Do landlords have to accept Section 8 everywhere in the United States?

No — there is no federal law requiring private landlords to accept Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). The Housing Choice Voucher program (42 U.S.C. §1437f) is a voluntary program: HUD and public housing authorities (PHAs) administer the vouchers, but private landlords have historically had the right to choose whether to participate. The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §3604) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability — but 'source of income' (including housing vouchers) is NOT one of the seven federal protected classes. However, 17 states plus DC have enacted their own source-of-income (SOI) discrimination protections as of 2026 that DO require landlords to consider HCV holders: California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Additionally, several cities and counties in non-SOI states have enacted local protections: Baltimore City (Maryland), Montgomery County (Maryland), Prince George's County (Maryland), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Louisville Metro (Kentucky), and Ann Arbor (Michigan). The number of SOI-protection jurisdictions has grown substantially since 2015 and continues to expand. If you own rental property in any of these jurisdictions, you may not refuse to rent to an applicant solely because they hold a housing voucher — doing so is a civil rights violation subject to administrative complaints, civil lawsuits, and monetary penalties. In the remaining 33 states, landlords retain the right to decline HCV applicants, though local fair housing ordinances may impose additional requirements. Before adopting a blanket 'No Section 8' policy, verify both state AND local law.

What is 'source of income' discrimination in housing, and how does it differ from a legitimate business reason to decline an applicant?

Source-of-income (SOI) discrimination occurs when a landlord refuses to rent to, declines to accept an application from, or imposes materially different terms or conditions on an applicant solely because of WHERE their income comes from — for example, because they receive a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8), Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), veterans housing benefits (HUD-VASH vouchers), or other lawful transfer income. The operative word in every SOI statute is 'solely' or 'because of': refusing a tenant BECAUSE they have a voucher is unlawful discrimination; declining a tenant who HAPPENS to have a voucher because they fail to meet your standard screening criteria is a legitimate business decision. PROHIBITED CONDUCT under SOI statutes: (1) advertising 'No Section 8' or 'No Housing Vouchers'; (2) refusing to process an application from a voucher holder; (3) refusing to submit to a Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection; (4) requiring additional deposits, fees, or conditions not imposed on non-voucher tenants; (5) delaying the application process to effectively eliminate a voucher holder (vouchers typically expire after 60–120 days); (6) misrepresenting the availability of a unit to a voucher holder. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT: (1) declining an applicant based on credit score, rental history, income-to-rent ratio (applied consistently to all applicants), or criminal history; (2) declining because the unit does not meet HQS and you choose not to bring it into compliance; (3) declining because the PHA's payment standard for the voucher size does not cover your market rent (and you are not required to reduce rent); (4) exercising your right to not rent the unit at all (not renting to anyone). The critical compliance principle: apply your standard screening criteria identically to voucher holders and non-voucher applicants. Do not impose any additional step, fee, delay, or condition that targets the voucher holder specifically. Keep documentation showing consistent application of your criteria across all applicants.

What are the permissible reasons a landlord can decline a Section 8 applicant even in a state with SOI protection?

Even in states and cities with source-of-income protection, a landlord has several lawful grounds to decline a Section 8 / HCV applicant. These are not exceptions to SOI law — they are permissible screening criteria that apply equally to all applicants. PERMISSIBLE REASONS TO DECLINE (documented and consistently applied): (1) CREDIT SCORE: An applicant's credit score falls below your written minimum standard, consistently applied to all applicants regardless of payment method. Many landlords set a minimum credit score (e.g., 620 or 650). This is lawful as long as the same threshold is applied to every applicant. IMPORTANT: in SOI-protection states, you should evaluate a voucher holder's TOTAL income (all sources) against your income standard, not just non-voucher income. If you require 3× monthly rent in income, the standard is met if the applicant's total verifiable income (earnings + voucher subsidy portion + any other income) meets that threshold. Some states specifically require you to apply the income test to the tenant's SHARE of the rent (the portion they pay from non-voucher funds) rather than the full market rent. (2) RENTAL HISTORY: Prior evictions, unpaid rent judgments, or documented lease violations within a reasonable look-back period (typically 3–7 years). (3) CRIMINAL HISTORY: Per HUD's April 2016 Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records, blanket bans on any criminal conviction are high-risk because of disparate impact; use individualized assessment (nature of crime, time elapsed, evidence of rehabilitation). California AB 1482 does not affect criminal screening for initial tenancy. (4) UNIT DOES NOT MEET HQS: The PHA's HQS inspection identifies physical deficiencies requiring repair that you choose not to address. This is a lawful reason to decline participation — but the decision must be about the unit's condition, not about avoiding voucher holders. Once you repair the unit and re-list it, you cannot refuse the next voucher holder. (5) PAYMENT STANDARD GAP: The PHA's payment standard (the maximum voucher amount for the bedroom size) is below your listed rent. In SOI-protection states, you are generally NOT required to reduce your rent to accommodate the voucher. If the tenant's voucher covers only $1,800/month and you are renting at $2,200/month, you may decline — or accept if the tenant can pay the $400/month gap out of pocket (subject to any state limits on tenant payment portion). (6) VOUCHER EXPIRATION: If the applicant's voucher has expired before you can complete your standard screening and offer a lease, the voucher is no longer valid and you cannot accept it. This underscores the importance of not delaying a voucher holder's application beyond your standard timeline. (7) LEGAL OCCUPANCY LIMITS: If the household size exceeds the legal occupancy standard for the unit (generally 2 persons per bedroom + 1 per state law, or the Keating Memo HUD guidelines), you may decline based on occupancy, not on voucher status.

What is the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) inspection process and how long does it take — what can landlords expect?

