Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Developments and of the Department of Justice



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING A ND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

VIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Washington, D.C.

November 10, 2016

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE LAWS AND PRACTICES AND THE APPLICATION

OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (“HUD”) are jointly responsible for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act (“the

Act”),

which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,

disability, familial status (children under 18 living with a parent or guardian), or national origin.

The Act prohibits housing-related policies and practices that exclude or otherwise discriminate

against individuals because of protected characteristics.

The regulation of land use and zoning is traditionally reserved to state and local

governments, except to the extent that it conflicts with requirements imposed by the Fair

Housing Act or other federal laws. This Joint Statement provides an overview of the Fair

Housing Act’s requirements relating to state and local land use practices and zoning laws,

including conduct related to group homes. It updates and expands upon DOJ’s and HUD’s Joint

The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–19.

The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of “disability.” Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon

v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that the definition of “disability” in the Americans with Disabilities Act



Statement on Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act, issued on August 18,

1999. The first section of the Joint Statement, Questions 1–6, describes generally the Act’s

requirements as they pertain to land use and zoning. The second and third sections, Questions 7–

25, discuss more specifically how the Act applies to land use and zoning laws affecting housing

for persons with disabilities, including guidance on regulating group homes and the requirement

to provide reasonable accommodations. The fourth section, Questions 26–27, addresses HUD’s

and DOJ’s enforcement of the Act in the land use and zoning context.

This Joint Statement focuses on the Fair Housing Act, not on other federal civil rights

laws that prohibit state and local governments from adopting or implementing land use and

zoning practices that discriminate based on a protected characteristic, such as Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

(“Section 504”),

and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In addition, the Joint Statement

does not address a state or local government’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing, even

though state and local governments that receive HUD assistance are subject to this duty. For

additional information provided by DOJ and HUD regarding these issues, see the list of

resources provided in the answer to Question 27.

Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and

State and Local Land Use Laws and Zoning

1. How does the Fair Housing Act apply to state and local land use and zoning?

The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of housing practices that discriminate

against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national

origin (commonly referred to as protected characteristics). As established by the Supremacy

Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws such as the Fair Housing Act take precedence over

conflicting state and local laws. The Fair Housing Act thus prohibits state and local land use and

zoning laws, policies, and practices that discriminate based on a characteristic protected under

the Act. Prohibited practices as defined in the Act include making unavailable or denying

housing because of a protected characteristic. Housing includes not only buildings intended for

occupancy as residences, but also vacant land that may be developed into residences.

is drawn almost verbatim “from the definition of ‘handicap’ contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of

1988”). This document uses the term “disability,” which is more generally accepted.

42 U.S.C. §12132.

29 U.S.C. § 794.

42 U.S.C. § 2000d.



2. What types of land use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing Act?

Examples of state and local land use and zoning laws or practices that may violate the

Act include:

 Prohibiting or restricting the development of housing based on the belief that the

residents will be members of a particular protected class, such as race, disability,

or familial status, by, for example, placing a moratorium on the development of

multifamily housing because of concerns that the residents will include members

of a particular protected class.

 Imposing restrictions or additional conditions on group housing for persons with

disabilities that are not imposed on families or other groups of unrelated

individuals, by, for example, requiring an occupancy permit for persons with

disabilities to live in a single-family home while not requiring a permit for other

residents of single-family homes.

 Imposing restrictions on housing because of alleged public safety concerns that

are based on stereotypes about the residents’ or anticipated residents’ membership

in a protected class, by, for example, requiring a proposed development to provide

additional security measures based on a belief that persons of a particular

protected class are more likely to engage in criminal activity.

 Enforcing otherwise neutral laws or policies differently because of the residents’

protected characteristics, by, for example, citing individuals who are members of

a particular protected class for violating code requirements for property upkeep

while not citing other residents for similar violations.

 Refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies

when such accommodations may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities

to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing, by, for example,

denying a request to modify a setback requirement so an accessible sidewalk or

ramp can be provided for one or more persons with mobility disabilities.

3. When does a land use or zoning practice constitute intentional discrimination in

violation of the Fair Housing Act?

Intentional discrimination is also referred to as disparate treatment, meaning that the

action treats a person or group of persons differently because of race, color, religion, sex,

disability, familial status, or national origin. A land use or zoning practice may be intentionally

discriminatory even if there is no personal bias or animus on the part of individual government

officials. For example, municipal zoning practices or decisions that reflect acquiescence to

community bias may be intentionally discriminatory, even if the officials themselves do not

personally share such bias. (See Q&A 5.) Intentional discrimination does not require that the



decision-makers were hostile toward members of a particular protected class. Decisions

motivated by a purported desire to benefit a particular group can also violate the Act if they

result in differential treatment because of a protected characteristic.

