Tennessee HOA Pet Restrictions

Tennessee pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview — How pet restrictions work in Tennessee

Tennessee has no statute regulating homeowners association pets. Pet restrictions come from the recorded declaration or CC&Rs and the rules a board adopts under them, and the main legal limit on those restrictions is fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement.¹ The framework has three layers. Condominium rule-making authority sits in the Tennessee Condominium Act of 2008 for condominiums created on or after January 1, 2009, with the older Horizontal Property Act governing pre-2009 condominiums, while planned-community associations run on their recorded CC&Rs with the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act supplying corporate formalities.² Tennessee adopted the uniform condominium framework, not the full unified Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and has no comprehensive planned-community statute; Tennessee has nothing comparable to California's statutory right to keep at least one pet under Civil Code § 4715.³ The operative constraint on any pet rule is fair housing law: the federal Fair Housing Act and the Tennessee Human Rights Act require a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal, and the Tennessee Human Rights Commission enforces the state statute alongside HUD.⁴ Nationally, Tennessee sits with the large majority of states, a jurisdiction where pet authority is declaration-based and where the federal assistance-animal requirement is the floor common to every state.⁵ What follows sets out the legal framework, the operational rules a Tennessee association may and must apply, and the recent legislative and judicial activity that bears on pet policy.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The condominium act, CC&Rs, and the source of pet authority

Pet restrictions in Tennessee carry no statutory basis. The recorded declaration or CC&Rs impose them, along with rules the board adopts under the authority those documents grant.¹ For condominiums created on or after January 1, 2009, rule-making and enforcement authority flows from the Tennessee Condominium Act of 2008, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-27-201 et seq., which is based on the Uniform Condominium Act; condominiums created before that date remain under the Horizontal Property Act, § 66-27-101 et seq., although certain provisions of the 2008 Act reach events occurring after January 1, 2009 for all condominiums.² Planned-community associations have no equivalent substantive statute. Their pet authority rests on the recorded CC&Rs, and the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, § 48-51-101 et seq., supplies corporate formalities for the many associations organized as nonprofit corporations.⁶ Tennessee adopted the uniform condominium framework rather than the full unified UCIOA, has no comprehensive planned-community statute, grants no statutory pet-keeping right, and uses the term "declaration" for the governing instrument.³ For any pet question, the order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory, first; then the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Act of 2008 for condominiums; then the declaration or CC&Rs; then the bylaws; then board rules. The rule that actually governs a given community is the declaration or CC&Rs, read against the applicable statute 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 requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, and practices whenever necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); homeowners and condominium associations count as covered housing providers.⁷ Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or a 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 them.⁸ The FHA category "assistance animal" runs broader than the ADA category "service animal": it includes animals individually trained to perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement for support animals.⁸ HUD's detailed best-practices guidance on this analysis was Notice FHEO-2020-01, issued January 28, 2020, but housing professionals should note a material change: HUD issued a memorandum on September 17, 2025 withdrawing that notice and the earlier FHEO-2013-01, and finalized the withdrawal in a Federal Register notice published April 6, 2026, on the stated ground that the guidance imposed compliance burdens beyond the statute.⁹ The withdrawal removed the interpretive framework but did not amend the FHA; the statutory reasonable-accommodation duty remains in force.⁹ Under the long-standing analysis, where a disability or a disability-related need is not obvious, an association may request reliable documentation. It may not require registration, certification, or licensing of the animal, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, detailed medical records, or a pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for the assistance animal.⁸ An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding that the accommodation 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; denial cannot rest on breed, size, or generalized fear, and the owner remains responsible for the animal's conduct and any damage it causes.⁸ The ADA is distinct: it governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations, and does not displace the FHA's broader assistance-animal protections for residents, though it can reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents.¹⁰

2C. Tennessee law overlay: human rights act and dog law

The Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq., bars housing discrimination based on disability, with its housing provisions at § 4-21-601, and backs the same assistance-animal accommodation analysis as the FHA; it is a standard state fair housing statute operating alongside the federal Act.⁴ The Tennessee Human Rights Commission investigates and enforces the state statute, and complainants may also proceed through HUD.¹¹ Tennessee separately regulates residential rentals: § 66-7-111, leases, and § 66-28-406, the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, permit a landlord to request reliable documentation for a service or support animal when the disability or need is not obvious, bar requiring payment for the animal, and, following a 2024 amendment, exclude documentation from certificate-selling websites; these statutes articulate the documentation standard for rentals but do not themselves govern an association's accommodation duty, which flows from the FHA and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.¹² Tennessee does have a public-accommodations service-animal-access statute, § 62-7-112, addressing "dog guides" in places of public accommodation, and a service-animal misrepresentation statute, § 39-16-304, a Class B misdemeanor; the public-accommodations law is separate from the housing accommodation analysis.¹³ On dog liability, Tennessee applies a statutory mixed rule under the Dianna Acklen Act of 2007, § 44-8-413: a dog owner is strictly liable when the dog runs at large or is not kept under reasonable control off the owner's property, but for an injury on the owner's residential, farm, or other noncommercial property the claimant must prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensity, the residential exclusion.¹⁴ Tennessee has no statute preempting breed-specific local regulation, so local governments may regulate by breed, and an association retains its declaration-based authority over an animal, including one adjudicated dangerous under local ordinance or the criminal code.¹⁵

