icon on Earlier this week one of our association clients sought my advice on a recent owner request to allow an emotional support pig in their unit (within a mid-rise building). Although most condominium declarations prohibit livestock animals, even this most unconventional accommodation request must be evaluated carefully rather than dismissed out of hand.
Illinois housing providers continue to navigate the complex and often sensitive issue of assistance animals, particularly emotional support animals (“ESAs”), within the framework of both federal and state law. Under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), landlords and condominium associations are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents with qualifying physical or mental disabilities when such accommodations are necessary for the resident to use and enjoy their home. This obligation applies regardless of whether the property maintains a strict “no pets” policy, as assistance animals are not considered pets, but rather a form of disability-related accommodation.
Federal guidance, including HUD’s 2020 interpretive materials, continues to shape how these requests are evaluated. Where a disability or the need for an assistance animal is not readily apparent, housing providers are entitled to request reliable documentation. At the same time, providers must engage in an interactive process and avoid imposing unnecessary or overly burdensome obstacles to legitimate accommodation requests.
One of the most persistent challenges in this area remains the prevalence of questionable documentation. Housing providers regularly encounter ESA requests supported by letters obtained through online services, sometimes issued after only minimal interaction. HUD has made clear that there is no official registry or certification for emotional support animals, and that documents such as certificates, identification cards, or online registrations—standing alone—do not constitute reliable evidence of a disability-related need. Nevertheless, given the risk of discrimination claims, providers must proceed thoughtfully when scrutinizing such submissions.
The Illinois Assistance Animal Integrity Act, which has been in effect since January 1, 2020, was intended to address some of these concerns by emphasizing the need for a genuine therapeutic relationship between the resident and the individual providing supporting documentation. The Act requires that the provider have personal knowledge of the resident’s condition and base any opinion on a meaningful assessment rather than a superficial or one-time interaction. While this does not eliminate questionable ESA requests, it does give housing providers firmer footing to evaluate the credibility of the documentation submitted.
Importantly, neither federal nor Illinois law limits assistance animals to traditional household pets. The central inquiry remains whether the animal is necessary to alleviate the effects of the resident’s disability. Where a request involves a nontraditional animal, however, housing providers are justified in seeking more detailed and specific information. This may include an explanation of why the resident requires an assistance animal in the first instance, why that particular type of animal is necessary, and how the animal assists with the disability. That said, requesting additional detail is not the same as imposing a meaningful barrier- as often the resident is often easily able to secure a more a detailed letter from the health care professional. As such, the accommodation request may still need to be granted.
Beyond documentation, associations and landlords may also consider whether the requested accommodation is reasonable in light of the particular building and circumstances. Factors such as potential safety concerns, risk of property damage, and the administrative burden of accommodating the animal may be relevant. These considerations, however, must be grounded in objective evidence rather than assumptions about a particular species or breed. Similarly, while the concerns of other residents, such as allergies or fear of animals may be part of the overall picture, they generally cannot serve as the sole basis for denying a request.
More than six years after the Illinois Assistance Animal Integrity Act took effect, the legal framework is clearer, but it continues to require a fact-specific, balanced approach. Housing providers must evaluate each request individually, focusing on the reliability of the supporting documentation and the reasonableness of the accommodation in the context presented.
And while a request for an emotional support pig may invite skepticism, the governing principle remains unchanged: the request cannot be rejected outright simply because the animal in question happens to be a pig.