C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › PART 100—DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT › Subpart D—Prohibition Against Discrimination Because of Handicap

24 C.F.R. § 100.204

Reasonable accommodations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(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:

Example (1):A blind applicant for rental housing wants live in a dwelling unit with a seeing eye dog. The building has a no pets policy. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of the apartment complex to refuse to permit the applicant to live in the apartment with a seeing eye dog because, without the seeing eye dog, the blind person will not have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.Example (2):Progress Gardens is a 300 unit apartment complex with 450 parking spaces which are available to tenants and guests of Progress Gardens on a first come first served basis. John applies for housing in Progress Gardens. John is mobility impaired and is unable to walk more than a short distance and therefore requests that a parking space near his unit be reserved for him so he will not have to walk very far to get to his apartment. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of Progress Gardens to refuse to make this accommodation. Without a reserved space, John might be unable to live in Progress Gardens at all or, when he has to park in a space far from his unit, might have great difficulty getting from his car to his apartment unit. The accommodation therefore is necessary to afford John an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The accommodation is reasonable because it is feasible and practical under the circumstances.
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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass'n, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 3× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 3× “§ 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). · cites it 7× “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). · cites it 2× “§ 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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 5× “§ 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 v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 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.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
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, No. 1:24-cv-06450 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2024).
Feliciano v. Aguirre, No. 1:24-cv-07636 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 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.