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

Restrictions properly adopted in the declaration or CC&Rs generally hold up: limits on the number of animals, size and weight caps, restrictions on type or breed, and leash and waste rules in common areas.¹ Tennessee courts construe restrictive covenants under ordinary contract principles and, where language is ambiguous, strictly in favor of the free use of land, so an association's pet rule holds up only to the extent the recorded documents clearly authorize it.¹⁶ Every such restriction yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement.⁸

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

An association may confirm a disability-related need and, for a non-obvious disability or need, request reliable documentation, but it may not demand certification, an ID card, a specific breed, or professional training for a support animal, and it must respond in a timely, good-faith, interactive manner.⁸ A denial is defensible only on an individualized finding of direct threat, substantial physical damage no other accommodation could reduce, or undue burden or fundamental alteration; it is not defensible on breed, size, or generalized concern.⁸

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

For ordinary pets, an association may charge fees or deposits if the declaration or CC&Rs authorize them.¹ An association may not charge a pet deposit, pet fee, or extra insurance premium as a condition of keeping an assistance animal, and Tennessee's rental statutes bar requiring any such payment for a service or support animal in leased units.¹² The accommodation removes pet-specific charges but not the owner's liability for actual damage the animal causes.⁸

D. Enforcement and disclosure

Pet violations are enforced by board action under the declaration or CC&Rs and, for condominiums, under the Condominium Act of 2008, which provides that any person adversely affected by a failure to comply with the Act, the declaration, or the bylaws has a claim for appropriate relief and may recover reasonable attorney's fees for willful noncompliance, § 66-27-211.¹⁷ Covenant-enforcement injunctions and declaratory judgments are typically sought in the Chancery Court, equity, damages actions in the Circuit Court, law, and civil appeals go to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and then the Tennessee Supreme Court.¹⁶ For condominiums, the Condominium Act's resale-disclosure provision, § 66-27-503, requires the association to furnish a prospective buyer, on request, the declaration, bylaws, and current rules and regulations, which is where recorded pet restrictions surface; for planned communities, disclosure is governed by the purchase contract and the recorded covenants.¹⁸

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

4A. Recent bills

One qualifying measure was identified in the past 24 months.

No qualifying bill amending the Condominium Act of 2008, the assistance-animal accommodation framework for associations, or the Dianna Acklen Act has turned up in the window. A proposed Tennessee Homeowners' Association Act, Senate Bill 405, has been introduced in recent sessions but was not enacted as of mid-2026.²⁰

4B. Recent appellate rulings

No published Tennessee Court of Appeals or Tennessee Supreme Court opinion in the past 36 months has turned up addressing HOA or condominium pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation specifically. The controlling recent Tennessee authority on how covenants restricting property use are construed and enforced is set out below.

4C. Active legislative debates

Tennessee legislators have repeatedly considered, but not enacted, a general homeowners' association statute, Senate Bill 405 and successors, and the CAI Tennessee Legislative Action Committee reported that it "tracked over 60 bills in Tennessee" during the 2025–2026 sessions; none enacted in the window changed the pet-accommodation framework, which continues to rest on the FHA and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.²⁰

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Among the states, a small group grants a statutory pet-keeping right, and California's Civil Code § 4715, allowing at least one pet subject to reasonable rules, is the clearest example. Tennessee belongs to the large majority where pet authority is declaration or CC&R based and no statute confers a pet right, and every state shares the same federal floor: the FHA's assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation requirement. For a multi-state operator, the practical implication is that in Tennessee, the binding pet rules come from the declaration or CC&Rs, the UCIOA-based Condominium Act of 2008 supplies the condominium framework, and the federal assistance-animal analysis applies uniformly regardless of the state framework. Tennessee's distinctive features are a UCIOA-based condominium act paired with CC&R-primary planned communities, a statutory mixed dog-bite rule, and bifurcated trial courts, with the Chancery Court handling equity and covenant enforcement and the Circuit Court handling damages.