A land use or zoning practice may be discriminatory on its face. For example, a law that

requires persons with disabilities to request permits to live in single-family zones while not

requiring persons without disabilities to request such permits violates the Act because it treats

persons with disabilities differently based on their disability. Even a law that is seemingly

neutral will still violate the Act if enacted with discriminatory intent. In that instance, the

analysis of whether there is intentional discrimination will be based on a variety of factors, all of

which need not be satisfied. These factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the “impact” of the

municipal practice, such as whether an ordinance disproportionately impacts minority residents

compared to white residents or whether the practice perpetuates segregation in a neighborhood or

particular geographic area; (2) the “historical background” of the action, such as whether there is

a history of segregation or discriminatory conduct by the municipality; (3) the “specific sequence

of events,” such as whether the city adopted an ordinance or took action only after significant,

racially-motivated community opposition to a housing development or changed course after

learning that a development would include non-white residents; (4) departures from the “normal

procedural sequence,” such as whether a municipality deviated from normal application or

zoning requirements; (5) “substantive departures,” such as whether the factors usually considered

important suggest that a state or local government should have reached a different result; and (6)

the “legislative or administrative history,” such as any statements by members of the state or

local decision-making body.

4. Can state and local land use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing

Act if the state or locality did not intend to discriminate against persons on a

prohibited basis?

Yes. Even absent a discriminatory intent, state or local governments may be liable under

the Act for any land use or zoning law or practice that has an unjustified discriminatory effect

because of a protected characteristic. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court affirmed this

interpretation of the Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive

Communities Project, Inc.

The Court stated that “[t]hese unlawful practices include zoning

laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain

neighborhoods without any sufficient justification.”

Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265–68 (1977).

___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015).

Id. at 2521–22.



A land use or zoning practice results in a discriminatory effect if it caused or predictably

will cause a disparate impact on a group of persons or if it creates, increases, reinforces, or

perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of a protected characteristic. A state or local

government still has the opportunity to show that the practice is necessary to achieve one or more

of its substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests. These interests must be supported by

evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative. If these interests could not be served by

another practice that has a less discriminatory effect, then the practice does not violate the Act.

The standard for evaluating housing-related practices with a discriminatory effect are set forth in

HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Rule, 24 C.F.R § 100.500.

Examples of land use practices that violate the Fair Housing Act under a discriminatory

effects standard include minimum floor space or lot size requirements that increase the size and

cost of housing if such an increase has the effect of excluding persons from a locality or

neighborhood because of their membership in a protected class, without a legally sufficient

justification. Similarly, prohibiting low-income or multifamily housing may have a

discriminatory effect on persons because of their membership in a protected class and, if so,

would violate the Act absent a legally sufficient justification.

5. Does a state or local government violate the Fair Housing Act if it considers the

fears or prejudices of community members when enacting or applying its zoning or

land use laws respecting housing?

When enacting or applying zoning or land use laws, state and local governments may not

act because of the fears, prejudices, stereotypes, or unsubstantiated assumptions that community

members may have about current or prospective residents because of the residents’ protected

characteristics. Doing so violates the Act, even if the officials themselves do not personally

share such bias. For example, a city may not deny zoning approval for a low-income housing

development that meets all zoning and land use requirements because the development may

house residents of a particular protected class or classes whose presence, the community fears,

will increase crime and lower property values in the surrounding neighborhood. Similarly, a

local government may not block a group home or deny a requested reasonable accommodation in

response to neighbors’ stereotypical fears or prejudices about persons with disabilities or a

particular type of disability. Of course, a city council or zoning board is not bound by everything

that is said by every person who speaks at a public hearing. It is the record as a whole that will

be determinative.



6. Can state and local governments violate the Fair Housing Act if they adopt or

implement restrictions against children?

Yes. State and local governments may not impose restrictions on where families with

children may reside unless the restrictions are consistent with the “housing for older persons”

exemption of the Act. The most common types of housing for older persons that may qualify for

this exemption are: (1) housing intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or

older; and (2) housing in which 80% of the occupied units have at least one person who is 55

years of age or older that publishes and adheres to policies and procedures demonstrating the

intent to house older persons. These types of housing must meet all requirements of the

exemption, including complying with HUD regulations applicable to such housing, such as

verification procedures regarding the age of the occupants. A state or local government that

zones an area to exclude families with children under 18 years of age must continually ensure

that housing in that zone meets all requirements of the exemption. If all of the housing in that

zone does not continue to meet all such requirements, that state or local government violates the

Act.

Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and

Local Land Use and Zoning Regulation of Group Homes

7. Who qualifies as a person with a disability under the Fair Housing Act?

The Fair Housing Act defines a person with a disability to include (1) individuals with a

physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2)

individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of

such an impairment.

The term “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is not limited to, diseases and

conditions such as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism,

epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV infection,

developmental disabilities, mental illness, drug addiction (other than addiction caused by current,

illegal use of a controlled substance), and alcoholism.

The term “major life activity” includes activities such as seeing, hearing, walking

breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, speaking, and working. This

list of major life activities is not exhaustive.

Being regarded as having a disability means that the individual is treated as if he or she

has a disability even though the individual may not have an impairment or may not have an

impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. For example, if a landlord



refuses to rent to a person because the landlord believes the prospective tenant has a disability,

then the landlord violates the Act’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of disability, even

if the prospective tenant does not actually have a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Having a record of a disability means the individual has a history of, or has been

misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more

major life activities.

8. What is a group home within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act?

The term “group home” does not have a specific legal meaning; land use and zoning

officials and the courts, however, have referred to some residences for persons with disabilities

as group homes. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and

persons with disabilities have the same Fair Housing Act protections whether or not their

housing is considered a group home. A household where two or more persons with disabilities

choose to live together, as a matter of association, may not be subjected to requirements or

conditions that are not imposed on households consisting of persons without disabilities.

In this Statement, the term “group home” refers to a dwelling that is or will be occupied

by unrelated persons with disabilities. Sometimes group homes serve individuals with a

particular type of disability, and sometimes they serve individuals with a variety of disabilities.

Some group homes provide residents with in-home support services of varying types, while

others do not. The provision of support services is not required for a group home to be protected

under the Fair Housing Act. Group homes, as discussed in this Statement, may be opened by

individuals or by organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit. Sometimes it is the group

home operator or developer, rather than the individuals who live or are expected to live in the

home, who interacts with a state or local government agency about developing or operating the

group home, and sometimes there is no interaction among residents or operators and state or

local governments.

In this Statement, the term “group home” includes homes occupied by persons in

recovery from alcohol or substance abuse, who are persons with disabilities under the Act.

Although a group home for persons in recovery may commonly be called a “sober home,” the

term does not have a specific legal meaning, and the Act treats persons with disabilities who

reside in such homes no differently than persons with disabilities who reside in other types of

group homes. Like other group homes, homes for persons in recovery are sometimes operated

by individuals or organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and support services or

supervision are sometimes, but not always, provided. The Act does not require a person who

resides in a home for persons in recovery to have participated in or be currently participating in a



substance abuse treatment program to be considered a person with a disability. The fact that a

resident of a group home may currently be illegally using a controlled substance does not deprive

the other residents of the protection of the Fair Housing Act.

9. In what ways does the Fair Housing Act apply to group homes?

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and persons with

disabilities have the same Fair Housing Act protections whether or not their housing is

considered a group home. State and local governments may not discriminate against persons

with disabilities who live in group homes. Persons with disabilities who live in or seek to live in

group homes are sometimes subjected to unlawful discrimination in a number of ways, including

those discussed in the preceding Section of this Joint Statement. Discrimination may be

intentional; for example, a locality might pass an ordinance prohibiting group homes in single-

family neighborhoods or prohibiting group homes for persons with certain disabilities. These

ordinances are facially discriminatory, in violation of the Act. In addition, as discussed more

fully in Q&A 10 below, a state or local government may violate the Act by refusing to grant a

reasonable accommodation to its zoning or land use ordinance when the requested

accommodation may be necessary for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to

use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, if a locality refuses to waive an ordinance that limits the

number of unrelated persons who may live in a single-family home where such a waiver may be

necessary for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,

the locality violates the Act unless the locality can prove that the waiver would impose an undue

financial and administrative burden on the local government or fundamentally alter the essential

nature of the locality’s zoning scheme. Furthermore, a state or local government may violate the

Act by enacting an ordinance that has an unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with

disabilities who seek to live in a group home in the community. Unlawful actions concerning

group homes are discussed in more detail throughout this Statement.

