Can a landlord charge for a pet in Nevada, and what does the law require for an assistance animal?

Yes — no pet figure exists, but a pet deposit is a security deposit however it is named and counts inside the general deposit cap.

No Nevada statute names a pet deposit. A pet deposit is caught by the general definition, which turns on what the money is used for rather than what it is called: any payment, deposit, fee or charge to be used for remedying a default in rent, repairing damage beyond normal wear, or cleaning the dwelling unit is a security deposit (section 118A.240, subsection 1). Only two things are excluded, an option payment and a surety-bond premium (subsection 2). So a pet deposit adds no room: it counts inside the three months' periodic rent alongside the ordinary deposit, any surety bond and the last month's rent. It must be refundable, it must come back with an itemized written accounting no later than 30 days after the tenancy ends, and only unpaid rent, damage beyond normal wear and reasonable cleaning costs may be claimed against it (section 118A.242, subsections 4 and 8). None of this reaches a park lot or a federally assisted low-rent tenancy, which are outside the act.

Refundability: It must be refundable. No rental agreement may contain a provision characterizing any security deposit under section 118A.242 as non-refundable, or waiving or modifying the tenant's rights under that section, and any such provision is void as contrary to public policy. The single exception is an agreement for a non-refundable charge for cleaning in a reasonable amount (subsection 8).

The general deposit cap it sits against: A landlord may not demand or receive a security deposit or a surety bond, or a combination of the two, including the last month's rent, whose total amount or value exceeds three months' periodic rent (section 118A.242, subsection 1). The deposits page carries the general cap and its return rules.

No for a non-refundable pet fee, which a general or specific rule bars. A recurring monthly pet rent is not money held against default, damage or cleaning, so it is not a security deposit and no statute caps it or requires it to be reasonable.

Nevada uses no pet-named fee statute, so both answers come from the general machinery. A monthly pet rent is lawful and uncapped. A one-time non-refundable pet fee is not: money taken against pet damage or cleaning is a security deposit, and a provision calling a security deposit non-refundable is void, leaving only a reasonable non-refundable cleaning charge. Since October 1, 2025 rent must be advertised and written as a single all-in figure that includes mandatory fees, a landlord may not charge above it, a nonconforming written agreement is unlawful and the offending provision is void, and a tenant may sue for damages, costs, attorney's fees and $250 for each violation involving deception (section 118A.200, subsections 6 to 9, and section 118A.405). Whether pet rent counts as a mandatory fee inside that figure is an open question on the text. In a manufactured-home park the answer is different and stricter, and is stated as its own row below.

Monthly pet rent: A recurring monthly pet rent is not money held against default, damage or cleaning, so it is not a security deposit and no statute caps it or requires it to be reasonable. One 2025 rule may bear on how it is charged: since October 1, 2025 every place a landlord lists the rent, and every reference to rent in a written agreement, must set it out as a single figure representing the maximum total periodic rent including any mandatory fees, and the landlord may not charge more than that figure (section 118A.200, subsections 6 and 7). Whether a monthly pet rent is a mandatory fee that must sit inside the single figure is unresolved: the phrase appears once in the whole chapter and is nowhere defined, the only exception is for certain utility charges, and no Nevada decision or rule answers it.

A one-time pet fee: A one-time non-refundable pet fee charged against pet damage or cleaning is a security deposit by the function test in section 118A.240, subsection 1, so calling it non-refundable is void (section 118A.242, subsection 8). A reasonable non-refundable cleaning charge is the one thing that survives. There is no separate authority for a pet fee and no ceiling on one.

How far the non-refundable-fee rule reaches: The bar is the general one in section 118A.242, subsection 8: no rental agreement may characterize any security deposit under that section as non-refundable, and any such provision is void as contrary to public policy, except an agreement for a non-refundable cleaning charge in a reasonable amount. It reaches a pet fee because section 118A.240, subsection 1, makes money used for damage or cleaning a security deposit whatever it is named, so the bar covers move-in money and any other charge answering that description.

Yes — every lease must state whether pets are allowed, and on what terms.

A written rental agreement must contain provisions on occupancy by children or pets (section 118A.200, subsection 3, paragraph (c)), and the duty has teeth: it is unlawful to use a written agreement that does not conform to the section, and any provision contravening it is void (subsection 9). Where there is no written agreement at all, the law presumes there are no restrictions on occupancy by pets. Nothing limits how many animals a tenant may keep, and nothing bars a condition such as declawing. A landlord's later rule cannot take away a pet right the lease already gives, and any other later rule that materially changes the bargain needs written consent or 30 days' written notice. Two housing classes have their own duties: a park lease must state restrictions on occupancy by pets and must be in writing, and supportive housing paid for by a state housing grant must allow at least one pet. Both are stated as separate rows below.

When the lease is silent: The absence of a written agreement raises a disputable presumption that there are no restrictions on occupancy by children or pets (section 118A.200, subsection 5, paragraph (a)). Read the trigger exactly: the presumption arises where there is no written agreement at all, not where a written agreement says nothing about pets. A written agreement that omits the pet terms is instead a nonconforming agreement, which is unlawful to use, and the contravening provision is void (subsection 9).

