# ESA Letter in New Mexico: One Word Decides the Whole Case

> New Mexico's only duty to accommodate a disability runs against employers. The housing right is federal — and the state adds a charge claim and a 300-day clock.

- Source: https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/
- Publisher: Support Animal (supportanimal.com)
- Updated: 2026-09-05
- License note: informational content; not legal or medical advice.

**Summary:** New Mexico is the state where the reasonable-accommodation duty is federal and nothing else. NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(J) (the only accommodation duty in the New Mexico Human Rights Act) says "any employer to refuse or fail to accommodate a person's physical or mental disability." It does not say landlord, owner, or person. The Act's housing subsections, § 28-1-7(G)(1)-(3), cover refusal to rent, discrimination in the terms of a tenancy, and discriminatory advertising, and none of them requires anyone to make an exception to a rule. Both the statutory definition at § 28-1-2(V) and the Human Rights Bureau's own rule at 9.1.1.7(X) NMAC define reasonable accommodation "for employment purposes." So a tenant's right to keep an emotional support animal over a no-pets rule rests on 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.204. What New Mexico adds is real but different: a parallel discrimination claim under § 28-1-7(G)(2) that reaches a charge imposed because of a disability, a state forum with a 300-day clock, and a landlord-tenant act that constrains how a rule may be adopted and enforced.

## Subsection J says "employer"

New Mexico's Human Rights Act contains exactly one duty to accommodate a disability. Here it is,
in full:

> "**J. any employer** to refuse or fail to accommodate a person's physical or mental disability or
> serious medical condition, unless such accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship;"

Employer. Not owner, not landlord, not the "any person" that the housing subsections use. And the
housing subsections themselves (NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(G)(1), (2) and (3)) cover refusing to rent,
discriminating in the terms of a tenancy, and discriminatory advertising. Not one of them requires
anybody to make an exception to a rule.

The Act's own vocabulary confirms it rather than complicating it. **§ 28-1-2(V)** defines
reasonable accommodation as modification of "the work environment, work schedule, work rules or job
responsibilities … to enable an **employee** to perform the essential functions of the **job**." The
Human Rights Bureau's rule, **9.1.1.7(X) NMAC**, says the same thing and opens with the words "**for
employment purposes**."

So the sentence that other states supply. A landlord must make a reasonable
accommodation in rules when necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and
enjoy a dwelling, does not exist in New Mexico law. It exists in **federal**
law, at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.204, and that is where
a New Mexico tenant's right to keep an assistance animal over a no-pets rule
comes from.

This is worth saying plainly rather than blurring, because the blurred
version fails at exactly the moment it is needed. A tenant who writes to a
landlord citing the New Mexico Human Rights Act for a duty the Act does not
impose has handed the other side a correction to make.

## What the state does give you, which is not nothing

Three things, and they are more useful than they first look.

**A claim about the charge.** § 28-1-7(G)(2) makes it unlawful to

> "discriminate against any person **in the terms, conditions or privileges** of the sale, rental,
> assignment, lease or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or in the provision
> of facilities or services in connection therewith because of … **physical or mental disability**"

That does not compel an exception to a no-pets rule. It does reach a **fee**
attached to an animal that is in the home because of a disability, which is
a different question and often the one that actually matters.

**A forum, and a long clock.** § 28-1-10(A) gives **300 days**, raised from 180 by Laws 2005. Few
states in this corpus give more.

**A landlord-tenant act with teeth about rules.** The Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act does not
create an accommodation duty and must not be described as though it did. What it does is govern
whether a rule is enforceable at all, how an eviction over an animal has to proceed, and what
happens to a landlord who retaliates. All three come up below.

## Every housing subsection carries the same proviso

Read § 28-1-7(G) closely and each subsection ends the same way:

> "provided that the physical or mental disability is **unrelated to a person's ability to acquire
> or rent and maintain** particular real property or housing accommodation"

The Bureau glosses it as a definition, 9.1.1.7(W) NMAC describes a qualified disabled person as
one "whose disability does not limit that person's ability to fulfill the obligations of occupancy,
tenancy, ownership or credit responsibilities."

Two opposite errors are available here.

It is **not** a nuisance rule about the animal. The proviso speaks about the
*person's disability*, and its regulatory gloss speaks about the *tenant's*
ability to meet the obligations of the tenancy. New Mexico has no
direct-threat provision of its own, and this is not a substitute for one.