The HCV process between a voucher holder finding a unit and the landlord receiving their first subsidy payment involves several steps that are worth understanding before you decide to participate. STEP 1 — RFTA (Request for Tenancy Approval): After the voucher holder decides they want to rent your unit, both the landlord and tenant sign Form HUD-52517 (Request for Tenancy Approval). This form includes the unit address, proposed rent, lease start date, and landlord information. The RFTA is submitted to the Public Housing Authority (PHA) that issued the voucher. STEP 2 — RENT REASONABLENESS DETERMINATION: Before the inspection, the PHA performs a 'rent reasonableness' analysis to determine whether your proposed rent is reasonable in comparison to market rents for comparable units in the area. If the PHA finds your rent unreasonable, they will propose a lower rent. You can accept, negotiate, or decline — you are not required to lower your rent, but if you do not, the tenant may not be able to use their voucher at your unit. STEP 3 — HQS INSPECTION: A PHA inspector visits the unit to evaluate it against HUD's Housing Quality Standards (HQS), codified at 24 CFR Part 982, Subpart I. The HQS has 13 performance requirements: (a) sanitary facilities (adequate bathroom with toilet, tub or shower, lavatory); (b) food preparation and refuse disposal (functional kitchen — sink, refrigerator or space for tenant-provided, stove or range or space for tenant-provided, food storage); (c) space and security (at least one sleeping area per unit; exterior doors and windows operable and lockable); (d) thermal environment (heating system adequate to maintain 68°F when outdoor temp is 0°F); (e) illumination and electricity (adequate lighting; sufficient electrical outlets); (f) structure and materials (no severe structural defects; no significant deterioration); (g) interior air quality (no carbon monoxide threat; adequate air circulation; no unvented gas heaters); (h) water supply (connected to community or approved private water supply; hot water); (i) lead paint (units built before 1978 require lead paint visual assessment per 24 CFR Part 35); (j) access (unit accessible through its own entrance without passing through another unit); (k) site and neighborhood (location on suitable site; no nearby hazards); (l) sanitary conditions (no excessive infestation by rats/mice/insects at time of inspection); (m) smoke detectors (working smoke detectors in each bedroom and on each level, including basement). MOST COMMON HQS FAILURES that delay or block lease-up: missing or inoperative smoke detectors (fastest fix — typically 24–48 hours); peeling paint in pre-1978 buildings (lead paint presumed; requires XRF test or interim controls before approval); HVAC system not functioning properly (must demonstrate 68°F heating capacity); inoperative window locks on ground-floor or first-floor bedroom windows; water heater missing pressure-relief valve or proper venting; blocked or incomplete egress paths; rodent or insect evidence (PHA cannot approve until remediated). STEP 4 — PASS/FAIL AND REINSPECTION: If the unit passes, the PHA issues a Notice of Unit Approval. If the unit fails, the PHA issues a list of items requiring correction. Landlords typically have 30 days to make repairs and request reinspection. Some PHAs allow one free reinspection; additional reinspections may have fees. STEP 5 — LEASE EXECUTION AND HAP CONTRACT: The landlord signs a lease with the tenant AND a separate Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract with the PHA (Form HUD-52641). The HAP contract governs the landlord-PHA relationship: rent amounts, payment schedules, inspection rights, lease requirements (the lease must include certain HUD-required clauses), and termination procedures. STEP 6 — PAYMENTS BEGIN: The PHA pays the landlord's portion of the rent directly to the landlord by ACH or check, typically on the 1st of each month. The tenant pays their portion to the landlord separately. TIMELINE: Competitive PHAs with adequate staffing can complete RFTA-to-lease-up in 3–4 weeks. Overwhelmed PHAs can take 6–10 weeks. The voucher holder's voucher has a finite term (typically 60 days with potential extensions); if the process takes too long, the voucher expires and the tenant cannot use it at your unit.

Can a landlord set their advertised rent higher than the PHA's payment standard to effectively screen out voucher holders?

This practice — called 'rent inflation to screen out vouchers' — is a high-risk gray area in SOI-protection states and is considered a form of constructive or de facto source-of-income discrimination in several jurisdictions. The mechanics are straightforward: the PHA's payment standard for a 2-bedroom unit might be $1,800. A landlord sets their rent at $2,200. No voucher holder can use their voucher at this unit (unless they can pay the $400 gap from personal funds, which many cannot). The landlord effectively excludes all voucher holders without ever saying 'No Section 8.' WHEN THIS IS PROBLEMATIC: In California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and several other SOI-protection states, fair housing enforcement agencies and courts have signaled that setting rents materially above market rates specifically to screen out voucher holders — while renting comparable units at market rates — may constitute evidence of discriminatory intent. If a landlord rents a 2-bedroom unit at $2,200/month while comparable units in the same building rent for $1,700–$1,900, the $500 premium above comparable units has no economic justification other than exclusion of HCV holders. New York City's Administrative Code §8-107(5)(a) has been interpreted to prohibit 'discriminatory refusals' that include de facto screening by rent inflation. California Civil Code §12955(k) and the CRD's investigative guidelines identify 'rents set artificially above the PHA payment standard for the neighborhood' as a potential indicator of discriminatory purpose subject to investigation. WHEN IT IS LIKELY LAWFUL: Setting your rent at actual market rate and the PHA's payment standard is simply below market is generally lawful — the landlord is not required to accept below-market rent. The critical distinction is between a rent that reflects genuine market value versus a rent inflated specifically to screen voucher holders. BEST PRACTICE: Set rents consistently based on your building's cost structure, market comparables, and your investment thesis. Do not inflate rents unit-by-unit or set them specifically in response to the PHA's payment standard. Document your rent-setting rationale (comparable rents, vacancy cost, capital improvements, etc.) in writing.

What are the penalties for refusing to rent to a Section 8 voucher holder in a state with source-of-income protection?

Penalties for source-of-income discrimination vary significantly by state and enforcement mechanism. The complaint process typically follows one of three paths: administrative complaint to a state civil rights agency, administrative complaint to a local HRC (Human Relations Commission), or direct civil lawsuit. CALIFORNIA (Gov. Code §12955(k); enforced by CRD — California Civil Rights Department, formerly DFEH): civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation for first offense; up to $50,000 for second offense within 5 years; up to $75,000 for third offense within 7 years; actual damages including emotional distress; attorney fees; injunctive relief. CRD can file suit in superior court. Private plaintiffs may also file directly in superior court. Statute of limitations: 1 year to file with CRD (then CRD has 30 days to decide to prosecute; private right of action available after 60-day administrative exhaustion). WASHINGTON (RCW §49.60.222 and RCW §49.60.225; enforced by WSHRC — Washington State Human Rights Commission): civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation; actual damages; emotional distress damages; attorney fees. WSHRC administrative process: complaint filed within 1 year; WSHRC investigation (60–180 days typically); conciliation if probable cause found; or referral to Attorney General for civil action. Private right of action available after 180-day WSHRC filing period or 6 months without resolution. NEW YORK (Executive Law §297 and §298; enforced by NYS Division of Human Rights — DHR — or NYC Human Rights Commission for NYC units): DHR can award actual damages, attorney fees, civil fines up to $50,000 (second offense within 5 years), and injunctive relief. NYC HRC can impose civil penalties up to $250,000 for violations in NYC + actual damages + attorney fees (among the highest civil fair housing penalties in the US). Statute of limitations: 1 year to file complaint. NEW JERSEY (N.J.S.A. §10:5-12 et seq.; enforced by DCR — Division on Civil Rights): civil penalty up to $10,000 for first violation; up to $25,000 for second violation within 5 years; up to $50,000 for third violation within 7 years; actual damages; attorney fees. OREGON (ORS §659A.145 and §659A.800; enforced by BOLI — Bureau of Labor and Industries): $10,000 administrative fine per violation; actual damages; attorney fees; injunctive relief. BOLI complaint deadline: 1 year from discriminatory act. MASSACHUSETTS (G.L. c. 151B §9; enforced by MCAD — Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination): actual damages; civil penalty up to $50,000 (third violation within 10 years); emotional distress damages; attorney fees. ILLINOIS (775 ILCS 5/3-102.1; enforced by IDHR — Illinois Department of Human Rights): actual damages; civil penalty up to $50,000 first violation; emotional distress damages; attorney fees. VIRGINIA (Va. Code §36-96.18; enforced by VHRC — Virginia Fair Housing Council): actual damages; attorney fees; civil penalty up to $10,000 for willful violation. DC (DC Human Rights Act §2-1402.61; enforced by DC OHR): actual damages; civil penalty up to $20,000 per violation for first offense; emotional distress; attorney fees; injunctive relief. OVERALL RISK PROFILE: The combined exposure in a high-penalty state like California (up to $25,000 CRD penalty + actual damages + emotional distress + attorney fees) can easily exceed $100,000 for a single documented SOI discrimination incident. A landlord in NYC faces even higher exposure given NYC HRC's $250,000 maximum civil penalty. This makes a 'No Section 8' policy in a high-penalty SOI state an extremely expensive business risk.

