Renters with pets could get new protections under LA County proposal

One in every four people in Los Angeles County owns a dog or a cat, according to local officials. But those furry friends are not welcome in some apartments because many landlords ban pets.

Under a new proposal by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, those restrictions could soon go away for many renters.

The Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 on Tuesday in favor of exploring a new requirement for landlords to allow renters to have at least one pet per household. Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Janice Hahn were absent.

The proposal is still in early stages and would need to be approved in subsequent votes before any changes take effect.

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

The plan also aims to prohibit — or place a cap on — the ability of landlords to require tenants to pay additional rent, fees and deposits for pets.

These rules would only apply in unincorporated parts of L.A. County, and only in buildings subject to the county’s rent-stabilization ordinance. Various county departments overseeing rental housing and animal welfare will now have 180 days to report back to the Board of Supervisors on the feasibility of passing these protections.

The vote was celebrated by tenant advocates who say many renters are threatened with eviction over their pets, while others struggle to find housing in the first place.

“People really feel stuck in the current housing that they're in because they don't know of any other place where they're going to get their pets accepted,” said Zaira Bernal, co-director of Heart L.A., a legal aid organization focused on tenants with pets.

Big dogs often surrendered due to housing problems 

Bernal said forcing tenants to choose between their housing and their pets can lead to more animals being surrendered at already overcrowded local shelters.

“That just really burdens the system when it comes to animal shelters and decisions they have to make about being over capacity,” Bernal said.

A recent L.A. Times analysis found that the number of euthanized dogs at shelters run by the city of L.A. has increased 72% this year compared to the same time period in 2023.

Supervisor Hilda Solis, who introduced the motion to explore new pet protections in L.A. County, said in a statement following the vote: “At a time when residents across the County are struggling to find affordable housing, especially residents with pets, while our County shelters are experiencing a significant rise in owner pet surrenders, it’s clear we must explore feasible solutions.”

The motion approved by the Board of Supervisors requests the protections to include no limits on weight for pets. County animal shelter officials say housing-related problems have consistently been the top reason owners give for surrendering dogs over 55 pounds.

Landlords say pet restrictions exist for good reasons

Landlords say they worry that blanket pet protections could lead to costly damage to units, complaints about noise and safety, and issues for tenants who would prefer to live in pet-free buildings.

“There are individuals who have allergies and other sensitivities that should be respected,” said Fred Sutton, spokesperson for the California Apartment Association.

Sutton also argued that passing these protections for rent-controlled tenants in unincorporated parts of L.A. County — but not in other areas — would add another layer of confusion to the region’s patchwork of housing laws.

“You're creating really piecemeal regulations that make it very, very hard for rental owners — particularly independent rental owners — to understand and comply with,” Sutton said.

During public comment at Tuesday’s meeting, Joseph Laskowski argued against the proposal, saying he was bitten by a dog in 2008.

“There are some animals that should not live in multi-family housing,” he said. “Imagine a 1970s rent-stabilized building, but add four or five pit bulls to it. Who does that help? That helps no one. What it does is it creates an unsafe living environment.”

This isn’t the first attempt to protect tenants with pets 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, L.A. County placed new limits on eviction for tenants who adopted pets that were not permitted under the terms of their lease. Elected leaders said the goal was to keep renters housed during a public health crisis, and to protect animals that provided companionship and emotional support in a period of prolonged isolation.

After those pandemic-era protections expired, the L.A. City Council made the ban on evictions permanent for pets adopted during the pandemic. Landlord groups supported that decision at the time, but asked that tenants be required to notify their landlord about any undisclosed pets.

Other recent attempts at expanding the rights of California tenants with pets have stalled.

A state bill introduced earlier this year by Assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco initially aimed to require landlords to accept pets and ban additional pet rent or deposits. After facing fierce opposition from landlord groups, the bill failed to advance past a State Senate committee.

The county proposal discusses giving landlords some ability to screen pets. As currently written, the motion would allow landlords to require a “pet resume” during the tenant application process, detailing the animal’s behavior, vaccination records, licensing, microchip records and whether they are spayed or neutered.