10. What is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act?

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make “reasonable accommodations”

to rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford

persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A “reasonable

accommodation” is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that

may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a

dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Since rules, policies, practices, and services

may have a different effect on persons with disabilities than on other persons, treating persons

with disabilities exactly the same as others may sometimes deny them an equal opportunity to

use and enjoy a dwelling.



Even if a zoning ordinance imposes on group homes the same restrictions that it imposes

on housing for other groups of unrelated persons, a local government may be required, in

individual cases and when requested to do so, to grant a reasonable accommodation to a group

home for persons with disabilities. What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case-by-

case determination based on an individualized assessment. This topic is discussed in detail in

Q&As 20–25 and in the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the

Fair Housing Act.

11. Does the Fair Housing Act protect persons with disabilities who pose a “direct

threat” to others?

The Act does not allow for the exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or

stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. Nevertheless, the

Act does not protect an individual whose tenancy would constitute a “direct threat” to the health

or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to

the property of others unless the threat or risk to property can be eliminated or significantly

reduced by reasonable accommodation. A determination that an individual poses a direct threat

must rely on an individualized assessment that is based on reliable objective evidence (for

example, current conduct or a recent history of overt acts). The assessment must consider: (1)

the nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury; (2) the probability that injury will actually

occur; and (3) whether there are any reasonable accommodations that will eliminate or

significantly reduce the direct threat. See Q&A 10 for a general discussion of reasonable

accommodations. Consequently, in evaluating an individual’s recent history of overt acts, a state

or local government must take into account whether the individual has received intervening

treatment or medication that has eliminated or significantly reduced the direct threat (in other

words, significant risk of substantial harm). In such a situation, the state or local government

may request that the individual show how the circumstances have changed so that he or she no

longer poses a direct threat. Any such request must be reasonable and limited to information

necessary to assess whether circumstances have changed. Additionally, in such a situation, a

state or local government may obtain satisfactory and reasonable assurances that the individual

will not pose a direct threat during the tenancy. The state or local government must have

reliable, objective evidence that the tenancy of a person with a disability poses a direct threat

before excluding him or her from housing on that basis, and, in making that assessment, the state

or local government may not ignore evidence showing that the individual’s tenancy would no

longer pose a direct threat. Moreover, the fact that one individual may pose a direct threat does

not mean that another individual with the same disability or other individuals in a group home

may be denied housing.



12. Can a state or local government enact laws that specifically limit group homes for

individuals with specific types of disabilities?

No. Just as it would be illegal to enact a law for the purpose of excluding or limiting

group homes for individuals with disabilities, it is illegal under the Act for local land use and

zoning laws to exclude or limit group homes for individuals with specific types of disabilities.

For example, a government may not limit group homes for persons with mental illness to certain

neighborhoods. The fact that the state or local government complies with the Act with regard to

group homes for persons with some types of disabilities will not justify discrimination against

individuals with another type of disability, such as mental illness.

13. Can a state or local government limit the number of individuals who reside in a

group home in a residential neighborhood?

Neutral laws that govern groups of unrelated persons who live together do not violate the

Act so long as (1) those laws do not intentionally discriminate against persons on the basis of

disability (or other protected class), (2) those laws do not have an unjustified discriminatory

effect on the basis of disability (or other protected class), and (3) state and local governments

make reasonable accommodations when such accommodations may be necessary for a person

with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons with disabilities

less favorably than similar groups of unrelated persons without disabilities violate the Fair

Housing Act. For example, suppose a city’s zoning ordinance defines a “family” to include up to

a certain number of unrelated persons living together as a household unit, and gives such a group

of unrelated persons the right to live in any zoning district without special permission from the

city. If that ordinance also prohibits a group home having the same number of persons with

disabilities in a certain district or requires it to seek a use permit, the ordinance would violate the

Fair Housing Act. The ordinance violates the Act because it treats persons with disabilities less

favorably than families and unrelated persons without disabilities.

A local government may generally restrict the ability of groups of unrelated persons to

live together without violating the Act as long as the restrictions are imposed on all such groups,

including a group defined as a family. Thus, if the definition of a family includes up to a certain

number of unrelated individuals, an ordinance would not, on its face, violate the Act if a group

home for persons with disabilities with more than the permitted number for a family were not

allowed to locate in a single-family-zoned neighborhood because any group of unrelated people

without disabilities of that number would also be disallowed. A facially neutral ordinance,

however, still may violate the Act if it is intentionally discriminatory (that is, enacted with

discriminatory intent or applied in a discriminatory manner), or if it has an unjustified



discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities. For example, an ordinance that limits the

number of unrelated persons who may constitute a family may violate the Act if it is enacted for

the purpose of limiting the number of persons with disabilities who may live in a group home, or

if it has the unjustified discriminatory effect of excluding or limiting group homes in the

jurisdiction. Governments may also violate the Act if they enforce such restrictions more strictly

against group homes than against groups of the same number of unrelated persons without

disabilities who live together in housing. In addition, as discussed in detail below, because the

