An Act to amend and reenact §§ 36-96.2 and 55.1-1203 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; application; notice, deposit, fee, and additional information.
HB379 amends two provisions of the Code of Virginia, including § 36-96.2 and § 55.1-1203, to revise parts of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and related housing-law exemptions. The bill’s text focuses on when certain housing transactions are exempt from fair housing requirements and on what information may be requested in rental applications. It preserves and restates exemptions for some single-family home sales or rentals by private owners, owner-occupied small dwellings, religious organizations, private membership clubs, and certain educational, medical, or correctional institutions.
The bill also addresses criminal-history-related screening in rental applications. It allows landlords or managing agents to require applicants to disclose criminal convictions, to ask for written consent to a criminal record check, and to charge only the exact out-of-pocket cost of that check. It further states that owners are not required to rent to individuals whose prior convictions involving harm to persons or property would create a clear and present threat to the health or safety of others. Overall, the measure appears to clarify and reinforce existing housing-law exceptions and landlord screening authority rather than create a broad new regulatory framework.
HB379 affects Virginia housing and landlord-tenant law by amending statutory exemptions from fair housing rules and by confirming what landlords and managing agents may request during the rental application process. It impacts private owners of single-family homes, owner-occupants of small multi-family dwellings, religious and nonprofit housing providers, and landlords screening applicants with criminal records. The bill also touches the administration of rental applications and criminal background checks, including limits on reimbursement to actual out-of-pocket costs.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the enacted chapter text, the bill appears to have been advanced without visible controversy in the provided materials. Its structure suggests a technical or clarifying housing measure, which often draws less public attention than major policy changes.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s treatment of criminal history in rental decisions and the scope of fair housing exemptions. Housing advocates could view the criminal-record provisions as expanding landlord discretion in ways that may affect access to housing, while landlords may see them as necessary for safety and risk management. Another possible area of concern is the continued exemption language for certain religious, institutional, and owner-occupied housing arrangements, though the bill text largely restates existing exceptions rather than creating new ones.