How should a landlord verify income for a Section 8 applicant — do I apply the 3x rent income test to the full rent or just the tenant's portion?

This is the most practically important compliance question for landlords in SOI-protection states. Standard landlord practice requires applicants to demonstrate income of 2.5× or 3× the monthly rent (depending on the landlord's policy). For a $2,000/month unit, the 3× standard requires $6,000/month in verifiable income. The question is: for a Section 8 applicant, do you apply this test to the FULL rent ($2,000 × 3 = $6,000/month required income) or to the TENANT'S SHARE of the rent? If the PHA's payment standard covers $1,500/month and the tenant's share is $500/month, a 3× standard applied to the tenant's share = $1,500/month in required tenant income — far more achievable than $6,000/month. The answer varies by state: MAJORITY RULE — APPLY TO TENANT'S SHARE: Most fair housing guidance, including Seattle SMC §14.08.050, multiple state guidance documents (Washington State HRC, New York DHR, New Jersey DCR), and HUD's Policy Statement on Discriminatory Refusals to Accept HCVs, recommends or requires that landlords apply their income standard to the TENANT'S PORTION of the rent only, not the total contract rent. The reasoning: a voucher is a guaranteed subsidy payment from the government, not uncertain income — treating it as if it does not exist to apply a 3× full-rent test is a de facto exclusion of voucher holders. CALIFORNIA SPECIFICS: California's CRD guidance states that applying a gross income test that includes the HCV subsidy as part of the tenant's income (rather than requiring 3× the full rent from the tenant's own funds alone) is the appropriate approach. Practically, the CRD treats the monthly PHA housing assistance payment (HAP) as a guaranteed income stream similar to a Social Security payment — it must be counted in the income verification. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATION: (1) In any SOI-protection state, apply the 3× (or 2.5×) test to the TENANT'S SHARE of the rent, not the full market rent. (2) Verify the HAP payment by obtaining the Voucher Payment Approval from the PHA. (3) Treat the PHA's guaranteed payment as equivalent to a government income source (like Social Security or SSI) for verification purposes. (4) Document your consistent application of this methodology across all applicants. WHAT YOU CAN ALSO REQUIRE: A landlord may require the applicant to demonstrate that their total verified income (from all sources including their own employment/benefits + the guaranteed HAP payment) is sufficient to sustain the total rent obligation. This is different from requiring 3× the total rent from personal funds alone. EXAMPLE: $2,000/month rent; PHA pays $1,500 HAP; tenant's portion = $500. Require tenant to show: (a) $1,500/month in personal income (3× the $500 tenant share); AND (b) PHA letter confirming $1,500 HAP payment. Total verified income covering the rent = $3,000/month, well above the $2,000 rent obligation.

What are the source-of-income protections in the most common landlord states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois?

CALIFORNIA: Source-of-income discrimination has been prohibited by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) since SB 329, signed September 12, 2019, and effective January 1, 2020. Government Code §12955(k) prohibits any person who owns, sells, or rents housing from discriminating based on 'source of income,' which is defined in §12955.3 to include lawful verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, including housing assistance (Section 8/HCV, VASH vouchers, Local Rent Subsidy programs, etc.). The statute is enforced by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). Key exception: owner-occupied single-family homes with one rental unit or fewer are exempt if rented to no more than one additional occupant who is not a family member. Another nuance: AB 1482 (the statewide rent cap) separately governs rent increases for covered units — the SOI law addresses only DISCRIMINATION IN SELECTION. Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose had earlier local SOI protections; SB 329 made the protection statewide and uniform. NEW YORK: New York State extended its Human Rights Law (Executive Law §296(5)(a)(i)) to include 'lawful source of income' as a protected class on January 20, 2020, when Governor Cuomo signed S.8040-A. The statute defines 'lawful source of income' to include federal, state, or local housing assistance, and specifically Section 8/HCV. NYC had earlier and broader SOI protection under NYC Admin. Code §8-107(5)(a) — since the 1980s, New York City has prohibited discrimination based on lawful source of income. The statewide law now covers all of New York, not just NYC. Enforcement: NYS Division of Human Rights statewide; NYC Human Rights Commission for NYC units. TEXAS: Texas has NO statewide source-of-income protection. Texas Property Code does not include any provision protecting housing voucher holders from discrimination. Multiple state legislative sessions (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) have seen bills introduced to add SOI protection — all failed in committee. Texas cities are limited in their ability to enact local SOI protections by Texas Gov. Code §250.006 and general Dillon's Rule constraints on local authority over private property matters. Austin City Code historically included source-of-income protections, but implementation has been legally contested. As of 2026, Texas landlords retain the right to decline Section 8 applicants. FLORIDA: Florida has NO statewide source-of-income protection. Florida Statutes §760.23 (Fair Housing Act) lists the state protected classes (race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, religion) — source of income is not included. Florida's constitutional prohibition on rent control (Art. X §19, ratified November 2023) concerns price regulation, not fair housing protections, and does not address SOI law. Several Florida local jurisdictions — notably Fort Lauderdale and Broward County — have historically had local SOI protections, but the overall state legal framework does not require acceptance of vouchers. ILLINOIS: Illinois statewide source-of-income protection was enacted via the Illinois Human Rights Act amendment (HB 2775, signed August 27, 2021, effective January 1, 2022), adding §3-102.1. The Illinois SOI protection applies to residential real property with 5 or more units, or to units in a building that contains shared areas (common areas, hallways, etc.). Owner-occupied buildings with fewer than 5 units are exempt. Chicago had earlier SOI protection under the RLTO §5-12-080. Landlords in Illinois with 5+ unit buildings MUST consider HCV applications — this covers most apartment buildings in Chicago, Springfield, Rockford, and other major Illinois cities.

Source-of-Income Discrimination Laws 2026: Which States Require Landlords to Accept Section 8

The Federal Baseline: No Federal Mandate for Private Landlords

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, commonly called Section 8, was established by Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and is currently codified at 42 U.S.C. §1437f. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through approximately 2,200 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) across the country. HUD appropriates roughly $30 billion per year for tenant-based rental assistance, of which HCVs are the largest component.

