Why landlords can't deny a reasonable accommodation request simply because unit demand is high.

High demand isn’t a shield. Here’s why landlords can’t hide behind market pressure when a tenant asks for a reasonable accommodation

Let’s start with a straightforward premise: people with disabilities should have an equal shot at housing, just like anyone else. That means when someone requests a reasonable accommodation—something that helps them use a home or related services on an equal basis—the housing provider needs to handle it with care, not with excuses grounded in the market. In other words, the issue isn’t whether apartments are scarce; it’s whether the request is reasonable, and whether granting it would create an undue burden or alter essential operations. High demand for units does not address those questions, and it isn’t a legitimate basis to deny a request.

What exactly is a reasonable accommodation?

If you’ve ever wondered where the line sits between a policy tweak and a major change, here’s the gist. A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to rules, policies, practices, or services that a housing provider maintains so that a person with a disability can have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. It’s not about changing the property in a way that makes it easier for every tenant, or about offering extra perks. It’s about leveling the playing field so someone with a disability can live there as independently as possible.

A few practical examples help make it concrete:

• Allowing a service animal even if the building’s pet policy would normally exclude animals.

• Granting extra time for certain procedures, like submitting applications or fulfilling move-in requirements, if fast timelines create a barrier.

• Adjusting a “no smoking” rule to permit a caregiver to smoke outside or indoors according to accessibility needs, when safety isn’t compromised.

On the flip side, the request should be tied to the person’s disability and their ability to access housing or related facilities. It’s not about benefiting a particular tenant’s lifestyle or preferences. And it isn’t about granting a blanket preference to one disability group over another. The goal is clear: equal access.

High demand isn’t a valid reason to say no

Now, let’s be blunt about the central point you came for: market pressure isn’t a legitimate reason to deny. If a property is in high demand, that’s a market condition. It doesn’t say anything about the need or feasibility of a requested accommodation. Denying a resident because “we don’t have a vacancy” or “there are more people who want units” confuses supply with the right to equal opportunity. The law looks at the impact on the individual who has a disability, not the broader market dynamics.

Why does that distinction matter? Because fair housing rules require a careful, individualized assessment. They ask: would granting the accommodation effectively enable the person to enjoy housing on an equal basis? Would it impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the landlord? If the answer to the first question is yes and the second is manageable, the accommodation should be considered. Market conditions aren’t part of that calculation.

What landlords can and can’t consider

To stay compliant while staying practical, landlords weigh two broad strands: the needs of the person requesting the accommodation and the real-world feasibility of delivering it. Here’s how that balance typically plays out in practice.

What may be considered

• Financial burden: If providing the accommodation would impose a substantial, demonstrable cost that isn’t shared by other tenants, this can be a factor. But it isn’t a blank check to refuse—many accommodations are modest in cost, or can be phased in, or implemented in ways that don’t create a financial crisis for the property.

• Safety concerns: If the requested accommodation would compromise the safety of other residents or staff, that’s a legitimate factor—but again, reasonable efforts should be made to find a workable solution, such as alternatives that preserve safety while preserving access.

• Structural feasibility: If the change would require major construction or alter the essential nature of the building, this can limit what’s possible. Yet it doesn’t give a free pass to reject. It just helps identify realistic options, perhaps with partial modifications or policy tweaks that don’t alter the building’s footprint or safety integrity.

• Impact on operations: Does granting the accommodation require a substantial change in how the building is managed? Could it set a precedent that affects other tenants? These are legitimate questions, but they must be weighed against the core objective of equal access.

What may not be a valid basis

• Market demand: As discussed, this doesn’t address the individual’s needs and doesn’t justify denial.

• Personal preferences or convenience: If a landlord dislikes the idea of a service animal or prefers a different procedure, those feelings aren’t proper grounds for denial when a genuine disability-related need exists.

• Generalized fear of change: Worrying about how an accommodation might affect neighbors or operations isn’t a substitute for an individualized assessment.

The interactive process and documentation

One of the most important parts of handling accommodation requests is a collaborative dialogue. The law doesn’t expect landlords to guess what a tenant needs; instead, it encourages an interactive process where both sides share information and seek workable solutions.