It is also **not** decorative. It genuinely qualifies the protected class in
every housing subsection, and a landlord's adviser will point at it. The
honest framing is that the state claim protects a person whose disability
does not itself prevent them from meeting the obligations of a tenancy: the
ordinary case, and one a written clinical evaluation is well placed to
establish.

## Two fee bars, both real, both somebody else's

Search New Mexico law for the phrase a tenant is hoping for and two
sentences come back.

**§ 28-11-3(A)(1)** says a person with a qualified service animal shall not be required to pay any
additional charges. Its scope is "any building open to the public and to all other public
accommodations" and common carriers. **Dwellings appear nowhere in it.**

**§ 28-7-3(C)**, the older White Cane provision, does the same for a guide dog used by a person who
is blind.

Both are quotable. Neither reaches a tenancy, and neither reaches an
emotional support animal. It is worth knowing that both exist, because their
existence is why New Mexico reads, on a first search, as though it has a
housing fee bar, and it does not.

## The Act that names the animal, and where its naming stops

New Mexico is one of the states that legislates the words directly. **§
28-11-2(B)**:

> "'qualified service animal' **does not include a pet, an emotional support animal, a comfort
> animal or a therapy animal**"

and **§ 28-11-2(A)** defines an emotional support animal as one that "**does not work or perform
tasks**."

Excluded by name. Then read the four words the definition opens with: "**As used in the Service
Animal Act**." And **§ 28-11-1.1** defines that Act as the whole of Chapter 28, Article 11.

So the exclusion governs §§ 28-11-1.1 to 28-11-6 and stops at the article
boundary. It does not touch § 28-1-7. It does not touch the federal Fair
Housing Act. A landlord who quotes § 28-11-2(B) is quoting a definition that
was written for a different statute and does not decide this one.

## The deposit rule turns on the length of the lease

Most states cap a deposit at a flat figure. **§ 47-8-18(A)** does something else:

> "**A. An owner is permitted to demand from the resident a reasonable deposit** to be applied by
> the owner to recover **damages**, if any, caused to the premises by the resident …
> **(1)** Under the terms of an **annual** rental agreement, if the owner demands or receives … a
> deposit in an amount **greater than one month's rent**, the owner shall be required to pay to the
> resident annually an **interest equal to the passbook interest** …
> **(2)** Under the terms of a rental agreement of a **duration less than one year**, an owner
> shall not demand or receive … a deposit in an amount **in excess of one month's rent**."

Under a year, hard cap of one month. On an annual lease, no dollar cap at all — but anything above
one month earns the tenant passbook-rate interest. Both are bounded by the word "reasonable," and
both authorise a deposit to recover **damage caused to the premises**, not to price a category of
occupant.

⚠️ Search the code for the three phrases a tenant would expect — pet deposit, pet fee, pet rent —
and every one of them comes back empty, against 530 hits for "security deposit" as a control. Some
states authorise the charge; Kansas does. Some forbid it for an assistance animal; North Dakota
does. New Mexico did neither, and the omission tilts very slightly toward the tenant, because what
§ 47-8-18(A) does authorise is money held against damage.

## A no-pets rule has to earn its enforceability

**§ 47-8-23** is not an accommodation duty and should never be presented as one. It is a rule about
rules, and two of its conditions matter here:

> "**B.** they are **reasonably related to the purpose for which they are adopted**;
> **C.** they **apply to all residents in the premises in a fair manner**; …
> **F.** … A rule or regulation adopted **after** the resident enters into the rental agreement is
> enforceable against the resident if reasonable notice of its adoption is given … and **it does
> not work a substantial modification of his bargain**."

A manager who bans animals in month seven of a tenancy runs straight into subsection F. A landlord
who enforces a pet rule against one tenant and not others runs into subsection C. Neither
observation requires an accommodation duty to be useful.

## Eviction over an animal is never the fast route

**§ 47-8-3(V)** defines "substantial violation" — the three-day, no-cure ground — as a closed list
of seven kinds of serious conduct, and says these "**shall be the sole grounds** for a substantial
violation." An animal is not among them.