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §3604, prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on seven protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Critically, source of income is not a federal protected class. HUD has never promulgated a regulation requiring private landlords to accept housing vouchers. There is no executive order making HCV refusal a federal violation. As a matter of pure federal law, a private landlord may decline to participate in the HCV program for any non-discriminatory reason.

This federal gap has been the subject of policy debate for decades. HUD has issued guidance (most recently in 2015) encouraging landlords to accept vouchers, but encouragement is not enforcement. Congress has periodically considered legislation to add “source of income” to the FHA’s protected classes; as of 2026, no such bill has passed. The result: the regulatory framework is a patchwork of state and local laws with dramatically different rules depending on geography.

There is one important nuance: if a landlord already participating in the HCV program attempts to terminate a HAP contract because of a protected class (e.g., targeting only minority voucher holders for eviction from the program), that action may constitute a violation of the FHA under a disparate impact or disparate treatment theory. But the initial decision to decline to participate is not federally regulated for private landlords.

States with Source-of-Income Protection in 2026 (Alphabetical)

As of July 2026, the following states (and DC) prohibit private landlords from refusing to rent based on source of income, including Housing Choice Vouchers. “Source of income” in all these states is defined broadly enough to include HCV/Section 8, HUD-VASH (veterans’ vouchers), Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV), and most other government housing assistance programs. Local rental assistance programs (city vouchers, COVID-era rental assistance) are usually covered as well.

California — Gov. Code §12955(k); SB 329; eff. January 1, 2020

California enacted the most consequential statewide SOI protection of the past decade. Senate Bill 329 (2019), signed by Governor Newsom on September 12, 2019, added “source of income” as a protected class to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), effective January 1, 2020. Government Code §12955(k) now prohibits any person from discriminating in the sale, rental, or lease of housing based on source of income, which is defined in §12955.3 as “lawful verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, including federal, state, and local public assistance and housing assistance programs.”

Before SB 329, only a handful of California cities had local SOI protections (San Francisco, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and a few others). SB 329 created a uniform statewide rule, superseding and expanding all prior local protections.

Key exception: Owner-occupied single-family homes where no more than one non-relative occupant is rented to are exempt under Gov. Code §12927(c)(1). This is a narrow exception; it does not apply to landlords with multiple units.

Enforcement: California Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly DFEH). File a complaint within one year of the discriminatory act at CRD Online System. CRD will investigate, attempt conciliation, and can file suit in superior court if conciliation fails. Penalties: civil fines up to $25,000 (first violation), $50,000 (second within 5 years), $75,000 (third within 7 years); actual damages including emotional distress; attorney fees and costs.

Private right of action: After 60-day administrative exhaustion period, private plaintiffs may sue directly in superior court for actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

Interaction with AB 1482: SB 329 governs selection; AB 1482 governs rent increases. They are independent requirements. A landlord with an AB 1482 covered unit who also has HCV tenants must comply with both: the 5% + CPI annual cap applies to the full contract rent (not just the tenant’s share), and the PHA will adjust the HAP accordingly.

Colorado — Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-34-502; HB 19-1134; eff. August 2, 2019

Colorado added “source of income” as a protected class under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) via HB 19-1134, effective August 2, 2019. Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-34-502(1)(a) now prohibits any owner, person, or entity from making unavailable or denying housing based on source of income. The definition of “source of income” includes HCV and all lawful verifiable income sources.

HB 22-1314 (2022) further strengthened the Colorado SOI framework, expanding remedies and clarifying the scope of protected income sources to explicitly include all federal, state, and local housing assistance programs.

Enforcement: Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD). Complaints filed within 1 year. Penalties: actual damages; civil penalty up to $100,000 (one of the highest in the nation); attorney fees; injunctive relief.

Connecticut — C.G.S. §46a-64c

Connecticut was among the early adopters of SOI housing protection. Connecticut General Statutes §46a-64c prohibits discriminatory housing practices based on “lawful source of income,” which has been interpreted by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) to include HCV, HUSKY (Medicaid), SSI, SSDI, and other government benefits. Connecticut courts have consistently applied the broad definition to include all legally authorized income forms.

Enforcement: Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Filing deadline: 1 year. Remedies: actual damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees.

DC — DC Human Rights Act §2-1402.21; source of income protected since 1977

The District of Columbia was the first jurisdiction in the United States to add “source of income” as a protected class in housing. The DC Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §2-1402.21(a)(1), explicitly lists “source of income” alongside race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, familial status, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, and place of residence or business as prohibited bases for housing discrimination. “Source of income” is defined broadly to include any lawful manner of acquiring income including housing assistance payments.

DC’s SOI protection predates most state laws by decades. DC OHR (Office of Human Rights) enforces the DCHRA. Civil penalties: up to $20,000 per violation for first offense; up to $50,000 for repeat violations within 5 years. Actual damages and attorney fees also available.

Delaware — Delaware Fair Housing Act, 6 Del. C. §4603(a)(2)

Delaware’s Fair Housing Act includes “source of income” as a protected class, defined to include HCV and other housing assistance programs. The Delaware Office of Human Relations (OHR) enforces. Remedies include actual damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.

Hawaii — HRS §515-3

Hawaii Revised Statutes §515-3 (Hawaii Fair Housing Law) prohibits discrimination in housing based on “income” as a protected class. Hawaii’s interpretation of “income” is broad: the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) has consistently held that refusing to accept Section 8 / HCV constitutes income discrimination. Hawaii’s fair housing law is one of the most expansive in the nation, covering many categories not present in the federal FHA. Enforcement: HCRC. Penalties: actual damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees.

Illinois — Illinois Human Rights Act §3-102.1; HB 2775; eff. January 1, 2022

Illinois added statewide SOI protection via HB 2775, signed by Governor Pritzker on August 27, 2021, and effective January 1, 2022. The Illinois Human Rights Act §3-102.1 now prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing based on “source of income,” defined as “any lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents, including income from employment, credit, child support, alimony, or any federal, state, or local public assistance program or housing subsidy, including the Housing Choice Voucher program.”

Important scope limitation: The Illinois SOI statute applies to residential real property with 5 or more units (or any residential building that contains common areas such as hallways, lobbies, or parking areas). Owner-occupied buildings with fewer than 5 units without common areas are exempt. This means most apartment buildings in Chicago, Rockford, Champaign, and other Illinois cities are covered, while a 2-flat or 3-flat fully owner-occupied may be exempt.

Chicago RLTO: Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance §5-12-080 had earlier and broader SOI protections before the statewide law. The RLTO covers all rental units in Chicago with limited exceptions. The statewide IHRA amendment now establishes a statewide floor that Chicago’s RLTO exceeds.

Enforcement: Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR). Complaint within 1 year. Penalties: actual damages, civil penalty up to $50,000 for first violation, attorney fees.

