Fair Housing Legislative Updates: What Has Actually Changed for Florida Association Boards

Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA
Founder & Managing Shareholder

• Published September 26, 2026
• Reviewed by Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA, September 26, 2026
• Florida Statutes as of July 1, 2026
• Applies to: Condominiums · HOAs · Cooperatives

This page is current through the 2026 regular session. For association boards, fair housing is the rare area where the operative Florida rules are old and stable: § 760.27 and § 817.265 both date from Chapter 2020-76 and have not been amended since. The 2026 session touched the Fair Housing Act only through an affordable housing act, Chapter 2026-179. The live development is federal, and it is still only a proposal. Sessions are covered most recent first.

The federal development: HUD's proposed repeal of the disparate impact rule

On January 14, 2026, HUD published a proposed rule, Docket No. FR-6540-P-01, RIN 2529-AB09, that would remove and reserve 24 C.F.R. § 100.500 in its entirety and strike the reference to discriminatory effects from 24 C.F.R. § 100.5(b). Section 100.500 is the regulation that sets out the burden-shifting framework for proving a discriminatory effect, or disparate impact, claim under the Fair Housing Act. The comment period closed on February 13, 2026, and roughly 1,100 comments were filed.

On August 10, 2026, HUD published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking under the same RIN. It extends the proposal to HUD's Title VI regulations at 24 C.F.R. part 1, removing the general disparate impact prohibition at § 1.4(b)(2)(i), the "or effect" language at § 1.4(b)(3), the affirmative action provision at § 1.4(b)(6), and § 1.4(c)(2). The comment period on the supplemental proposal closes October 9, 2026.

As of September 26, 2026, no final rule has issued. Both documents are proposals.

What a board should not do while a rule is only proposed

Boards hear "HUD is getting rid of disparate impact" and reach for the wrong conclusions. Three of them are worth naming.

1. Do not revive an occupancy limit, a leasing restriction, or a screening criterion that counsel previously advised carried effects exposure. Removing a regulation does not repeal 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and it does not touch the Florida Fair Housing Act at §§ 760.20 through 760.37, which the Commission and the Florida courts apply independently.
2. Do not change how you handle a reasonable accommodation request. Accommodation and modification claims are intentional discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. They were never disparate impact claims, and nothing in either HUD proposal reaches them.
3. Do not put anything in the minutes that reads as the board deciding it now has room to discriminate. Minutes are an official record, they are discoverable, and they are the first thing a plaintiff's lawyer asks for.

The right posture is to keep the current practice, keep the file, and revisit only if and when a final rule issues. Our guidance on enforcement and fair housing covers how to keep enforcement consistent while this is unsettled.

2026 session: the Fair Housing Act was amended, but not for associations

CS/HB 1389, Chapter 2026-179, effective July 1, 2026, is an affordable housing act. It requires counties and municipalities to allow multifamily and mixed-use residential development in commercially and industrially zoned areas that meet affordable housing criteria. It also amended three sections of the Florida Fair Housing Act: § 760.22, § 760.26 and § 760.35.

Two of those changes are worth a board's attention. In § 760.22, the defined term "handicap" was replaced with "disability," carrying the same substance: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or a developmental disability as defined in § 393.063. Policies, forms and letters that use the older term are not wrong, but they now read as dated. In § 760.35, the state waived sovereign immunity for itself and its agencies and political subdivisions for a cause of action based on that section. That reaches local governments, not associations.

Nothing in Chapter 2026-179 changes what an association must do. Say that plainly to a board that has heard the Fair Housing Act was amended this year.

The sessions that did nothing here

This is the honest and useful part of a legislative page. Between 2021 and 2025, the Florida Legislature did not amend the association-facing provisions of the Fair Housing Act at all.

Bills proposing to tighten emotional support animal documentation, to add penalties for providers who issue letters without a treating relationship, and to restrict online registries have been filed in several sessions and have not passed. If a vendor tells you the ESA rules changed, ask which chapter law changed them.