Act prohibits the denial of reasonable accommodations to rules and policies for persons with

disabilities, a group home that provides housing for a number of persons with disabilities that

exceeds the number allowed under the family definition has the right to seek an exception or

waiver. If the criteria for a reasonable accommodation are met, the permit must be given in that

instance, but the ordinance would not be invalid.

14. How does the Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead apply to the Fair Housing Act?

In Olmstead v. L.C.,

the Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) prohibits the unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities in institutional settings

where necessary services could reasonably be provided in integrated, community-based settings.

An integrated setting is one that enables individuals with disabilities to live and interact with

individuals without disabilities to the fullest extent possible. By contrast, a segregated setting

includes congregate settings populated exclusively or primarily by individuals with disabilities.

Although Olmstead did not interpret the Fair Housing Act, the objectives of the Fair Housing Act

and the ADA, as interpreted in Olmstead, are consistent. The Fair Housing Act ensures that

persons with disabilities have an equal opportunity to choose the housing where they wish to

live. The ADA and Olmstead ensure that persons with disabilities also have the option to live

and receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The integration

mandate of the ADA and Olmstead can be implemented without impairing the rights protected

by the Fair Housing Act. For example, state and local governments that provide or fund housing,

health care, or support services must comply with the integration mandate by providing these

programs, services, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of

individuals with disabilities. State and local governments may comply with this requirement by

adopting standards for the housing, health care, or support services they provide or fund that are

reasonable, individualized, and specifically tailored to enable individuals with disabilities to live

and interact with individuals without disabilities to the fullest extent possible. Local

governments should be aware that ordinances and policies that impose additional restrictions on

housing or residential services for persons with disabilities that are not imposed on housing or

Laws that limit the number of occupants per unit do not violate the Act as long as they are reasonable, are applied

to all occupants, and do not operate to discriminate on the basis of disability, familial status, or other characteristics

protected by the Act.

527 U.S. 581 (1999).



residential services for persons without disabilities are likely to violate the Act. In addition, a

locality would violate the Act and the integration mandate of the ADA and Olmstead if it

required group homes to be concentrated in certain areas of the jurisdiction by, for example,

restricting them from being located in other areas.

15. Can a state or local government impose spacing requirements on the location of

group homes for persons with disabilities?

A “spacing” or “dispersal” requirement generally refers to a requirement that a group

home for persons with disabilities must not be located within a specific distance of another group

home. Sometimes a spacing requirement is designed so it applies only to group homes and

sometimes a spacing requirement is framed more generally and applies to group homes and other

types of uses such as boarding houses, student housing, or even certain types of businesses. In a

community where a certain number of unrelated persons are permitted by local ordinance to

reside together in a home, it would violate the Act for the local ordinance to impose a spacing

requirement on group homes that do not exceed that permitted number of residents because the

spacing requirement would be a condition imposed on persons with disabilities that is not

imposed on persons without disabilities. In situations where a group home seeks a reasonable

accommodation to exceed the number of unrelated persons who are permitted by local ordinance

to reside together, the Fair Housing Act does not prevent state or local governments from taking

into account concerns about the over-concentration of group homes that are located in close

proximity to each other. Sometimes compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA and

Olmstead requires government agencies responsible for licensing or providing housing for

persons with disabilities to consider the location of other group homes when determining what

housing will best meet the needs of the persons being served. Some courts, however, have found

that spacing requirements violate the Fair Housing Act because they deny persons with

disabilities an equal opportunity to choose where they will live. Because an across-the-board

spacing requirement may discriminate against persons with disabilities in some residential areas,

any standards that state or local governments adopt should evaluate the location of group homes

for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.

Where a jurisdiction has imposed a spacing requirement on the location of group homes

for persons with disabilities, courts may analyze whether the requirement violates the Act under

an intent, effects, or reasonable accommodation theory. In cases alleging intentional

discrimination, courts look to a number of factors, including the effect of the requirement on

housing for persons with disabilities; the jurisdiction’s intent behind the spacing requirement; the

existence, size, and location of group homes in a given area; and whether there are methods other

than a spacing requirement for accomplishing the jurisdiction’s stated purpose. A spacing

requirement enacted with discriminatory intent, such as for the purpose of appeasing neighbors’

stereotypical fears about living near persons with disabilities, violates the Act. Further, a neutral



spacing requirement that applies to all housing for groups of unrelated persons may have an

unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities, thus violating the Act. Jurisdictions

must also consider, in compliance with the Act, requests for reasonable accommodations to any

spacing requirements.