Maine — 5 M.R.S.A. §4582-A(1)(H)

Maine’s Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §4582-A, includes “source of income” as a protected class in housing. The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) enforces. “Source of income” is defined to include Section 8/HCV, SSI, SSDI, general assistance, and other housing assistance. Maine’s relatively small rental market makes this a less frequently litigated provision, but enforcement risk is real for landlords with advertised “No Section 8” policies.

Maryland — No Statewide Law; Local Protections in Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and Baltimore City

Maryland is the notable exception in this list: there is no statewide SOI protection in Maryland. The Maryland Fair Housing Law does not include source of income as a protected class. However, three major Maryland jurisdictions have enacted local protections:

Montgomery County Code §27-12(a)(1)(k): Source of income is a protected class in all housing. Montgomery County’s Office of Human Rights enforces. This is particularly significant given Montgomery County’s rent stabilization (Bill 15-23, eff. October 2024) — landlords in Montgomery County must comply with BOTH the rent cap AND the SOI anti-discrimination requirement.
Prince George’s County Code §2-227: Source of income, including HCV, is protected in housing within Prince George’s County.
Baltimore City Code Art. 4 §3-1(a)(6): Baltimore City has long included source of income as a protected class. The Baltimore City Commission on Human Relations enforces. Baltimore City’s large HCV population and the City’s significant public housing stock make SOI enforcement active.

Baltimore County, Howard County, and other Maryland jurisdictions have not enacted SOI protections. A landlord in Anne Arundel County (Annapolis) or Charles County may legally decline Section 8 under current law.

Massachusetts — G.L. c. 151B §4(10); Chapter 151, Acts of 2021; eff. November 22, 2021

Massachusetts added “lawful source of income” as a protected class in housing via An Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth (Chapter 151, Acts of 2021), signed November 22, 2021. G.L. c. 151B §4(10) now prohibits any person renting housing from discriminating against any individual because of their source of income. “Source of income” is defined to include Section 8, MRVP (Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program), HUD-VASH, all state and federal housing subsidy programs, alimony, child support, Social Security, and SSI.

Owner-occupied exemption: The traditional Massachusetts exemption for owner-occupied 2- and 3-family dwellings applies to most of the Fair Housing statute but was not applied to the source-of-income amendment in the same way. Consult the MCAD’s guidance on small owner-occupied buildings for current scope.

Enforcement: Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Complaint within 1 year. Penalties: actual damages; civil penalty up to $50,000 for third violation within 10 years; attorney fees.

Minnesota — Minn. Stat. §363A.09(1); “Public Assistance Status”

Minnesota has long prohibited “public assistance status” discrimination in housing under Minn. Stat. §363A.09(1). “Public assistance status” is defined in Minn. Stat. §363A.03, subdivision 29, to mean the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance including Section 8/HCV. Minnesota’s protection predates most state SOI laws; it is the Midwest’s oldest and most established protection of this type.

Minneapolis specifically adopted the Minneapolis Renter Protection Ordinance (Chapter 244) in 2021, which added explicit protections against advertising “No Section 8” or similar language. The Minneapolis ordinance extends to all rental units in Minneapolis regardless of size.

Saint Paul has enacted related fair housing regulations through the Renter Protection Ordinance (Chapter 193A). The Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) enforces statewide; the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department enforces locally.

Penalties: MDHR — actual damages, civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation, attorney fees. Minneapolis DRS — additional local civil fines.

New Jersey — N.J.S.A. §10:5-12(g)(1); NJ Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. §10:5-12(g)(1), is among the broadest formulations of SOI protection. The LAD prohibits discrimination in housing based on “source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments,” which the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) has construed to cover HCV, WFNJ (NJ welfare), SSI, SSDI, veterans benefits, and all lawful income sources including employment, retirement, and investment income.

New Jersey has had this protection since the early 2000s (approximately 2007 expansion). The LAD’s reach in the rental context is extremely broad: it covers individual landlords, rental agencies, property managers, and real estate agents who steer applicants away from voucher-accepting buildings.

Important nuance: New Jersey also has among the most specific advertising restrictions: any advertisement including language such as “No Section 8,” “No housing vouchers,” “Must have job-verified income,” or similar formulations that would have the effect of deterring HCV applicants is itself a separate LAD violation, regardless of whether any specific applicant was harmed.

Enforcement: NJ DCR. Penalties: civil penalty up to $10,000 (first violation), $25,000 (second within 5 years), $50,000 (third within 7 years); actual damages; attorney fees; injunctive relief.

New York — Executive Law §296(5)(a)(i); S.8040-A; eff. January 20, 2020

New York State extended its Human Rights Law (NYHRL) to include “lawful source of income” on January 20, 2020, when Governor Cuomo signed S.8040-A/A.8333-A into law. Executive Law §296(5)(a)(i) now prohibits discrimination in the lease, sublease, or rental of any housing based on source of income, defined to include any lawful verifiable income including HCV, VASH, public assistance, disability benefits, alimony, child support, and other government benefits.

New York City had long-standing SOI protection under NYC Admin. Code §8-107(5)(a), which has been in place since the 1980s and is enforced by the NYC Commission on Human Rights (NYC HRC). The statewide law now covers all of New York (including areas that previously had no local SOI law, such as Long Island, Westchester, Upstate New York).

NYC-specific penalties are among the highest in the nation: NYC HRC can impose civil penalties up to $250,000 for violations in New York City. Outside NYC, NYS Division of Human Rights can impose penalties up to $50,000 for second offense within 5 years.

Rent stabilization interaction: In NYC rent-stabilized units, the landlord must offer a renewal lease to a qualified tenant, and the RS system’s succession rights interact with HCV in complex ways. Consult DHCR guidance for rent-stabilized unit HCV questions.

Oregon — ORS §659A.145(1)(a)(G); enacted 2014 — earliest Western state SOI law

Oregon enacted the Western United States’ first statewide SOI housing protection in 2014. ORS §659A.145(1)(a)(G) prohibits housing discrimination based on “source of income,” defined in ORS §659A.003(20) as any lawful source of income including HCV, SSI, SSDI, TANF, and other benefits. Oregon’s SOI law predates California’s SB 329 by six years.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces ORS §659A.145 through its Civil Rights Division. A key feature of Oregon’s enforcement: BOLI can impose an administrative fine of $10,000 per violation through its own proceedings, without needing to sue in court. This makes Oregon’s enforcement mechanism particularly fast and impactful.

Oregon-specific advertising prohibition: ORS §659A.400 separately prohibits any advertisement for rental housing that indicates preference, limitation, or discrimination based on source of income. An ad on Zillow or Craigslist saying “No Section 8” or “HCV not accepted” is an independent violation.

Oregon’s SOI law also interacts with Portland’s Residential Rental Inspection Program (RRIP) and the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act’s relocation assistance requirements. In Portland, a landlord who refuses to participate in HQS inspection for a rent-controlled unit may face additional relocation assistance obligations.

