Pets and assistance animals in a Skokie rental: the deposit rule, the no-pets clause, and when it has to yield

Two different questions hide under <em>can I have a pet here</em>. For an ordinary pet, the law in Skokie answers the money part: the county ordinance folds any deposit taken for a pet into the one security deposit and its cap. For an animal a person with a disability needs, Illinois is unusual — it has a statute, the Assistance Animal Integrity Act, that says in plain sections what a landlord may ask for, when a request may be denied, and what may never be charged. This page quotes it, the Human Rights Act behind it, and the federal text that still stands after HUD withdrew its guidance in 2025, and keeps the public-places “service animal” rules separate from the housing rules they are confused with.

What this page is: the statutes, regulation and ordinance that decide what a Skokie landlord may charge for a pet, whether a no-pets clause binds, and what a person with a disability may ask for — each quoted from and linked to its official text. It is not legal advice, and it names no breed, species or diagnosis as qualifying, because the texts do not. Where a rule could not be read from a primary source, the page says so instead of guessing. When it matters, read the linked source or use the free legal help on our tenant rights page.

At Skokie's current average rent of $2,371/month (September 2026 — how we compute this), the whole security deposit — any pet portion included — is capped at $3,556 where the ordinance applies; the per-ZIP ceilings and the installment right are on the security-deposit page.

A “pet deposit” is a security deposit “however denominated,” and counts toward the 1.5-month cap — RTLO 42-803(A)(11), 42-811(A)

The county ordinance defines its term so that the label on the money does not matter: “Security deposit means funds provided to a landlord to secure payment or performance of a tenant's obligations under a rental agreement, or the obligations of the tenant for its guests or pets, and the identifiable proceeds of the funds, however denominated. The term does not include rent or fees.” The cap section then closes the relabeling door: “A landlord may not demand or receive a security deposit in an amount in excess of one and one-half months' rent. A landlord may not avoid the coverage of this subsection by labeling the fee or charge as anything other than a security deposit.” So a refundable pet deposit is part of the security deposit — held, receipted and returned under the same rules, and counted against the same ceiling, whatever the lease calls it. The line the text does not settle: the definition excludes “rent or fees,” and whether a non-refundable pet fee is a “fee” outside the cap or a relabeled deposit inside it is not answered by the ordinance's words — get any pet charge in writing, keep the receipt, and know that the question is open. Remember the ordinance's own reach: owner-occupied buildings of six units or fewer are largely outside it, so in those the cap does not apply at all. The deposit's receipt, interest and 30-day return rules are on <a href="/security-deposit/">the security-deposit page</a>. Source: Cook County RTLO — official page & ordinance text · Cook County RTLO ordinance text as the county posts it (Sec. 42-803 definitions, Sec. 42-811; January 2021 text, file re-posted June 2026)

For an ordinary pet, “no pets” is a term the lease may set — the right on this page belongs to a person with a disability

Nothing in the ordinance or the two state statutes this page rests on gives a tenant a right to keep an ordinary pet over the lease's objection, and we found no Illinois statute that does. A no-pets clause is a term a landlord may set, and an animal kept against it is a lease violation like any other, with the written-notice-then-court route <a href="/eviction-process/">the eviction page</a> describes — the ordinance bans lockouts for a dog as firmly as for unpaid rent. Where the law steps in is disability. The Assistance Animal Integrity Act begins exactly there: it governs a request “to make an exception to the housing provider's policy prohibiting or restricting animals on the housing provider's property because the person requires the use of an assistance animal.” Read it honestly: <em>my dog is family</em> is not a legal argument in Illinois housing law as we read it; <em>I have a disability and this animal is necessary to it</em> is, and the next four sections are what that argument is entitled to. Source: 310 ILCS 120/10 — documentation, denial grounds, costs · Cook County RTLO — official page & ordinance text

