Key Takeaways
- Colorado law mirrors federal fair-housing protections for ESA accommodations.
- Breed, size, and housing type cannot be used to deny legitimate ESA requests.
- College and student housing are not exempt from ESA rules.
- Documentation and consistency are your best defense against compliance issues.
- Always verify, never assume, especially in Colorado’s evolving housing landscape.
Emotional support animals (ESAs) are one of the most misunderstood areas of fair-housing compliance, and confusion among housing providers often leads to costly mistakes. Across Colorado from Denver, apartment complexes to university dorms in Boulder, landlords and property managers face persistent myths about when they can legally deny an ESA request.
The reality? Most “justifications” for denial are rooted in myth, not law.
Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), individuals with a verified disability and a legitimate need for an ESA are entitled to reasonable accommodation in nearly all housing settings. This includes not only traditional rental housing but also student housing, condos, and single-family rentals.
Let’s break down the most common myths and what Colorado landlords should know.
Myth 1: Certain Breeds Can Be Banned
One of the biggest misconceptions is that landlords can deny an ESA based on breed restrictions, especially with breeds like pit bulls, Rottweilers, or Dobermans.
However, neither federal nor Colorado fair-housing laws allow breed-based ESA denials. Even though some Colorado municipalities (such as Denver, until recently) have had breed-specific bans, these do not override fair-housing protections when a verified ESA is involved.
What property owners can do:
- Require that all animals meet basic behavioral and safety standards.
- Carry adequate liability insurance to protect the property.
What they cannot do:
- Deny an ESA solely because of its breed or perceived aggression.
Myth 2: College Housing Is Exempt
In Colorado, student housing, from CU Boulder dorms to private university apartments, must follow the same fair-housing rules as other rental properties.
If a student provides valid documentation showing a disability and the need for an ESA, universities and student-housing providers must make reasonable accommodations.
Refusing an ESA because the housing is a dormitory, or citing “no pets” policies, violates both federal and state fair-housing laws.
Myth 3: ESAs Must Be Hypoallergenic
Allergies are a common concern, especially in multifamily settings or shared student housing. But there’s no legal requirement that ESAs be hypoallergenic.
A housing provider cannot deny an ESA simply because it sheds, or because another resident might have allergies. Only in rare, medically documented cases—for example, where two residents’ disabilities directly conflict—can a housing provider consider alternative arrangements. Even then, it must be handled through an individualized, interactive process.
Myth 4: Multiple ESAs Are Not Allowed
Colorado landlords sometimes assume that tenants can only have one ESA, or that multiple animals are automatically unreasonable.
In truth, each accommodation request must be evaluated case by case. If a tenant provides documentation from a qualified healthcare professional supporting the need for more than one animal, the request must be considered fairly.
Denying such requests outright may expose landlords to discrimination claims under both the FHA and CADA.
Myth 5: Late Disclosure Justifies Denial
Sometimes tenants disclose ESA needs after they’ve already moved in or after a lease is signed. Landlords often see this as dishonest and think they can deny the request.
However, timing does not invalidate fair-housing protections. Even late disclosures must be processed through the reasonable accommodation process.
For Colorado property managers, maintaining professionalism and documentation is essential to avoid the appearance of retaliation or discrimination.
Building Confidence Through Compliance
The best way to handle ESA requests in Colorado is with training, consistency, and documentation.
Denials based on myths, or misunderstandings, can quickly escalate into fair-housing complaints filed with:
- The Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), or
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Housing providers should also be cautious about online ESA letters, which have become a growing challenge in Colorado’s rental market. These letters can be misleading and may not meet HUD’s verification standards.
The safest approach?
- Verify documentation from a licensed health professional.
- Maintain a consistent accommodation policy.
- Train staff on both federal and Colorado-specific regulations.
By separating fact from fiction and applying the law consistently, landlords and property managers in Colorado can avoid costly disputes, while fostering trust and inclusivity in their communities.