Rhode Island — R.I. Gen. Laws §34-37-4

Rhode Island’s Fair Housing Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §34-37-4, includes source of income as a protected class in housing. “Source of income” covers HCV and other housing assistance. The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (RICHR) enforces. Penalties include actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

Vermont — 9 V.S.A. §4503(a)

Vermont’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. §4503(a), includes “lawful source of income” as a protected class. The Vermont Human Rights Commission enforces. Vermont’s SOI protection is comprehensive and covers virtually all rental housing in the state. Remedies include actual damages, civil fines, and attorney fees.

Virginia — Va. Code §36-96.2; “Source of Funds”; HB 6; eff. July 1, 2020

Virginia added “source of funds” as a protected class to the Virginia Fair Housing Law via HB 6, effective July 1, 2020. Va. Code §36-96.2 now prohibits discrimination in real estate transactions (including rentals) based on “source of funds.” The Virginia Fair Housing Office defines “source of funds” to include HCV, VASH, and all government housing assistance programs.

Virginia’s use of “source of funds” rather than “source of income” is a deliberate formulation to emphasize that the protection covers WHERE the payment to the landlord comes from, not just the tenant’s general income stream. The distinction has practical implications for how income verification is conducted (the landlord is analyzing the payment source, not the tenant’s total income level, for discriminatory-refusal purposes).

Enforcement: Virginia Fair Housing Council (VFHC) and DPOR. Complaint within 1 year. Penalties: civil fines up to $10,000 for willful violation; actual damages; attorney fees. Private right of action available after administrative exhaustion.

Washington — RCW §49.60.222; HB 2578; eff. September 30, 2018

Washington State added source-of-income protection to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) via HB 2578, signed in March 2018 and effective September 30, 2018. RCW §49.60.222(1)(f) now prohibits discriminatory refusal to sell or rent based on “source of income,” defined in RCW §49.60.040(26) as any lawful verifiable income source including HCV, VASH, public assistance, disability benefits, and other transfer income.

Washington’s SOI protection was enacted before California’s SB 329, making Washington (along with Oregon) an early Western adopter. Seattle had earlier local protection under SMC §14.08.040, which had been in place since the early 2000s.

Seattle’s municipal code adds additional obligations: SMC §14.08.050 (first-in-time rule) requires landlords in Seattle to offer tenancy to the FIRST qualified applicant based on objective screening criteria, regardless of payment source. This rule, upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in Yim v. City of Seattle (2021), means a Seattle landlord cannot skip over the first qualified voucher-holder applicant to offer to a later non-voucher applicant.

Enforcement: Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) statewide; Seattle Office for Civil Rights locally. Penalty: $10,000 civil penalty per violation statewide; actual damages; attorney fees. Private right of action after 180 days or 6 months without WSHRC resolution.

Local Source-of-Income Protections in Non-SOI States

Several cities and counties in states without statewide SOI protection have enacted their own local ordinances. These include:

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

Pennsylvania has no statewide SOI protection. However:

Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (Philadelphia Code §9-1102): Source of income is a protected class in Philadelphia since the early 2000s. The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR) enforces. This covers all of Philadelphia’s substantial rental housing stock, including the large number of HCV holders in West Philadelphia, North Philadelphia, Germantown, and Kensington.
Pittsburgh Fair Housing Ordinance (§659.01 et seq.): Pittsburgh City Code prohibits housing discrimination based on source of income. The Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations enforces.

Landlords with properties in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh must comply with the local ordinances even in the absence of statewide law. Properties in suburban Philadelphia (Montgomery County PA, Bucks County, Delaware County, Chester County) and suburban Pittsburgh (Allegheny County) are NOT covered by these city ordinances unless those specific counties have enacted their own protections.

Kentucky: Louisville Metro

Louisville Metro Government enacted source-of-income protections through Louisville Metro Ordinance §92.02, prohibiting housing discrimination based on “source of income” including Section 8/HCV in Jefferson County (Louisville Metro). The Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission (LMHRC) enforces. The rest of Kentucky (Lexington, Bowling Green, Covington) has no SOI protection.

Michigan: Ann Arbor and East Lansing

Michigan has no statewide SOI protection (MCL §123.409 prohibits rent control but does not address fair housing SOI). However:

Ann Arbor City Code §9:150 et seq.: Ann Arbor prohibits source-of-income discrimination in housing. The Ann Arbor Human Relations Commission enforces. This is particularly significant given Ann Arbor’s large University of Michigan-affiliated rental market.
East Lansing City Code: East Lansing (home of Michigan State University) has enacted similar local SOI protections.

Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing (outside of East Lansing city limits), Kalamazoo, Flint, and other Michigan cities do not have local SOI protections.

Texas: The Preemption Problem

Texas presents a complex picture. Several Texas cities have historically attempted to enact local SOI protections. Austin City Code §5-1-92 has language protecting source of income in housing, and Austin and Dallas have attempted to enforce SOI protections. However, Texas Government Code §250.006 (property rights protections) and case law on Dillon’s Rule in Texas create significant legal uncertainty about whether Texas cities can effectively mandate HCV acceptance beyond what state and federal law require. As of 2026, the enforceability of local Texas SOI protections is contested. Texas landlords should consult local counsel before relying on any assumed local protection — or any assumed exemption from one.

HCV Compliance Process for Landlords: RFTA to First Payment

If you are a landlord in a SOI-protection jurisdiction (or you choose to participate in HCV voluntarily), the process from a voucher holder’s application to your first rent payment involves the following steps:

Step 1: Application and Screening (Same as Any Applicant)

Process the voucher holder’s rental application using your standard screening criteria, applied identically to all applicants. Do not add extra steps, extra fees, or additional requirements targeting the voucher holder. Standard screening criteria you may apply:

Credit score review (using a consistently-applied minimum threshold)
Rental history verification (prior evictions, references from prior landlords)
Income verification (apply the income test to the TENANT’S SHARE of rent in SOI states, not full market rent)
Criminal history review (per HUD 2016 guidance: no blanket bans; individualized assessment)

Step 2: RFTA — Request for Tenancy Approval (HUD Form 52517)

Once you decide to offer the unit to a voucher holder, both you (landlord) and the tenant fill out and sign Form HUD-52517 (Request for Tenancy Approval). This form includes:

Unit address and description (number of bedrooms, square footage, amenities)
Proposed contract rent
Proposed lease commencement date
Utilities arrangement (which utilities are included vs. tenant-paid)
Landlord’s certification that the unit is available for leasing

The RFTA is submitted to the PHA that issued the voucher. The PHA will assign a caseworker and begin the rent reasonableness determination.

Step 3: Rent Reasonableness Determination

Before scheduling the HQS inspection, the PHA performs a rent reasonableness analysis comparing your proposed rent to rents for comparable unassisted units in the market area. The PHA uses either its own database of comparable units or third-party rent comparison tools. If the PHA determines your rent is above market, they will offer a lower approved rent. You can:

Accept the lower rent and proceed;
Negotiate (present comparables showing your rent is market-justified);
Decline the lower rent — in which case the tenant cannot use their voucher at your unit, but this is not an SOI violation (you are declining the payment standard, not the applicant).

