Prohibits fee for keeping emotional support animal in residential rental property.
Assembly Bill 4726 would prohibit landlords in New Jersey from charging tenants or prospective tenants any extra rent, fees, security deposits, or other charges because they keep, or intend to keep, an emotional support animal in a residential rental unit. The bill also bars landlords from putting such fee requirements into leases, lease addenda, or rental applications. It defines an emotional support animal as one prescribed by a health service provider to help alleviate symptoms of a mental, emotional, psychological, or psychiatric condition.
The bill requires a tenant to provide documentation from a health service provider confirming the need for an emotional support animal, but landlords may not demand a specific form or notarization. The protections do not apply to owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units, and the bill excludes animals that pose a health or safety risk or risk substantial property damage. It also covers applicants and prospective tenants, not just current tenants, and applies to both written and oral rental representations made after the effective date.
If a landlord violates the bill, a tenant may ask a court to terminate the lease or agreement and recover reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. The tenant may also bring a private cause of action in Superior Court and recover $1,000 per offense, plus fees and expenses. These remedies are in addition to existing tenant remedies under New Jersey landlord-tenant law.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is protective of tenants and supportive of people who rely on emotional support animals for mental or emotional health needs. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to curb landlord-imposed surcharges while preserving landlord protections for safety, property damage, and small owner-occupied properties.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between tenant accommodation and landlord discretion. Landlords may view the bill as limiting their ability to recover costs or screen for animal-related issues, while tenant advocates would likely support the prohibition on fees as a fairness and housing-access measure. The documentation requirement and the exceptions for safety and substantial damage appear designed to address concerns about abuse of emotional support animal claims.
The bill would add a new statutory restriction to New Jersey landlord-tenant law by prohibiting fee-based treatment of emotional support animals in residential rentals. It would affect landlords, tenants, applicants, and third-party screening vendors by limiting what can be charged or included in leases and rental applications, while creating enforceable tenant remedies including lease termination, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages. It would supplement existing housing and landlord-tenant protections in Title 46 without replacing them.
The bill appears generally tenant-protective and accommodation-oriented, aiming to prevent landlords from imposing extra costs on people who need emotional support animals. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the legislative process. Based on the text alone, the measure is framed as a consumer and disability-adjacent housing protection with built-in exceptions for safety and small owner-occupied properties.
The likely areas of contention are whether landlords should be allowed to charge additional fees for animals that may create administrative or property-related costs, and whether the bill sufficiently guards against misuse of emotional support animal claims. Landlords and property managers may object to the limits on fees and deposits, while tenant advocates would likely support the ban as necessary to prevent discrimination and housing barriers. The bill tries to narrow disputes by requiring health-provider documentation and excluding animals that pose safety or substantial damage risks, but those standards could still be debated in practice.