West LA apartments that does not allow dogs (Los Angeles, Santa Monica: rental, houses)

[CAMA-RNFV]

Hello everyone, I am going to be moving to the Los Angeles area at the end May or beginning of June, for a new job. I would like to live in the west LA area (Santa Monica, Brentwood, Century City. Etc). I am looking for an apartment building that does not allow dogs in the building. You see, my mom is extremely scared of dogs; she has an unusually high level of phobia about dogs and my mom will be visiting me often. So, I am looking for an apartment that does not allow dogs. So, does anyone know of any apartment buildings in West LA area, that do not allow dogs. The cost of rent does not matter. Please let me know if you know of any? Many thanks

[MyNameIsBellaMia]

You're outta luck. All apartments allow service dogs. It's the law.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia

You're outta luck. All apartments allow service dogs. It's the law.

That's not actually true

[nightlysparrow]

Try renting a house instead.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

That's not actually true

Actually it is true. It's an FHA requirement applied nation wide that service animals are not pets, and landlords may not exclude service animals even when they want no pets. And trust me, landlords hate pets because if they can get all tenants no pets there is no potential for pet damages; pet damages are very problematic to collect on when tenant moves out, partly because a really badly behaved pet can easily do more damage than the security deposit covers and landlords loathe to spend time in court suing tenants. Trust me on this, I'm a landlord.

I don't want any pets in my rental houses but I have to bow down to the FHA and I'll be in serious legal problems if I deny a tenant based solely on their needing a service animal. Note that this does not apply to "emo pets" but only officially certified service animals that meet FHA guidelines.

Otherwise just rent a house and at least you will see no more dogs than in any ordinary neighborhood. Note that something like 36+ percent of all households have dogs:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

[cyberfx1024]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

That's not actually true

It is true and try to discriminate against someone with an actual service dog, not one of those BS "service animals" everyone has now. But if you have a verifiable illness that needs a service animal you can not be discriminated against anywhere.

[Lovehound]

Cyberfix is right. As a landlord I have to know. The Fair Housing Act says that landlords may not discriminate on the basis of service animals, and that they are not pets in the legal sense. Landlord may disallow dogs (or any pets at all) but will end up violating the law if landlord refuses to rent to a prospective tenant because of a service animal. (Although a LL may rent to a different applicant he sees as better qualified.)

And we're talking about legitimate service animals, not "bought the vest on eBay" type. Also I'm pretty sure "emo dogs" are not considered as legitimate service animals.

I've never faced the problem, although I have rented to tenants with dogs--and mostly they have worked out okay except one tenant trashed my rental house by leaving her dog inside weekdays. Dog ruined my carpet and I ended up getting the tenant to pay for most but not all of the damages. The tenant did a runner out of state in middle of lease and I figured I was lucky to get even part of the damages.

In any case I have seen service dogs only a few times in my whole life and I doubt you'll see any in an apartment that doesn't allow pets. In renting houses you will of course see people walking their dogs on the sidewalk.