16. Can a state or local government impose health and safety regulations on group

home operators?

Operators of group homes for persons with disabilities are subject to applicable state and

local regulations addressing health and safety concerns unless those regulations are inconsistent

with the Fair Housing Act or other federal law. Licensing and other regulatory requirements that

may apply to some group homes must also be consistent with the Fair Housing Act. Such

regulations must not be based on stereotypes about persons with disabilities or specific types of

disabilities. State or local zoning and land use ordinances may not, consistent with the Fair

Housing Act, require individuals with disabilities to receive medical, support, or other services or

supervision that they do not need or want as a condition for allowing a group home to operate.

State and local governments’ enforcement of neutral requirements regarding safety, licensing,

and other regulatory requirements governing group homes do not violate the Fair Housing Act so

long as the ordinances are enforced in a neutral manner, they do not specifically target group

homes, and they do not have an unjustified discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities who

wish to reside in group homes.

Governments must also consider requests for reasonable accommodations to licensing

and regulatory requirements and procedures, and grant them where they may be necessary to

afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, as required

by the Act.

17. Can a state or local government address suspected criminal activity or fraud and

abuse at group homes for persons with disabilities?

The Fair Housing Act does not prevent state and local governments from taking

nondiscriminatory action in response to criminal activity, insurance fraud, Medicaid fraud,

neglect or abuse of residents, or other illegal conduct occurring at group homes, including

reporting complaints to the appropriate state or federal regulatory agency. States and localities

must ensure that actions to enforce criminal or other laws are not taken to target group homes

and are applied equally, regardless of whether the residents of housing are persons with

disabilities. For example, persons with disabilities residing in group homes are entitled to the

same constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure as those without

disabilities.



18. Does the Fair Housing Act permit a state or local government to implement

strategies to integrate group homes for persons with disabilities in particular

neighborhoods where they are not currently located?

Yes. Some strategies a state or local government could use to further the integration of

group housing for persons with disabilities, consistent with the Act, include affirmative

marketing or offering incentives. For example, jurisdictions may engage in affirmative

marketing or offer variances to providers of housing for persons with disabilities to locate future

homes in neighborhoods where group homes for persons with disabilities are not currently

located. But jurisdictions may not offer incentives for a discriminatory purpose or that have an

unjustified discriminatory effect because of a protected characteristic.

19. Can a local government consider the fears or prejudices of neighbors in deciding

whether a group home can be located in a particular neighborhood?

In the same way a local government would violate the law if it rejected low-income

housing in a community because of neighbors’ fears that such housing would be occupied by

racial minorities (see Q&A 5), a local government violates the law if it blocks a group home or

denies a reasonable accommodation request because of neighbors’ stereotypical fears or

prejudices about persons with disabilities. This is so even if the individual government decision-

makers themselves do not have biases against persons with disabilities.

Not all community opposition to requests by group homes is necessarily discriminatory.

For example, when a group home seeks a reasonable accommodation to operate in an area and

the area has limited on-street parking to serve existing residents, it is not a violation of the Fair

Housing Act for neighbors and local government officials to raise concerns that the group home

may create more demand for on-street parking than would a typical family and to ask the

provider to respond. A valid unaddressed concern about inadequate parking facilities could

justify denying the requested accommodation, if a similar dwelling that is not a group home or

similarly situated use would ordinarily be denied a permit because of such parking concerns. If,

however, the group home shows that the home will not create a need for more parking spaces

than other dwellings or similarly-situated uses located nearby, or submits a plan to provide any

needed off-street parking, then parking concerns would not support a decision to deny the home

a permit.



Questions and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and

Reasonable Accommodation Requests to Local Zoning and Land Use Laws

20. When does a state or local government violate the Fair Housing Act by failing to

grant a request for a reasonable accommodation?