2020: § 760.27 and what you may actually ask for

Section 760.27, created by Chapter 2020-76, is still the operative Florida statute on emotional support animals in housing. It defines an emotional support animal as one that does not require training to do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, or provide therapeutic emotional support by virtue of its presence. That definition matters: an emotional support animal is not a service animal, and the two are analyzed differently.

A housing provider, which includes an association enforcing a pet restriction, may request:

• reliable information that reasonably supports that the person has a disability, where the disability is not readily apparent
• reliable information that reasonably supports the person's need for the particular emotional support animal
• information regarding the specific need for each animal, where more than one is requested
• proof of compliance with state and local requirements for licensing and vaccinating each animal

A housing provider may not request information that discloses the diagnosis or severity of a disability or any medical records. It may not require the use of a specific form or a notarized statement, and it may not deny a request solely because the person did not follow the provider's routine method for making one. The statute also says that an emotional support animal registration obtained from an online source is not, by itself, sufficient information to reliably establish that a person has a disability or a need for the animal.

That last sentence is regularly overread. It permits you to say a printed certificate alone is not enough. It does not permit you to reject a supporting letter from a health care practitioner because the owner also bought a registration online. Our guide to pet and animal restrictions sets out a request-handling sequence.

§ 817.265 falsification, and why it is not your enforcement tool

Section 817.265, from the same 2020 chapter law, makes it a second degree misdemeanor to falsify information or written documentation, or to knowingly provide fraudulent information or documentation, about a disability or a disability-related need for an emotional support animal. A person convicted must also perform 30 hours of community service for an organization serving persons with disabilities, to be completed within six months of conviction.

Boards like this statute more than they should. Three points keep it in proportion. It is a criminal statute, so the association does not enforce it; the state attorney does. It requires falsification or knowing fraud, which is a much higher bar than a letter the board finds unconvincing. And a denial or a fine premised on an unproven accusation of fraud is exactly the fact pattern that turns a routine accommodation dispute into a retaliation claim.

Its real use is disclosure. Stating in your accommodation packet that falsification is a criminal offense under § 817.265 is accurate and lawful. Threatening a particular owner with prosecution is neither prudent nor effective.

Housing for older persons: the 80 percent rule and verification

Familial status protection does not apply to housing for older persons. Section 760.29(4)(a) says so, and paragraph (b) sets the conditions. For the 55-and-older category, at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older, the community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures demonstrating the intent to operate as such, and it must comply with HUD's rules at 24 C.F.R. part 100, which contemplate verification by reliable surveys and affidavits.

One point worth stating flatly because boards are told otherwise: the current statute does not require registration with the Florida Commission on Human Relations as a condition of the exemption. What it requires is the occupancy percentage, the published policies, and current verification. A community relying on a decade-old survey is the one at risk, not the one that never filed a state form. The same discipline applies to how the community documents occupancy by tenants and guests.

Section 760.29(4)(c) preserves the exemption where existing residents were grandfathered after October 1, 1989 or where units are unoccupied but held for qualifying occupants, and (4)(d) protects a person who in good faith relied on a written statement of compliance from personal monetary liability. That good faith protection is a reason to keep the community's compliance statement current and in writing.

Deadlines and what an association is exposed to

Two clocks run, and they are different lengths. A complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations must be filed within one year after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred, under § 760.34(2). A civil action may be commenced no later than two years after the practice occurred, under § 760.35, and filing a complaint with the Commission is not a prerequisite to suing.

The remedies are the reason to take a demand letter seriously. Section 760.35 directs a court that finds a discriminatory housing practice to order injunctive and other equitable relief, actual and punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Association insurance may or may not respond to a fair housing claim depending on the policy, and it frequently excludes punitive damages. Confirm the coverage position early rather than after the answer is filed.

The federal route runs separately, with its own one-year administrative deadline for a HUD complaint and a two-year limit for a private Fair Housing Act suit. An owner may pursue both.

Contact Hamilton Mikes

Hamilton Mikes advises condominium, HOA and cooperative boards in Southwest Florida on assistance animal requests, reasonable accommodation and modification decisions, occupancy and age restrictions, and responses to Commission and HUD complaints. Call 239-594-7227 or visit our Fair Housing page.