Changing the rule mid-tenancy: A landlord may adopt rules about the tenant's use and occupancy from time to time, but a rule is enforceable only if, among other conditions, it does not affect, before the end of the rental agreement, any right the tenant may have under that agreement to keep a pet, and only if the tenant had notice of it when signing or after it was adopted (section 118A.320, subsection 1, paragraphs (g) and (h)). A rule adopted later that works a material modification of the bargain binds a tenant only if the tenant consents in writing or has 30 days' advance written notice (subsection 2). The pet protection presupposes a right in the lease; it does not create one.

Yes.

No Nevada statute limits or authorizes a private landlord's breed, size or weight rule, and none carves an assistance animal out of one; the word 'breed' does not appear in the landlord-tenant act, the fair-housing title, the park act, the housing-division chapter or the disability chapter. The only mandate to permit an animal in housing binds one class: supportive housing funded by a state housing grant must allow a tenant to keep at least one pet, subject to public-health, animal-control and cruelty laws (section 319.600, subsection 2, paragraph (b)), and that is a floor on numbers rather than a rule about breeds. Two breed provisions sit outside housing. A dog may not be found dangerous or vicious based solely on its breed, and no county or city may adopt or enforce an ordinance deeming a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on breed (section 202.500, subsections 3 and 6), which binds public authorities rather than landlords. Insurers are separately barred from underwriting on breed, as stated below.

Yes — a state statute or rule sets what a landlord may request or what a certifier must meet for an assistance animal in housing. The operative rules are statutory. State law incorporates a federal statute or codified regulation by reference.

The housing rule is two sentences. A landlord may not refuse to rent a dwelling subject to the landlord-tenant act to a person with a disability solely because an animal will be residing with the prospective tenant, if the animal assists, supports or provides service to that person; and a landlord may require proof that the animal does so, a requirement that 'may be satisfied, without limitation, by a statement from a provider of health care that the animal performs a function that ameliorates the effects of the person's disability' (section 118.105, subsections 1 and 2). That is the whole of it: there is no charge rule, no damage-liability sentence, no interactive process, no deadline for the landlord's answer and no refusal ground beyond the refusal the section bars. The section was last amended in 2005. Beside it, and broader, section 118.101, subsection 1, paragraph (b), makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services where they are necessary to ensure that a person with a disability may use and enjoy the dwelling, which is the route by which a no-pets policy may have to give way. The extra-deposit bar in subsections 3 and 4 of that section is tied to a request to make a physical modification to the dwelling, with a restoration condition, and does not reach a request to keep an animal.

Who it binds: Two nested limits. Section 118.105 protects a person renting 'a dwelling subject to the provisions of chapter 118A', so it does not reach a manufactured-home park lot or a low-rent housing program operated by a public housing authority, both of which section 118A.180, subsection 2, puts outside the landlord-tenant act, nor the other arrangements that section excludes. Then chapter 118's own definition of a dwelling excludes a single-family house sold or rented by an owner who owns no more than three such houses at a time and used no licensed broker or salesperson, and rooms or units in a building occupied by no more than four families where the owner actually maintains and occupies one of them, in each case subject to provisos about how many transactions the owner has taken part in during the preceding twelve months (section 118.060, subsection 2). The landlord-tenant act itself has no such exemption, so the deposit and lease-content rules bind landlords whom the assistance-animal rule does not.

Nevada enumerates nothing. It grants a right instead: 'A landlord may require proof that an animal assists, supports or provides service to the person with a disability' (section 118.105, subsection 2). There is no list of permitted questions, no bar on asking about the disability, and no rule that the need must be non-obvious before proof may be asked for.

The landlord may require proof, and no standard is set for it.

Who may certify: No license class is required. A statement from a provider of health care that the animal performs a function that ameliorates the effects of the person's disability is named as one way the proof requirement may be satisfied, and the statute says that way is available 'without limitation', so it is sufficient rather than necessary (section 118.105, subsection 2). Nevada names no other qualifying source and excludes none.

Nevada's documentation rule is one sentence long and is looser than almost anything written about it. A landlord may require proof that the animal assists, supports or provides service to a person with a disability, and that requirement may be satisfied, without limitation, by a statement from a provider of health care. Nothing else is set. No license class is required, no minimum treatment relationship, no in-person meeting, no annual re-evaluation, no prescribed form, and no rule on medical records. No text says an online certificate is insufficient, so nothing in Nevada law excludes one, and no text requires a landlord to answer in writing or sets a deadline for answering. Nevada also places no duty on the person who writes the statement and no licensing consequence for writing a poor one. The one records rule in Nevada law forbids requiring proof that an animal is a service animal, and it is written for a place of public accommodation, not for housing (section 651.075, subsection 1, paragraph (f)).

Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it.