A state or local government violates the Fair Housing Act by failing to grant a reasonable

accommodation request if (1) the persons requesting the accommodation or, in the case of a

group home, persons residing in or expected to reside in the group home are persons with a

disability under the Act; (2) the state or local government knows or should reasonably be

expected to know of their disabilities; (3) an accommodation in the land use or zoning ordinance

or other rules, policies, practices, or services of the state or locality was requested by or on behalf

of persons with disabilities; (4) the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford one or

more persons with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (5) the state or

local government refused to grant, failed to act on, or unreasonably delayed the accommodation

request; and (6) the state or local government cannot show that granting the accommodation

would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the local government or that it

would fundamentally alter the local government’s zoning scheme. A requested accommodation

may be necessary if there is an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation

and the group home residents’ disability. Further information is provided in Q&A 10 above and

the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.

21. Can a local government deny a group home’s request for a reasonable

accommodation without violating the Fair Housing Act?

Yes, a local government may deny a group home’s request for a reasonable

accommodation if the request was not made by or on behalf of persons with disabilities (by, for

example, the group home developer or operator) or if there is no disability-related need for the

requested accommodation because there is no relationship between the requested

accommodation and the disabilities of the residents or proposed residents.

In addition, a group home’s request for a reasonable accommodation may be denied by a

local government if providing the accommodation is not reasonable—in other words, if it would

impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the local government or it would

fundamentally alter the local government’s zoning scheme. The determination of undue

financial and administrative burden must be decided on a case-by-case basis involving various

factors, such as the nature and extent of the administrative burden and the cost of the requested

accommodation to the local government, the financial resources of the local government, and the

benefits that the accommodation would provide to the persons with disabilities who will reside in

the group home.



When a local government refuses an accommodation request because it would pose an

undue financial and administrative burden, the local government should discuss with the

requester whether there is an alternative accommodation that would effectively address the

disability-related needs of the group home’s residents without imposing an undue financial and

administrative burden. This discussion is called an “interactive process.” If an alternative

accommodation would effectively meet the disability-related needs of the residents of the group

home and is reasonable (that is, it would not impose an undue financial and administrative

burden or fundamentally alter the local government’s zoning scheme), the local government

must grant the alternative accommodation. An interactive process in which the group home and

the local government discuss the disability-related need for the requested accommodation and

possible alternative accommodations is both required under the Act and helpful to all concerned,

because it often results in an effective accommodation for the group home that does not pose an

undue financial and administrative burden or fundamental alteration for the local government.

22. What is the procedure for requesting a reasonable accommodation?

The reasonable accommodation must actually be requested by or on behalf of the

individuals with disabilities who reside or are expected to reside in the group home. When the

request is made, it is not necessary for the specific individuals who would be expected to live in

the group home to be identified. The Act does not require that a request be made in a particular

manner or at a particular time. The group home does not need to mention the Fair Housing Act

or use the words “reasonable accommodation” when making a reasonable accommodation

request. The group home must, however, make the request in a manner that a reasonable person

would understand to be a disability-related request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a

rule, policy, practice, or service. When making a request for an exception, change, or adjustment

to a local land use or zoning regulation or policy, the group home should explain what type of

accommodation is being requested and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent

or known by the local government, explain the relationship between the accommodation and the

disabilities of the group home residents.

A request for a reasonable accommodation can be made either orally or in writing. It is

often helpful for both the group home and the local government if the reasonable accommodation

request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being

requested or whether or when the request was made.

Where a local land use or zoning code contains specific procedures for seeking a

departure from the general rule, courts have decided that these procedures should ordinarily be

followed. If no procedure is specified, or if the procedure is unreasonably burdensome or

intrusive or involves significant delays, a request for a reasonable accommodation may,



nevertheless, be made in some other way, and a local government is obligated to grant it if the

requested accommodation meets the criteria discussed in Q&A 20, above.

Whether or not the local land use or zoning code contains a specific procedure for

requesting a reasonable accommodation or other exception to a zoning regulation, if local

government officials have previously made statements or otherwise indicated that an application

for a reasonable accommodation would not receive fair consideration, or if the procedure itself is

discriminatory, then persons with disabilities living in a group home, and/or its operator, have

the right to file a Fair Housing Act complaint in court to request an order for a reasonable

accommodation to the local zoning regulations.

23. Does the Fair Housing Act require local governments to adopt formal reasonable

accommodation procedures?