Step 4: HQS Inspection

A PHA inspector visits the unit and evaluates it against HUD’s Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR Part 982). The HQS covers 13 areas: sanitary facilities, food preparation, space and security, thermal environment, illumination, structure, interior air quality, water supply, lead-based paint, site access, site and neighborhood, sanitary conditions, and smoke detectors.

Common HQS failures and fix timelines:

Missing smoke detectors: purchase and install within 24–48 hours
Peeling paint (pre-1978 building): requires XRF testing or certified interim control work; may take 2–4 weeks
HVAC not heating to 68°F: HVAC service call; 1–2 weeks
Missing pressure-relief valve on water heater: plumber; 1–3 days
Evidence of pest infestation: licensed exterminator + reinspection; 2–4 weeks
Window locks missing on lower-floor units: hardware store + reinstall; 1–2 days

If the unit passes HQS, the PHA issues a Notice of Unit Approval. If it fails, you have typically 30 days to correct deficiencies and request reinspection.

Step 5: Lease Execution and HAP Contract

On the lease commencement date, two documents are executed simultaneously:

Lease Agreement between you (landlord) and the tenant. The lease must include specific HUD-required language (Tenancy Addendum, HUD Form 52641-A) and comply with applicable state landlord-tenant law. The lease term must be at least 12 months for initial lease.
HAP Contract (Housing Assistance Payments Contract, Form HUD-52641) between you (landlord) and the PHA. The HAP contract specifies the monthly HAP payment amount, the duration of the contract, your obligations (maintain unit in HQS, provide required services, not discriminate), and grounds for HAP contract termination.

Step 6: Monthly Payments

Beginning the first full month of the lease, the PHA pays the HAP directly to you (landlord) by ACH or check. The tenant pays their rent share directly to you. You receive two separate payments each month covering the full contract rent.

Typical HAP payment timing: Most PHAs pay between the 1st and 5th of each month for the current month. Some PHAs pay in advance (on the 25th of the prior month). Your HAP contract will specify the payment schedule.

Annual recertification: The PHA will recertify the tenant’s eligibility annually. If the tenant’s income changes, the HAP amount may adjust. If your lease allows a rent increase (subject to PHA rent reasonableness approval), the PHA will review and adjust the HAP accordingly. For units in rent-controlled jurisdictions, the annual rent increase is capped at the applicable cap and must be submitted to the PHA for approval at least 60 days before the anniversary date.

Permissible Reasons to Decline a Voucher Holder in SOI-Protection States

Even in states with SOI protection, landlords are not required to approve every HCV applicant who applies. The following are permissible, documented, consistently-applied reasons to decline:

Credit Score Below Minimum: Applicant’s credit score falls below your written screening standard, applied consistently to all applicants. Document the credit pull, the score, and the applicable minimum.
Adverse Rental History: Prior eviction judgment within your look-back period (typically 3–7 years), documented lease violations, unpaid rent judgment against prior landlord. Verify through tenant screening report AND landlord reference calls.
Insufficient Verified Income: Total verified income (applying the correct income test to tenant’s share in SOI states) does not meet your minimum standard. See the FAQ section on income verification.
Criminal History That Meets Individualized Assessment Standard: Following HUD 2016 guidance — individualized assessment, not blanket ban; crime must be recent and relevant to tenancy safety and property integrity.
Unit Does Not Meet HQS: HQS inspection identifies deficiencies you choose not to remediate. This must be a genuine decision about the unit’s condition, not a pretext. If you accept non-voucher tenants in the same condition of unit, BOLI, CRD, or WSHRC will view this as discriminatory.
Payment Standard Gap: PHA’s payment standard does not cover your market rent, and you are unwilling to reduce rent to the approved level.
Unit Occupied or Not Available: You are not currently accepting applications for the specific unit at issue (for genuine reasons unrelated to voucher status).

What you cannot do: You cannot decline solely because the applicant holds a voucher. You cannot add extra fees, delays, or conditions targeting voucher holders. You cannot advertise “No Section 8” or any equivalent language in any SOI-protection jurisdiction.

Penalties by State — Summary Table

State / City	Statute	Max Civil Penalty	Enforcement Agency	Complaint Deadline
California	Gov. Code §12955(k)	$25,000 (1st violation)	CRD (formerly DFEH)	1 year
Colorado	CRS §24-34-502	$100,000	CCRD	1 year
Connecticut	C.G.S. §46a-64c	Actual damages + attorney fees	CHRO	1 year
DC	DCHRA §2-1402.21	$20,000 (1st), $50,000 (repeat)	DC OHR	1 year
Delaware	6 Del. C. §4603(a)(2)	Actual damages + civil penalty	DE OHR	1 year
Hawaii	HRS §515-3	Actual damages + attorney fees	HCRC	1 year
Illinois	IHRA §3-102.1	$50,000 (1st violation)	IDHR	1 year
Maine	5 M.R.S.A. §4582-A	Actual damages + attorney fees	MHRC	1 year
Maryland (Montgomery Co.)	Montgomery Co. Code §27-12	Civil fine + actual damages	Co. OHR	1 year
Maryland (Prince George’s Co.)	P.G. Code §2-227	Civil fine + actual damages	Co. PGCHR	1 year
Maryland (Baltimore City)	Balt. City Code Art. 4 §3-1	Civil fine + actual damages	Baltimore CCHR	1 year
Massachusetts	G.L. c. 151B §4(10)	$50,000 (3rd violation)	MCAD	1 year
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. §363A.09	$25,000 per violation	MDHR	1 year
New Jersey	N.J.S.A. §10:5-12	$10,000 (1st), $50,000 (3rd)	NJ DCR	1 year (DCR) or 6 years (civil)
New York State	Exec. Law §296(5)	$50,000 (2nd violation within 5 yrs)	NYS DHR	1 year
New York City	Admin. Code §8-107(5)	$250,000	NYC HRC	3 years
Oregon	ORS §659A.145	$10,000 per violation (BOLI admin.)	BOLI	1 year
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws §34-37-4	Actual damages + attorney fees	RICHR	1 year
Vermont	9 V.S.A. §4503(a)	Actual damages + attorney fees	VT HRC	1 year
Virginia	Va. Code §36-96.2	$10,000 (willful violation)	VFHC / DPOR	1 year
Washington	RCW §49.60.222	$10,000 per violation	WSHRC	1 year (WSHRC) or 3 years (civil)
Illinois (Chicago RLTO)	Chicago RLTO §5-12-080	$10,000 per violation + actual damages	Chicago OCDH	1 year
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)	Phila. Code §9-1102	Civil fine + actual damages	PCHR	300 days (PCHR)
Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh)	Pitt. Code §659.01	Civil fine + actual damages	Pittsburgh PCHR	1 year
Kentucky (Louisville)	Louisville Metro Code §92.02	Civil fine + actual damages	LMHRC	1 year
Michigan (Ann Arbor)	Ann Arbor Code §9:150	Civil fine + actual damages	Ann Arbor HRC	1 year