What an “assistance animal” is, and who may vouch for the need — 310 ILCS 120/5

The Act's definitions do the work most guides get wrong. It defines “Assistance animal” as “an emotional support or service animal that qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Act or the Illinois Human Rights Act.” Emotional support animals are in by name; no training requirement appears in the definition. “Housing provider” is wide — “any owner, housing provider, property management company, property manager, government entity, condominium board, condominium association, cooperative, or related entity, and any agent or employee thereof” — so a condo board's no-pets bylaw is covered the same as a landlord's lease. The definition that decides most disputes is “Therapeutic relationship”: “the provision of medical care, program care, or personal care services, in good faith, for and with actual knowledge of, an individual's disability and that individual's disability-related need for an assistance animal” by a physician or other medical professional, a mental health service provider, or “a non-medical service agency or reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual's disability.” And the sentence aimed at the certificate sellers: the term “does not include an entity that issues a certificate, license, or similar document that purports to confirm, without conducting a meaningful assessment of a person's disability or a person's disability-related need for an assistance animal, that a person: (a) has a disability; or (b) needs an assistance animal.” A registration bought online is, in the Act's words, not a therapeutic relationship, and a letter from one does not meet the next section. Source: 310 ILCS 120/5 — Assistance Animal Integrity Act, definitions · Illinois Legal Aid Online — Fair housing in Illinois (FAQ)

Documentation: only when the need is not apparent, in writing, from the therapeutic relationship, no diagnosis — 310 ILCS 120/10(a), (b), (d), (g), (h)

Section 10 says when a landlord may ask and what the paper must contain. The trigger: a housing provider “may require the person to produce reliable documentation of the disability and disability-related need for the animal only if the disability or disability-related need is not readily apparent or known to the housing provider.” A form may be offered but not insisted on: a provider “may ask a person to make the request on a standardized form, but cannot deny the request because the person did not use the form to submit documentation that meets the requirements of subsection (b).” Those requirements are three: the documentation “shall: (1) be in writing; (2) be made by a person with whom the individual requesting an accommodation has a therapeutic relationship; and (3) describe the individual's disability-related need for the assistance animal.” More than one animal means documentation for each “unless the need for an animal is apparent.” Follow-up questions are bounded: a provider “may require additional supporting documentation of a person's disability or need for the assistance animal only if the initial documentation provided does not satisfy subsection (b),” and if the therapeutic relationship is the doubtful part, may ask for information “describing the professional relationship between the person and the individual with a disability.” The limit on the other side: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring documentation of a specific diagnosis regarding a disability or disability-related need.” And the landlord's safeguard: “Nothing in this Act prohibits a housing provider from verifying the authenticity the documentation submitted under subsection (b)” (the missing “of” is the statute's). In practice for a Skokie tenant: a letter from your own clinician that says you have a disability and need the animal for it, without naming the diagnosis, meets the text; the Act does not let a landlord insist on a diagnosis or a particular form, or ask for more once a letter meets those three requirements. Source: 310 ILCS 120/10 — documentation, denial grounds, costs · Illinois Legal Aid Online — Fair housing in Illinois (FAQ)

When a request may be denied or revoked: four grounds and nothing else — 310 ILCS 120/10(c), (e); 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1(K)

The Act lists the grounds, and the list is the list. A provider “may deny a documented request for an accommodation or rescind a granted request under this Act if: (1) the accommodation imposes either: (i) an undue financial and administrative burden; or (ii) a fundamental alteration to the nature of the operations of the housing provider; or (2) after conducting an individualized assessment, there is reliable objective evidence that the specific assistance animal: (i) poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation; (ii) causes substantial physical damage to the property of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation; or (iii) has engaged in a pattern of uncontrolled behavior that its handler has not taken effective action to correct.” Read the structure: the animal-specific grounds require “an individualized assessment” and “reliable objective evidence” about “the specific assistance animal” — a breed, a size, a building rule or an insurer's preference is not on the list. Other residents' needs count but do not decide: a provider “may consider the documented disability-related needs of other residents,” yet “may not deny an assistance animal solely due to the disability-related needs of another resident; rather, a housing provider must attempt to balance the disability-related needs of all residents.” The Human Rights Act has the same backstop in its own words: nothing in its disability section “requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.” What the text does not say: how long a provider may take to answer. The Act sets no deadline, and this page does not invent one. Source: 310 ILCS 120/10 — documentation, denial grounds, costs · 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1 — Illinois Human Rights Act, disability

