24 C.F.R. § 100.204
Reasonable accommodations
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas.
(b) The application of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass'n, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014).
Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass'n, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “In exercising that authority, the Secretary has promulgated 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 , which provides two examples of situations where an accommodation has been found to be reasonable.”
Peter M. Gaona Annah M. Gaona v. Town & Country Credit the Chase Manhattan Bank, 324 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). “The Gaonas also cite HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (2002), as evidence that the FHA contains a general "reasonable accommodation” requirement.”
Phyllis Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass'n, 945 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019). “24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (b)(1). But one would not naturally say that a tenant with allergies requests an accommodation from an apartment’s “pet friendly” policy if the tenant seeks a total pet ban.”
Taylor v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 267 F.R.D. 36 (D. Conn. 2010). “§ 3604 (f), 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 , and/or 24 C.F.R. § 8.”
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Liliuokalani Gardens v. Taylor, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (D. Haw. 2012). “at 9-10 (citing 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 ). 2 ] Taylor contends that HUD has interpreted the FHA’s reasonable accommodation provision to require accommodations for non-trained emotional support animals.”
Astralis Condo. Ass'n v. Sec'y, United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. Ex Rel. García-Guillén, 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010). “1996) (upholding ALJ’s finding of FHAA violation where landlord was aware of individual’s mobility handicap yet denied request for a parking space accommodation); see also 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (b) (illustrating reasonable accommodation by citing example of a person with a…”
Sabal Palm Condos. of Pine Island Ridge Ass'n v. Fischer, 6 F. Supp. 3d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “§ 3604 (f)(8)(B) is 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (a), and this regulation specifically provides that it is unlawful for a housing provider with a no-pets policy to refuse to permit a blind person to live in a dwelling unit with a seeing-eye dog.”
Louis ex rel. G.A.H. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 152 F. Supp. 3d 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “28 (a) 8 and 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 9 require PHAs to make accommodations to individuals with disabilities in carrying out the Section 8 program.”
Albert Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus Cnty., Inc., 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019). “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (b). In such a case, it’s not the handicap itself, but rather the effect of the handicap, that is being accommodated.”
Taylor v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 257 F.R.D. 23 (D. Conn. 2009). “§ 3604 (f), violates Defendants’ duty to provide Plaintiffs with “reasonable accommodations” under 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 , and violates 24 C.F.”
Hugee v. Kimso Apts., LLC, 852 F. Supp. 2d 281 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (b). Such reasonable accommodations are distinct from reasonable modifications that are “necessary to afford [a] person [with disabilities] full enjoyment of the premises,” which the FHA prohibits a landlord from refusing to permit the tenant to undertake…”
Phyllis Shapiro & United States of Am. v. Cadman Towers, Inc. & Sydelle Levy, 51 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995). “Further support for this conclusion is found in 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 (b), a regulation promulgated by HUD that provides an example of a “reasonable accommodation” under the FHAA.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.204(a) — 3 cases
Taylor v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 267 F.R.D. 36 (D. Conn. 2010). “§ 3604 (f), 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 , and/or 24 C.F.R. § 8.”
Pownall El v. S. Realty (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
Feliciano v. Aguirre (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.