The Act does not require a local government to adopt formal procedures for processing

requests for reasonable accommodations to local land use or zoning codes. DOJ and HUD

nevertheless strongly encourage local governments to adopt formal procedures for identifying

and processing reasonable accommodation requests and provide training for government officials

and staff as to application of the procedures. Procedures for reviewing and acting on reasonable

accommodation requests will help state and local governments meet their obligations under the

Act to respond to reasonable accommodation requests and implement reasonable

accommodations promptly. Local governments are also encouraged to ensure that the

procedures to request a reasonable accommodation or other exception to local zoning regulations

are well known throughout the community by, for example, posting them at a readily accessible

location and in a digital format accessible to persons with disabilities on the government’s

website. If a jurisdiction chooses to adopt formal procedures for reasonable accommodation

requests, the procedures cannot be onerous or require information beyond what is necessary to

show that the individual has a disability and that the requested accommodation is related to that

disability. For example, in most cases, an individual’s medical record or detailed information

about the nature of a person’s disability is not necessary for this inquiry. In addition, officials

and staff must be aware that any procedures for requesting a reasonable accommodation must

also be flexible to accommodate the needs of the individual making a request, including

accepting and considering requests that are not made through the official procedure. The

adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure, however, will not cure a zoning ordinance

that treats group homes differently than other residential housing with the same number of

unrelated persons.



24. What if a local government fails to act promptly on a reasonable accommodation

request?

A local government has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable

accommodation requests, whether or not a formal reasonable accommodation procedure exists.

A local government’s undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be

deemed a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

25. Can a local government enforce its zoning code against a group home that violates

the zoning code but has not requested a reasonable accommodation?

The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit a local government from enforcing its zoning

code against a group home that has violated the local zoning code, as long as that code is not

discriminatory or enforced in a discriminatory manner. If, however, the group home requests a

reasonable accommodation when faced with enforcement by the locality, the locality still must

consider the reasonable accommodation request. A request for a reasonable accommodation

may be made at any time, so at that point, the local government must consider whether there is a

relationship between the disabilities of the residents of the group home and the need for the

requested accommodation. If so, the locality must grant the requested accommodation unless

doing so would pose a fundamental alteration to the local government’s zoning scheme or an

undue financial and administrative burden to the local government.

Questions and Answers on Fair Housing Act Enforcement of

Complaints Involving Land Use and Zoning

26. How are Fair Housing Act complaints involving state and local land use laws and

practices handled by HUD and DOJ?

The Act gives HUD the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints of

discrimination, including complaints that a state or local government has discriminated in

exercising its land use and zoning powers. HUD may not issue a charge of discrimination

pertaining to “the legality of any State or local zoning or other land use law or ordinance.”

Rather, after investigating, HUD refers matters it believes may be meritorious to DOJ, which, in

its discretion, may decide to bring suit against the state or locality within 18 months after the

practice at issue occurred or terminated. DOJ may also bring suit by exercising its authority to

initiate litigation alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of

persons which raises an issue of general public importance.

If HUD determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that there may be a

violation, it will close an investigation without referring the matter to DOJ. But a HUD or DOJ



decision not to proceed with a land use or zoning matter does not foreclose private plaintiffs

from pursuing a claim.

Litigation can be an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties.

HUD and DOJ encourage parties to land use disputes to explore reasonable alternatives to

litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, like mediation or conciliation of

the HUD complaint. HUD attempts to conciliate all complaints under the Act that it receives,

including those involving land use or zoning laws. In addition, it is DOJ’s policy to offer

prospective state or local governments the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement

negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances.

27. How can I find more information?

For more information on reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications under the

Fair Housing Act:

 HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act,

available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-policy-statements-and-guidance-0

or http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf.

 HUD/DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications under the Fair Housing Act,

available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-policy-statements-and-guidance-0

or http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf.

For more information on state and local governments’ obligations under Section 504:

 HUD website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/

fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504.

For more information on state and local governments’ obligations under the ADA and Olmstead:

 U.S. Department of Justice website, www.ADA.gov, or call the ADA information line at

(800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).

 Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C., available at

http://www.ada.gov./olmstead/q&a_olmstead.htm.

 Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Role of Housing

in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead, available at

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OlmsteadGuidnc060413.pdf.



For more information on the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing:

 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 80 Fed. Reg. 42,272 (July 16, 2015) (to be

codified at 24 C.F.R. pts. 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903).

 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Version 1, Affirmatively

Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook (2015), available at

https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AFFH-Rule-Guidebook.pdf.

 Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Vol. 1, Fair Housing Planning Guide (1996), available at

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/fhpg.pdf.

For more information on nuisance and crime-free ordinances:

 Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the

Enforcement of Local Nuisance and Crime-Free Housing Ordinances Against Victims of

Domestic Violence, Other Crime Victims, and Others Who Require Police or Emergency

Services (Sept. 13, 2016), available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

huddoc?id=FinalNuisanceOrdGdnce.pdf.