The money: no pet deposit, no pet fee, no special insurance for an assistance animal — damage still yours — 310 ILCS 120/10(f), 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1(C)(1)

Subsection (f) is the paragraph to show a leasing office. “A housing provider may require a resident to cover the costs of repairs for damage the animal causes to the resident's dwelling unit or the common areas, reasonable wear and tear excepted, in the same manner it would for damage caused by any other resident; however, a housing provider may not require a resident to pay a pet-related deposit, pet fee, or related pet assessment, even if the housing provider allows pets and requires pet owners to pay such costs. A housing provider also may not require a resident with an assistance animal to procure special liability insurance or coverage for the assistance animal.” Three consequences. A building that charges every dog owner a monthly pet fee may not charge it to a tenant whose dog is an assistance animal. The ordinary security deposit still stands and still covers animal damage like any other damage — and the Human Rights Act adds, in its disability section, that the landlord “may not increase for persons with a disability any customarily required security deposit.” And the landlord's own exposure is addressed by Section 15 of the Act: a housing provider “shall not be liable for injuries caused by a person's assistance animal permitted on the housing provider's property as a reasonable accommodation” — which is why the insurance question comes back to the tenant, in the last section of this page. Source: 310 ILCS 120/10 — documentation, denial grounds, costs · 310 ILCS 120/15 — immunity · 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1 — Illinois Human Rights Act, disability

The Human Rights Act behind it, and where a complaint goes — 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1, 3-106; 310 ILCS 120/20

The Assistance Animal Integrity Act supplies the procedure; the right itself is in the Illinois Human Rights Act, whose disability section makes it a civil rights violation “to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” and separately “to alter the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a disability.” The Integrity Act is explicit that it adds to those rights and takes nothing away: nothing in it shall “limit individuals' rights under the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act, or any other federal, State, or local civil rights law.” One honest wrinkle about small buildings. The Human Rights Act's exemption section, 3-106, opens “Nothing contained in Section 3-102 shall prohibit,” and its item (B) excuses “Rental of a housing accommodation in a building which contains housing accommodations for not more than 4 families living independently of each other, if the owner resides in one of the housing accommodations.” The disability section quoted above is numbered 3-102.1, not 3-102; whether the owner-occupied exemption reaches a disability claim is not answered by the text we read, and this page does not guess — the federal exemption in the next section is drawn on the same four-unit line and is unambiguous about which section it limits. Complaints go to the Illinois Department of Human Rights; the one-year filing clock is on <a href="/section-8-discrimination/">the Section 8 discrimination page</a>, which covers the same agency for a different protected class. Source: 775 ILCS 5/3-102.1 — Illinois Human Rights Act, disability · 775 ILCS 5/3-106 — exemptions · 310 ILCS 120/20 — rights under other Acts · Illinois Legal Aid Online — Fair housing in Illinois (FAQ)

The federal layer still standing, and the HUD notice that is not — 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B), 24 CFR 100.204, Federal Register 2026-06624

The federal Fair Housing Act says what Illinois copied: discrimination because of handicap includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” HUD's regulation gives the only animal example in the binding federal text — a blind applicant, a no-pets building, a seeing eye dog: “It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of the apartment complex to refuse to permit the applicant to live in the apartment with a seeing eye dog because, without the seeing eye dog, the blind person will not have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Everything more specific at the federal level — documentation, species, online certificates — lived in HUD notice FHEO-2020-01, “Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act,” and that notice is gone: a HUD notice in the Federal Register of April 6, 2026 lists it and its 2013 predecessor among withdrawn guidance, “Effective date of withdrawal: September 17, 2025,” adding that the documents “should not be relied upon as authoritative” while “Any actions that do not comply with the text of the Fair Housing Act continue to be subject to enforcement by the Department.” For Skokie the practical weight of the withdrawal is small, and that is the point of this page: the documentation rule, the no-diagnosis rule, the no-fee rule and the denial grounds that the withdrawn federal notice used to supply are Illinois statute here, with an agency behind them. The federal exemption to know: §3603(b)(2) takes most of §3604 off “rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence” — the owner-occupied two-flat and four-flat. The Integrity Act has no exemption section of its own that we read, and its definition of housing provider has no size floor. Source: 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B) — Fair Housing Act (LII text) · 24 CFR 100.204 — Reasonable accommodations (LII text) · Federal Register, Apr. 6, 2026 — HUD, Notification of Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance Documents (FR Doc. 2026-06624) · 42 U.S.C. §3603(b) — exemptions (LII text)