50-State Reference Table: Source-of-Income Protection in 2026

State	SOI Protection?	Statute / Authority	Notes
Alabama	No	None	No statewide or major local SOI protection
Alaska	No	None	No statewide SOI protection; Anchorage no local SOI
Arizona	No	None	ARS §33-1329 prohibits rent control; no SOI protection
Arkansas	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
California	YES	Gov. Code §12955(k); SB 329 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)	Statewide; CRD enforces; narrow owner-occupied exemption
Colorado	YES	CRS §24-34-502; HB 19-1134 (eff. Aug. 2019)	Statewide; CCRD enforces; $100,000 max civil penalty
Connecticut	YES	C.G.S. §46a-64c	Statewide; CHRO enforces
DC	YES	DCHRA §2-1402.21(a)(1)	Since 1977 — earliest US SOI protection; DC OHR enforces
Delaware	YES	6 Del. C. §4603(a)(2)	Statewide; DE OHR enforces
Florida	No	None	Fla. Const. Art. X §19 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Georgia	No	None	O.C.G.A. §44-7-19 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Hawaii	YES	HRS §515-3 (“income” as protected class)	Statewide; HCRC enforces; broad income definition
Idaho	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Illinois	YES	IHRA §3-102.1; HB 2775 (eff. Jan. 1, 2022)	5+ unit buildings; IDHR enforces; Chicago RLTO broader
Indiana	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Iowa	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Kansas	No	None	K.S.A. §12-16,130 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Kentucky	Partial	Louisville Metro Code §92.02	Louisville Metro only; statewide no SOI law
Louisiana	No	None	Civil law state; no SOI protection
Maine	YES	5 M.R.S.A. §4582-A(1)(H)	Statewide; MHRC enforces
Maryland	Partial	Montgomery Co. §27-12; P.G. Co. §2-227; Baltimore City §3-1	Three local jurisdictions only; statewide no SOI law
Massachusetts	YES	G.L. c. 151B §4(10); Ch. 151, Acts 2021	Statewide; MCAD enforces; eff. Nov. 2021
Michigan	Partial	Ann Arbor City Code §9:150; East Lansing Code	Two cities only; statewide no SOI law
Minnesota	YES	Minn. Stat. §363A.09(1); “public assistance status”	Statewide; MDHR enforces; Minneapolis adds MRPO Ch. 244
Mississippi	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Missouri	No	None	RSMo §441.043 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Montana	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Nebraska	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Nevada	No	None	NRS §118A.215 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
New Hampshire	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
New Jersey	YES	N.J.S.A. §10:5-12(g)(1); NJ LAD	Statewide; DCR enforces; broad income definition
New Mexico	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
New York	YES	Exec. Law §296(5)(a)(i); S.8040-A (eff. Jan. 2020)	Statewide; NYC HRC enforces locally (up to $250,000 penalty)
North Carolina	No	None	NCGS §42-14.1 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
North Dakota	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Ohio	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Oklahoma	No	None	Dillon’s Rule; no SOI protection
Oregon	YES	ORS §659A.145(1)(a)(G); enacted 2014	Statewide; BOLI enforces; $10,000 per violation
Pennsylvania	Partial	Phila. Code §9-1102; Pitt. Code §659.01	Philadelphia and Pittsburgh only; statewide no SOI law
Rhode Island	YES	R.I. Gen. Laws §34-37-4	Statewide; RICHR enforces
South Carolina	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
South Dakota	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Tennessee	No	None	TCA §66-35-102 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Texas	No	None (contested local attempts)	Texas Prop. Code; no statewide SOI; local ordinances legally contested
Utah	No	None	UCA §57-30-101 prohibits rent control; no SOI law
Vermont	YES	9 V.S.A. §4503(a)	Statewide; VT HRC enforces
Virginia	YES	Va. Code §36-96.2; HB 6 (eff. July 1, 2020)	Statewide; VFHC / DPOR enforces; “source of funds” terminology
Washington	YES	RCW §49.60.222; HB 2578 (eff. Sept. 30, 2018)	Statewide; WSHRC enforces; Seattle first-in-time rule adds obligations
West Virginia	No	None	No statewide SOI protection
Wisconsin	No	None	Wis. Stat. §66.1015 prohibits rent control; no statewide SOI
Wyoming	No	None	No statewide SOI protection

10-Step Compliance Checklist for Landlords in SOI-Protection Jurisdictions

Audit your advertising language immediately. Remove any phrase that could be read as excluding voucher holders: “No Section 8,” “No housing vouchers,” “W2 income only,” “Employed tenants only,” “Must have job-verified income” are all problematic in SOI states. Replace with neutral language describing your income standard (e.g., “Combined verifiable income of 3× tenant’s share of rent required”).
Update your written screening criteria. Your written criteria must define how income is calculated for HCV holders: specify that income is verified as tenant’s verifiable income equal to [2.5× or 3×] the tenant’s share of the contract rent, not the full market rent.
Train leasing staff on SOI prohibitions. Any conversation with a prospective tenant that includes language discouraging HCV use is a potential SOI violation. Staff must know: (a) what source-of-income discrimination is; (b) what questions they cannot ask or imply; (c) how to process an HCV application correctly.
Process HCV applications on the same timeline as non-HCV applications. Do not allow an HCV application to sit longer than a non-HCV application — voucher expiration caused by landlord delay is a recognized form of de facto SOI discrimination in California and New York enforcement actions.
Apply income verification consistently: tenant’s share, not full rent. In all SOI states, verify the tenant’s own income against the tenant’s portion of the rent. Obtain a letter from the PHA confirming the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) amount for the relevant bedroom size.
Submit the RFTA promptly. Once you decide to offer the unit, sign and submit Form HUD-52517 with the tenant to the PHA within your standard lease-offer window. Delays can expire the voucher.
Prepare the unit for HQS before listing. Pre-screen your unit against the most common HQS failure points (smoke detectors, window locks, HVAC, water heater, lead paint in pre-1978 buildings). Addressing these proactively avoids post-inspection delays.
Keep documentation of every screening decision. For every applicant you decline (voucher holder or not), maintain a written record: date of application, screening criteria applied, specific result that triggered the declination (credit score, specific eviction, specific income calculation). This documentation is your primary defense in an SOI discrimination complaint.
Sign both the lease AND the HAP contract on the same date. Do not allow a gap between lease execution and HAP contract execution. If the HAP contract is not signed, the PHA cannot issue payments and the tenant may be in arrears.
At rent increase time, notify the PHA 60 days in advance. For HCV tenants, any rent increase requires PHA approval through a new rent reasonableness determination. Provide written notice to the PHA at least 60 days before the proposed increase date. Your increase cannot exceed what the PHA approves (or your market rent, whichever is lower).

Source-of-Income Discrimination Laws 2026: Which States and Cities Require Landlords to Accept Section 8 / Housing Choice Vouchers — Complete Landlord Compliance Guide