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

Recommendations

• Start with the recorded documents, not the statute. Boards and managers should read the declaration or CC&Rs first; if a pet limit is not clearly stated there, treat it as unenforceable until the documents are amended through the proper procedure. The threshold that changes this posture is a validly adopted amendment, which Pandharipande confirms will be enforced even where the original covenant was ambiguous.
• Run the assistance-animal analysis independently of any pet rule. For every request, confirm the disability-related need, request reliable documentation only when the disability or need is not obvious, and never charge a pet fee, deposit, or animal-specific insurance premium. Document an individualized direct-threat or undue-burden finding before any denial.
• Account for the HUD guidance withdrawal without over-reading it. The September 2025 memorandum and April 2026 Federal Register notice removed HUD's interpretive notices but did not change 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) or the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Until courts or a new HUD rule say otherwise, associations should continue to apply the reasonable-accommodation duty. The benchmark that would justify a policy change is a binding regulation or controlling appellate decision narrowing the duty, not the guidance withdrawal alone.
• Use Public Chapter 754 as the documentation standard for leased units. Managers may reject certificate-mill printouts but should still process the underlying accommodation request in good faith.
• Do not assume a CAM license or a state HOA agency. Tennessee requires neither, so compliance rests on the governing documents, the applicable statute, and fair housing law rather than on any regulator.

Caveats

• Primary sources cited here were verified through public reproductions of the Tennessee Code (Justia, FindLaw, animallaw.info) and official documents, but the authoritative text is the current Tennessee Code via capitol.tn.gov and LexisNexis; editors should confirm each section against the official portal before publication. Statutory numbering and content were consistent across sources for every section cited.
• The HUD guidance withdrawal is an evolving federal development. Reporting here reflects the September 17, 2025 memorandum and the April 6, 2026 Federal Register finalization; the practical effect on association accommodation practice may shift as litigation and any successor rulemaking develop.
• No Tennessee appellate opinion squarely on HOA pet restrictions or assistance-animal accommodation was identified in the July 2023–July 2026 window. Pandharipande is offered as the closest controlling authority on covenant construction, not as a pet case; Bryan v. Kittinger, a superficially similar "household pet" covenant dispute, is a North Carolina decision and does not apply in Tennessee.
• The reserve-study and other 2024 condominium changes are outside the pet topic and were not incorporated.

Footnotes

1. Tennessee Condominium Act of 2008, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-27-201 et seq. (source of association pet authority through the declaration and board rules). ↩
2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-27-202 (applicability of the Condominium Act of 2008 to condominiums created after January 1, 2009 and, in part, to earlier condominiums); Horizontal Property Act, § 66-27-101 et seq. ↩
3. Cal. Civ. Code § 4715 (California statutory pet right), contrasted with the absence of any Tennessee equivalent. ↩
4. Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq.; housing provisions at § 4-21-601. ↩
5. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ↩
6. Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-51-101 et seq. ↩
7. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. and § 3604(f)(3)(B). ↩
8. HUD, Fact Sheet on HUD's Assistance Animals Notice, and Notice FHEO-2020-01 (assistance animals are not pets; documentation standard; direct-threat and undue-burden limits). ↩
9. HUD memorandum "Notice of the Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents," issued September 17, 2025, withdrawing FHEO-2020-01 and FHEO-2013-01, finalized in a Federal Register notice published April 6, 2026. ↩
10. ADA service-animal regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 36.104, distinguished from the FHA reasonable-accommodation analysis. ↩
11. Tennessee Human Rights Commission, housing discrimination enforcement. ↩
12. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-7-111 and § 66-28-406 (documentation and no-payment rules for service and support animals in rentals). ↩
13. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-7-112 (public-accommodation dog-guide access) and § 39-16-304 (misrepresentation of a service or support animal is a Class B misdemeanor plus 100 hours of community service; amended 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 194). ↩
14. Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 (Dianna Acklen Act of 2007; running-at-large strict liability and the residential exclusion). ↩
15. Tennessee's lack of statewide breed preemption; dangerous and vicious dog provisions. ↩
16. Pandharipande v. FSD Corporation, 679 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2023). ↩
17. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-27-211 (enforcement; claim for appropriate relief; attorney's fees for willful noncompliance). ↩
18. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-27-503 (information to be provided on resale, including declaration, bylaws, and rules). ↩
19. 2024 Public Chapter 754, amending Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-7-111 and § 66-28-406 (anti-certificate-mill provision), effective July 1, 2024. ↩
20. CAI Tennessee Legislative Action Committee, 2026 End of Legislative Session Report (tracking over 60 bills); Senate Bill 405 (proposed Tennessee Homeowners' Association Act), not enacted as of mid-2026. ↩