Pet Policy Clause
in Your Lease

Understanding the Pet Policy Clause

A pet policy clause prices your animal in three places: a deposit at signing, a one-time fee, and a line that repeats every month. In Washington the first of those is answered by a definition that never uses the word pet.

14 DCMR § 308.1 makes a "security deposit" mean all monies paid to the owner as a deposit or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations. § 308.2 then holds that money to the first full month's rent and says it "shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant." A refundable pet deposit is caught by the first sentence and measured by the second.

You may also have read that a District landlord can take 15% of monthly rent as a pet deposit on top of the ordinary one. That provision was passed and has not been switched on - the subsections that would do it read "Not Funded" in the Code. An assistance animal is a different question again, and none of the deposit arithmetic on this page is the rule that answers it.

One of the sixteen rows on this chart carries a dollar figure: Denver's $300 pet deposit cap. The other fourteen are dashed tracks in three shapes. Six put no number on pet money at all - Austin, Miami, Chicago, Nashville and Philadelphia read no cap, and Seattle reads no dollar cap. The remaining eight fold pet money into a general deposit ceiling, and those ceilings differ: Los Angeles, New York City, Boston and Washington measure it against one month's rent; Portland against a one-month city cap; Phoenix against one and a half months; Atlanta against two; Las Vegas against three.

Washington reaches its one month by a different route from the three rows that share the figure. The ceiling is a regulation rather than a statute, and it carries two riders the bar cannot draw: 14 DCMR § 308.2 says the deposit "shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant", which leaves no second charge to relabel as pet money, and § 308.8 lifts Federal and District agency units and federally subsidized rents out of the section entirely. The bar draws the dollar cap and nothing else, so neither rider appears on it.

District of Columbia Law on Pet Policy Clause

The District answers the pet-deposit question with a definition rather than with a pet rule, and the definition sits in a regulation. 14 DCMR § 308.1 provides that "the term 'security deposit' shall mean all monies paid to the owner by the tenant as a deposit or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of the property."

§ 308.2 then measures it: "any security deposit or other payment required by an owner as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of a dwelling unit shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the first full month's rent charged that tenant for the dwelling unit, and shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant." Neither subsection uses the word pet. Because the test is what the money is held for, a deposit taken against pet damage is deposit money - and the words "only once" leave no second charge to be labelled a pet deposit.

That section does not reach every rental in the city. § 308.8 provides that "the provisions of this section shall not be applicable to Federal or District of Columbia agencies' dwelling units leased in the District of Columbia or to units for which rents are Federally subsidized", so a renter in one of those units sits outside the ceiling and should read their own program's terms rather than this figure.

The 15% pet deposit that circulates as District law is on the books and not switched on. D.C. Law 25-308, the Pets in Housing Amendment Act of 2024, became effective March 21, 2025 and would add D.C. Code § 42-3505.10(b-3)(1)(A), under which "the pet security deposit authorized by this paragraph does not exceed 15% of the monthly rent, in addition to any security deposit otherwise authorized by law", together with (b-3)(2)(A) capping additional rent for a dog at "1 percent of the first full month's rent".

Effective is not the same as in force. Section 4(a) of that act provides that "this act shall apply upon the date of inclusion of its fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan", and four provisions read "Not Funded" in the Code: § 42-3505.10(b-3) and (b-4), § 42-3502.17(d), which is the authorisation to charge a pet deposit at all, and § 42-3501.03(6A), the definition of "common household pet". The applicability note on each states that the amendment "is subject to the inclusion of the law's fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan. Therefore that amendment has not been implemented."

The switch is a certification rather than a calendar date. Under § 4(b) and (c) the Chief Financial Officer certifies the date of inclusion and the notice of certification is published in the District of Columbia Register, which makes the Code section itself the place to check whether the status has moved since you read this page.

What is funded in § 42-3505.10 is about timing and about cleaning. (b)(1) allows an application fee of "no more than $50", adjustable annually with the Consumer Price Index under (b)(2). (b)(3) provides that "a housing provider shall not charge a prospective tenant any fee other than an application fee prior to signing a lease with the tenant", which puts any pet charge after signing rather than into the application stage. And (b-2)(2) provides that "a housing provider shall not charge a tenant a professional cleaning fee so long as the tenant returns the premises to the housing provider in a condition within the standard of ordinary wear and tear as defined in § 42-3502.17(c)(3)."

Our District record found no funded provision setting a ceiling on monthly pet rent or on a nonrefundable pet fee, which leaves the paragraph you signed as the document that states those figures. Read the current text of D.C. Code § 42-3502.17 and § 42-3505.10 on the Council's published Code, and 14 DCMR §§ 308-309, before you rely on any number here in a dispute.

One category of animal sits outside every paragraph above. An assistance animal is a disability question and not a pet question, and the District has its own section saying so. D.C. Code § 7-1006(b) entitles persons with physical or mental disabilities who have a service animal to "full and equal access to all housing accommodations referred to in this section without being denied access because of the service animal", and provides that "such persons shall not be required to pay an extra charge for the service animal but shall be liable for any damage done by the service animal."