No Nevada statute bars a landlord from charging a deposit, a fee or rent for an assistance animal. Section 118.105 bars a refusal to rent and says nothing about money; the landlord-tenant act contains no animal word at all, so it carries no carve-out from the deposit and fee rules; and the extra-deposit bar in section 118.101 is tied to a request to physically modify the dwelling rather than to a request to keep an animal. Nevada's only animal charge bar is elsewhere and for somewhere else: a place of public accommodation may not charge an additional fee or deposit for a service animal, service animal in training or police dog as a condition of access, with damages, punitive damages of up to three times actual damages and never less than $750, and attorney's fees (section 651.075, subsections 1 and 8). That is a rule about businesses open to the public, and it uses the narrow federal service-animal definition. What constrains a Nevada landlord's charge is the general duty to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services (section 118.101, subsection 1, paragraph (b)), and the federal layer, which the federal section of the 50-state page carries.

An offense or sanction that reaches a misrepresentation made to obtain housing: a misdemeanor, reaching the person claiming the animal. Penalty terms: a fine of not more than $500. The text names no venue and no court has construed its reach, so it reaches housing by its general words.

It is unlawful for a person to fraudulently misrepresent an animal as a service animal or a service animal in training, and a person convicted is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 (section 426.805). Two things about it matter to a landlord. First, the section carries no venue words, unlike the public-accommodation rules beside it, so on its face it reaches a false claim made to a landlord; no court has construed its reach. Second, it is narrower than it looks, because 'service animal' takes the federal definition plus a trained miniature horse, so a false claim about an animal said only to give support is outside the offense, even though such an animal is inside the housing rule in section 118.105. Nevada penalizes no one on the other side of the letter: there is no offense for a provider who writes a false statement, no offense for lying to a provider, and no licensing discipline anywhere in Nevada law on the subject.

Who enforces it: A prosecutor brings the charge as a misdemeanor. The section creates no civil claim, no ground for eviction and no landlord remedy, and no warning or cure step comes first.

In part — state law preempts the kinds of local rule named as barred, and any power named is one state law grants.

The only Nevada text that binds a city or county on this subject is the dangerous-dog section: no local authority may deem a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on its breed (section 202.500, subsection 6). Read it for what it says. It governs the public designation of a dangerous or vicious dog and the local ordinances that use it; it does not stop a city legislating about dogs in other ways, and it says nothing about a landlord's lease. Nothing else reaches pets in housing: the landlord-tenant act has no preemption or supersession clause, and the fair-housing title has no savings clause for local housing ordinances and no certification of local fair-housing agencies. A county or city may adopt an ordinance protecting the access rights that the public-accommodation sections give, provided it goes no wider than those sections and imposes no heavier penalty (section 651.100); that is a public-accommodation power, not authority over pets in a tenancy. No Nevada city has a pet-in-housing ordinance on record here.

Breed-specific local animal-control rules barred: A local authority, meaning the governing board of a county, city or other political subdivision with power over dogs, may not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog, and a dog may not be found dangerous or vicious on that basis. The bar governs the dangerous or vicious designation; it is not a general ban on local breed rules and it does not reach a landlord's lease terms. Text: NRS 202.500 · (3)(a), (6), (8).

Manufactured-home park lots: pet deposit — allowed, no cap; pet rent and fees — any pet fee barred; the lease must state the pet terms. A park lot is outside the landlord-tenant act entirely, and its rules are stricter about money. Park management may not charge or receive any fee for pets kept by a tenant in the park; the only exception is that where special facilities or services are provided, the park may charge a fee reasonably related to the cost of maintaining that facility or service and the number of pets kept in it (section 118B.140, subsection 1, paragraph (b), subparagraph (4)), and that bar applies even in a corporate cooperative park. A lease provision by which the tenant agrees to pay any additional charge for pets, where the park provides no special pet service, is void, and the tenant may recover actual damages (section 118B.050, subsection 6). The park lease must be in writing and must contain provisions on restrictions on occupancy by pets (section 118B.040, subsections 2 and 3). Park deposits are their own scheme: every deposit is refundable and must be refunded within 21 days, and there is no figure ceiling at all (section 118B.060). Text: NRS 118B.140 · (1)(b)(4), (2). Text: NRS 118B.050 · (6). Text: NRS 118B.040 · (2), (3)(c). Text: NRS 118B.060 · (1), (3)(a), (3)(b).

Supportive housing funded by a Housing Division grant (publicly financed or income-restricted housing, from October 1, 2025): pets must be allowed, subject to the stated conditions. A recipient of a state grant for supportive housing must agree in writing to comply with the landlord-tenant act and to allow a tenant in the supportive housing to keep at least one pet, subject to any applicable federal, state and local laws about public health, animal control and the prevention of cruelty to animals (section 319.600, subsection 2). A pet, for this purpose, is a domesticated animal owned or possessed for pleasure or companionship, including a cat or dog (subsection 7, paragraph (a)). The duty binds the grant recipient through the terms of the grant it accepted; it is not written as a right a tenant enforces, and it sets a floor of one animal rather than a rule about breeds, size or charges. The clause was added by an act effective October 1, 2025. Text: NRS 319.600 · (2), (7)(a).