“Service animal” under the ADA is a narrower term for public places — it is not the housing test — 28 CFR 36.104

The confusion in most arguments about animals in apartments is a confusion of statutes. The Americans with Disabilities Act regulation defines a service animal as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability,” and adds: “Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition.” The Department of Justice's own FAQ answers the emotional-support question for the ADA in one word and a reason: “No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.” That is the rule for stores, restaurants and the bus — not for the lease. The housing rule is the one in the sections above, and in Illinois it is written down: the Integrity Act's definition of an assistance animal includes an emotional support animal by name, with no training requirement. So a landlord who says <em>that is not a service animal under the ADA</em> is applying the wrong statute to a lease, and a tenant who says <em>the ADA makes you accept my emotional support animal</em> is citing the wrong law too — the right ones are the Integrity Act and the Human Rights Act above. Whether a particular animal is a reasonable accommodation for a particular person in a particular Skokie building is the individualized question the Act leaves to the facts, and this page cannot answer it. Source: 28 CFR 36.104 — “service animal” defined (LII text) · U.S. Department of Justice — Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA · 310 ILCS 120/5 — Assistance Animal Integrity Act, definitions

If the animal hurts someone: the owner is liable “for the full amount of the injury” — 510 ILCS 5/16 — and the Act bars special insurance only for an assistance animal

The Animal Control Act puts the cost on the owner without a negligence requirement in the sentence: “If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby.” Provocation and the injured person's not being somewhere they lawfully may be are the exceptions the sentence carries. For a tenant that is the dollars-and-cents reason the liability section of a renters policy exists; what a policy costs against a month of Skokie rent, and the Illinois case law on who covers a fire, are on <a href="/renters-insurance/">the renters-insurance page</a>. Two lines the statutes draw: for an ordinary pet a landlord may make a policy a lease condition — no Illinois law we read caps that; for an assistance animal the Integrity Act forbids requiring “special liability insurance or coverage for the assistance animal,” and shields the landlord from liability for its injuries under Section 15, so the exposure is the tenant's. Whether a given insurer excludes a given breed is a policy question this page did not read. Source: 510 ILCS 5/16 — Animal Control Act, animal attacks or injuries · 310 ILCS 120/10 — documentation, denial grounds, costs · 310 ILCS 120/15 — immunity

What this page does not know

Honest caveat: no public dataset counts pet-friendly units, assistance-animal requests or dog-bite claims by city or ZIP, so there are no local figures on this page — only the rules and their sources. The Village of Skokie's own code — dog licensing, leash rules, any limit on the number of animals in a unit — could not be read from any source we could fetch (every host of the village code, and skokie.org itself, refuses automated requests), so this page cannot say what the village requires of an animal owner regardless of the lease. The Cook County Human Rights Ordinance, which has housing provisions of its own, was not read. Whether the Human Rights Act's owner-occupied exemption reaches its disability section is left open above because the text leaves it open. Case law on pet fees versus deposits under the county ordinance was not read. Where the page says a rule is silent, that is a statement about the text we read, not a promise that no other rule exists.

Where a pet question usually goes next

The money side of an animal is the deposit, and the security-deposit page has the holding, receipt and return rules at today's rents; cost to move in has the whole list of what may be collected at signing; the renters-insurance page covers the liability coverage a dog makes worth having and what a lease may demand; and the Section 8 discrimination page walks through the same civil-rights agency and complaint clock for a different protected class. If the building's economics are the real problem, each Skokie ZIP's current average (60077, 60076) says what moving costs instead.

Page last updated October 18, 2026 · rent index data through September 2026.