§ 7-1006(d) limits what may be demanded to prove it. The housing provider must "limit any inquiry to the minimum information and documentation necessary", may require a licensed healthcare professional to verify the disability and may require the tenant to "demonstrate a nexus between his or her disability and the function that the service animal provides", "shall not inquire further into the nature or severity of the disability", and "shall not require the individual to provide eligibility documentation in less than 30 days."

Federal enforcement moved in 2026, which is what makes those District sections worth reading rather than assuming. On May 22, 2026 the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued an enforcement memo, effective immediately, under which FHEO will no longer treat the denial of an untrained emotional support animal as a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. A memo is an enforcement position rather than a change in the law: it does not amend the Fair Housing Act, it does not reach Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it does not touch District law.

So the live question for a District renter is what the District's own law gives them. § 7-1006 is written around a service animal. The D.C. Human Rights Act runs alongside it: D.C. Code § 2-1402.21(d)(3)(B) makes unlawful discrimination include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when these accommodations may be necessary to afford any person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." That subparagraph does not use the word animal - it is the accommodation duty, and a request runs through it rather than through a pet clause. Confirm the current text of both sections, and HUD's current guidance, before you rely on either.

What's Specific to Washington

Figures are the state rule, or the stronger city ordinance where one exists. Verify the current law for your own situation before relying on it.

Washington is not a city sitting inside a state, so the two-layer search the rest of this chart calls for does not exist here. The Council of the District of Columbia writes what would elsewhere be the state statute and what would elsewhere be the city ordinance, and the Mayor's agencies write the regulations under it - no state legislature above the city, and no county in between. There is no separate municipal code to check once you have read the sections above.

Pet money runs through both of those forms at once. The ceiling is a regulation, 14 DCMR § 308, adopted under the Security Deposit Act, and the Code section that governs deposits points straight back at it: D.C. Code § 42-3502.17(a) provides that "security deposits shall be collected pursuant to the Security Deposit Act, effective February 20, 1976 (D.C. Law 1-48; 14 DCMR 308 et seq.)." The answer to a pet-deposit question is therefore split across a Code section and a regulation, and quoting one without the other is how a District lease argument goes sideways.

Two things arrive on a District lease that this arrangement explains. The first is the national form, drafted for jurisdictions that price an animal on its own line, so a "pet deposit, nonrefundable" heading lands in a market where § 308.1 asks what the money is held for. The second is newer: a manager or a listing quoting 15% of rent as the District's pet deposit rule. That figure comes from provisions reading "Not Funded", so ask which section the charge is being made under, and read that section yourself.

One question is worth settling before you rely on the ceiling at all, and it is about which kind of housing you are in. § 308.8 lifts Federal and District of Columbia agencies' dwelling units leased in the District, and units for which rents are Federally subsidized, out of the whole of § 308. If your unit is one of those, the first-full-month figure is not the rule you are arguing under and your own program's terms are.

How far this page reaches is worth stating. On the Office of Documents' own DCMR site the section index of Title 14, Chapter 3 (Landlord and Tenant) runs from § 14-300 to § 14-399 and names no pet section; we read the bodies of §§ 308 and 309 and the index for the rest, and did not read every section body in Title 14. Treat this as an account of those sections and that index rather than of every rule the District has written.

Red Flags to Watch Out For

• A 15% pet deposit quoted as District law

  D.C. Code § 42-3505.10(b-3) and (b-4), § 42-3502.17(d) and § 42-3501.03(6A) each read "Not Funded", and section 4(a) of D.C. Law 25-308 applies the act only on inclusion of its fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan.

• Pet money stacked on top of the deposit

  14 DCMR § 308.1 defines a security deposit by what the money is held for, and § 308.2 holds it to the first full month's rent and allows it to be charged only once. A pet heading buys no room above that.

• A pet charge collected before signing

  D.C. Code § 42-3505.10(b)(3) provides that "a housing provider shall not charge a prospective tenant any fee other than an application fee prior to signing a lease with the tenant", and (b)(1) puts that application fee at "no more than $50".

• A professional cleaning fee at move-out

  § 42-3505.10(b-2)(2) bars a professional cleaning fee "so long as the tenant returns the premises to the housing provider in a condition within the standard of ordinary wear and tear as defined in § 42-3502.17(c)(3)."

• Paperwork demands aimed at an assistance animal

  D.C. Code § 7-1006(d) requires the housing provider to "limit any inquiry to the minimum information and documentation necessary", bars inquiry "further into the nature or severity of the disability", and bars requiring eligibility documentation "in less than 30 days".

Your Rights as a Washington Tenant

• The definition, not the heading

  14 DCMR § 308.1 makes a security deposit "all monies paid to the owner by the tenant as a deposit or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of the property".

• One ceiling, charged once

  14 DCMR § 308.2 holds that money to "an amount equivalent to the first full month's rent charged that tenant for the dwelling unit", and provides that it "shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant".

• No extra charge for a service animal

  D.C. Code § 7-1006(b) provides that a person with a disability who has a service animal shall not be required to pay an extra charge for it, but is liable for any damage it does. § 7-1006(d) allows at least 30 days to provide eligibility documentation.

• The accommodation duty is its own rule

  D.C. Code § 2-1402.21(d)(3)(B) makes unlawful discrimination include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when these accommodations may be necessary to afford any person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." It does not use the word animal.

What To Do - Step by Step

Frequently Asked Questions