since Oregon supplies no competing statutory pet-keeping right and the declaration functions as a binding covenant.¹ Enforceability depends on the restriction being within the declaration or validly adopted rules and applied consistently. Every such restriction yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement.³

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

When an owner requests an assistance animal, the association must engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive process.⁵ If the disability and the disability-related need are obvious, the association may not seek documentation. If either is not obvious, it may request reliable documentation of the disability and the need, but may not demand certification, an ID card, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, or detailed medical records, consistent with the FHA and ORS 659A.145.⁵ A denial is defensible only on an individualized direct-threat or undue-burden finding tied to the specific animal, never on breed, size, or generalized concern.⁵

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

For ordinary pets, an association may charge fees or deposits if the declaration or CC&Rs authorize them and they are applied consistently.¹ It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance premium for an assistance animal. In Oregon fair housing enforcement, a nonrefundable animal "deposit" charged for a companion animal has produced a settlement for unlawful discrimination.⁶

D. Enforcement and disclosure

Pet violations are enforced by the association under the Planned Community Act, for planned communities, or the Condominium Act, for condominiums, together with the declaration or CC&Rs, using the association's rule-enforcement and fining powers; both chapters impose pre-litigation notice obligations before certain proceedings — ORS 94.662 for planned communities and ORS 100.490 for condominiums.¹⁰ Significant disputes proceed in the Oregon Circuit Court, with appeals to the Oregon Court of Appeals and discretionary review by the Oregon Supreme Court.¹⁰ Pet restrictions are disclosed to buyers through the recorded declaration, which is a public record, and through the resale disclosure a planned-community association must furnish on request under ORS 94.670, which includes a statement of any restriction on the use of lots.¹⁹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No Oregon bill enacted in the past 24 months creates, amends, or repeals a pet-specific rule, an assistance-animal housing provision, or a service-animal misrepresentation offense affecting associations. The closest pet-adjacent measure in the window was a planned-community animal-keeping bill that failed.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No published decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals or the Oregon Supreme Court in the past 36 months addresses HOA or condominium pet restrictions, assistance-animal reasonable accommodation in a residential association context, or enforcement of a declaration's pet provisions. In the absence of controlling state appellate authority, the federal Fair Housing Act framework and the ORS Chapter 659A framework enforced by BOLI control.

C. Active legislative debates

Legislative interest in limiting planned-community restrictions on food production and animal husbandry has recurred across sessions — SB 59 in 2025, SB 437 in 2023, and HB 3322 in 2021 — and similar gardening, hen-keeping, and beekeeping proposals may return; no pet-specific or assistance-animal HOA bill is pending as of this update.²⁰

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Across the states, treatment of HOA pets falls into two groups. A small group grants a statutory pet-keeping right, and California's Civil Code section 4715 — a right to keep at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules — is the clearest example.¹¹ The large majority, Oregon included, leave pet authority to the recorded declaration or CC&Rs with no pet statute. Every state shares the same federal floor: the Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation requirement.³ For a multi-state operator, the practical implication in Oregon is that the binding pet rules come from the declaration or CC&Rs, with the Condominium Act or the Planned Community Act supplying the statutory framework, and the federal assistance-animal analysis applying uniformly. Oregon's distinctive features are its two-statute framework — Chapter 100 for condominiums and Chapter 94 for planned communities — with a planned-community class structure, a developed fair housing law enforced by BOLI, and a mixed dog-bite liability rule under ORS 31.360.

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

1. Oregon has no pet-specific statute in ORS Chapter 94 or Chapter 100; pet authority derives from the recorded declaration and board-adopted rules. See Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 94 (Planned Communities), oregonlegislature.gov and Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 100 (Condominiums), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
2. ORS 94.550-94.783, Oregon Planned Community Act; ORS 94.560 legislative findings; ORS 94.828 (association organized as corporation), oregonlegislature.gov; ORS Chapter 100, Oregon Condominium Act, oregonlegislature.gov ↩
3. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B), Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, uscode.house.gov ↩
4. ORS 659A.145 (Discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions prohibited; reasonable accommodation at subsection (2)(g)), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
5. Joint Statement of HUD and DOJ, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (individualized direct-threat assessment; permissible and impermissible documentation requests), hud.gov ↩
6. BOLI enforcement of fair housing law, including settlement of charges over a nonrefundable "deposit" for a companion animal (Brookshore Apartments), Cascade Business News; see also BOLI, Fair Housing, oregon.gov ↩
7. ORS 609.015 (state dog-control statutes do not limit city and county authority to adopt dog-control ordinances), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
8. HB 2758 (2019), "Creates crime of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance animal," OLIS, oregonlegislature.gov; HB 3098 (2019) also failed. Oregon has enacted no service-animal misrepresentation statute. ↩
9. ORS 609.035 (behavior-based definition of "potentially dangerous dog"); ORS 609.093, 609.095, 609.098, 609.115, oregonlegislature.gov ↩
10. ORS 94.662 (planned community pre-litigation notice), oregonlegislature.gov; ORS 100.490 (condominium pre-litigation notice), oregonlegislature.gov; Oregon Judicial Department, court structure (Circuit Courts, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court), courts.oregon.gov ↩
11. Cal. Civ. Code 4715(a) (Davis-Stirling Act), California Legislative Information (cited for contrast only; not Oregon law) ↩
12. ORS 100.010 (short title, "Oregon Condominium Act"), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
13. ORS 94.570 and 94.572 (Class I, Class II, Class III applicability by classification and creation date), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
14. National Low Income Housing Coalition, HUD's September 17, 2025 withdrawal of eight FHEO guidance documents, including FHEO 2020-01 and FHEO 2013-01, nlihc.org ↩
15. National Association of Realtors, HUD's May 22, 2026 enforcement guidance applying the ADA trained-animal standard to FHA animal-accommodation complaints; the FHA statute and private right of action are unchanged, nar.realtor ↩
16. BOLI Civil Rights Division, fair housing enforcement under contract with HUD, oregon.gov ↩
17. ORS 659A.143 (Assistance animals; places of public accommodation), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
18. ORS 31.360 (Proof required for claim of economic damages in action arising from injury caused by dog), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
19. ORS 94.670 (association duty to keep and furnish documents and records on request); ORS 94.580 (declaration contents, including restriction on use of lots), oregonlegislature.gov ↩
20. The Bulletin, "Should hens and bees get to move into HOA neighborhoods?" (SB 59, 2025, Sen. Cedric Hayden), bendbulletin.com; KLCC, prior HOA gardening/hen/bee bills (HB 3322, 2021), klcc.org ↩