Key steps include:

• Acknowledge the request promptly. Quick acknowledgement signals respect and keeps the process moving.

• Engage in a dialogue. Ask clarifying questions only to the extent needed to determine what’s reasonable, and avoid probing for medical details beyond what’s necessary to establish the disability-related need.

• Request documentation when appropriate. If there’s ambiguity about the need, landlords may ask for reliable documentation that supports the accommodation. The request should be limited to what’s needed.

• Explore alternatives. If the exact accommodation isn’t feasible, discuss reasonable alternatives that would achieve the same goal.

• Document decisions in writing. A clear record helps everyone stay aligned and reduces confusion later on.

• Maintain confidentiality. Share information about the disability only with people who need to know for implementing the accommodation.

Real-world scenarios that illuminate the point

Let’s walk through a couple of relatable situations. They’ll illustrate why market pressure can’t trump the core obligation to provide equal access.

Scenario 1: A tenant with mobility impairment requests a ramp at the building entrance. The landlord cites “high demand” and argues there’s no immediate vacancy, so the request will be put on hold. The right approach would be to assess whether a ramp could be installed without excessive cost, delay, or safety risk, and to explore interim accommodations if necessary. Market demand doesn’t justify postponing a modification that would enable independent access.

Scenario 2: A resident needs an animal to assist with a disability, but the building has a strict pet policy due to potential allergies among neighbors. The landlord should verify that the animal is a legitimate service animal or assistance animal, and then determine practical steps to permit it while maintaining safety for other residents. Again, the need is disability-related, not market-driven.

Scenario 3: A tenant needs extra time to complete required paperwork due to a disability-related challenge. A landlord might worry about processing delays in a busy market. Yet, extending timelines, if reasonable, helps ensure equal opportunity and typically doesn’t create undue hardship—especially when it’s a matter of accessibility and autonomy rather than market speed.

Tips for tenants: how to approach requests

If you’re navigating this territory as a tenant, here are a few practical pointers:

• Be clear about the need. Describe the disability-related barrier and how the accommodation would address it.

• Propose a practical solution. If you have an idea for how to implement the accommodation, share it. Flexibility helps.

• Keep it focused on equal access. Tie the request to the ability to use and enjoy the housing on the same terms as others.

• Stay organized. Save copies of your communications, date-stamp any documentation you provide, and note who you spoke with.

• Seek guidance if you need it. Local fair housing offices, legal aid clinics, or consumer housing resources can offer direction on rights and steps.

Tips for landlords: how to handle requests well

For landlords, a thoughtful approach protects everyone involved and helps avoid disputes down the road:

• Treat requests seriously and promptly. Acknowledge receipt and set expectations for the process timeline.

• Keep the focus on the individual’s needs. Don’t let market conditions overshadow the disability-related goal.

• Be transparent about feasibility. If there are real constraints, explain them clearly and explore alternatives.

• Document everything. Written records of the discussion, decisions, and any agreed-upon steps create a reliable trail.

• Protect privacy. Share disability information only with people who need to know and store it securely.

A final thought: equal access is the baseline, not a perk

Fair housing rules aren’t about giving special treatment; they’re about ensuring everyone has the same chance to live where they want to live. The law recognizes that people with disabilities may need changes to how housing is used or managed, and it expects those needs to be considered seriously—without being dismissed by market talk. High demand for units may shape the business side of running a property, but it should never override the fundamental obligation to offer equal opportunity.

If you’re navigating a potential accommodation request, keep this in mind: the question isn’t whether the market is tight. The question is whether the requested change is reasonable for the person with a disability and feasible for the property to implement. When those two pieces line up, the road to equal access becomes clear, predictable, and fair.

Want a quick mental checklist to remember this concept? Here it is in one line:

• Focus on the individual’s needs, not market conditions.

• Assess feasibility with care: cost, safety, operations, and reasonable alternatives.

• Engage in a cooperative, documented dialogue.

• Preserve dignity, privacy, and equal opportunity for all residents.

In the end, housing should feel like home for everyone, even when the world outside feels busy and uncertain. A thoughtful accommodation isn’t a sign of weakness in the system; it’s a sign that the system respects people enough to adjust. And isn’t that the goal we all share—homes that welcome every person, exactly as they are?