So the route is § 47-8-33(A): **written** notice specifying the acts and omissions "**including the
dates and specific facts**," with termination no sooner than **seven days** and only "if the breach
is not remedied in seven days." Subsection (C) requires that notice **within thirty days** of the
breach or knowledge of it. Subsection (G) confines the owner at trial to "the grounds set forth in
the written notice served."

## Filing is also what buys you protection

**§ 47-8-39(A)** bars an owner from raising rent, cutting services, or bringing or threatening an
action for possession because the resident has, within the previous six months,

> "**(4) made a fair housing complaint to a government agency** charged with authority for
> enforcement of laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination in rental housing"

and **§ 47-8-48(C)** makes a violating owner "liable for **two times the amount of the monthly
rent**."

🚨 **The trigger is a complaint to an agency, not a request to the landlord.** Asking for the
accommodation does not start the six months, and subsection (A)(3) does not fill the gap, because
it protects rights "provided under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act" and the accommodation
right is not in that Act.

That gives a New Mexico tenant a genuine sequence rather than a vague one:
get the written evaluation, make the request in writing, and if it is
refused, file, because filing is what starts the shield as well as the case.

## And filing is where the document is asked for

The Bureau's own rule describes what it will want. **9.1.1.8(F)(3) NMAC**:

> "When a disability … is alleged in the complaint, the complainant **must offer evidence** of the
> disability … during the course of the investigation. Evidence documenting a disability … **may be
> provided by the written certification of a physician or other appropriate medical authority**
> unless the existence of the disability … is not a matter in dispute."

That is the state agency naming the document, in its own regulation, not a
marketing claim. Note what it does not do: it does not license a landlord to
demand a diagnosis or records at the point of the request. It governs what
the **Bureau** wants during an **investigation**.

⚠️ And one procedural trap that the statute hides. § 28-1-10(A)'s 300 days sound generous until you
read **9.1.1.8(E)(1) NMAC**, under which a complaint is "deemed filed as of the date the
**perfected** complaint is received," and one missing a listed requirement "**shall be returned**"
before it is deemed perfected. 9.1.1.8(B) measures from the **last** alleged act and makes that
jurisdictional. A complaint posted near day 300 and sent back for correction can miss a deadline it
appeared to meet.

## There is no registry, and the closest thing to one says you are excluded

New Mexico has no assistance animal registry, no certificate and no state
card that does anything in housing. What it has is the Service Animal Act,
which names the emotional support animal in order to exclude it, so a
purchased New Mexico "registration" does not merely fail to help. It points
at the single body of state law that says, in terms, that the animal is not
covered.

The document New Mexico's own procedure contemplates is a different kind of
thing altogether: a written certification from a physician or other
appropriate medical authority. A finding, not a membership.

## What has to happen first

New Mexico gives a tenant less than most states, and the honest consequence
is that the file has to carry more. There is no state accommodation duty to
cite, no state fee bar to point at, and no statutory documentation standard
to satisfy. What there is, is a federal duty that turns on a disability and
on the connection between that disability and this animal, and a state rule
that names written clinical certification as how the disability gets proved.

Start with a clinician who already treats you. That is the cheapest and
strongest route and it should be tried first. Its friction here is real and
worth naming: specialist mental-health capacity is concentrated in
Albuquerque and Santa Fe, the southeast and the northern counties have few
independent practices and long waits, and a clinician who has seen you twice
may properly decline to make a disability finding rather than make one they
cannot support.

Where that route is closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination
arranged deliberately: a licensed professional works out whether a
disability exists and whether this animal answers it, then records the
conclusion, or declines to. Both endings are real. A provider whose answer
is settled before the appointment is selling the certificate that §
28-11-2(B) already told you is worth nothing.

New Mexico's law will not do the arguing for you. It leaves you a federal
duty, a charge claim, a 300-day clock and a rule that says what evidence
looks like. All four assume a finding was actually made.

## Key statutes

- **42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)** (Fair Housing Act: where a New Mexico accommodation right actually comes from): Makes discrimination include a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In most states this runs alongside a state twin. In New Mexico there is no state twin for housing, so this provision and its implementing rule at 24 C.F.R. § 100.204 carry the accommodation argument on their own. [Text](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title42/html/USCODE-2023-title42-chap45-subchapI-sec3604.htm)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(J)** (The Human Rights Act's accommodation duty: employers only): Makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for "any employer to refuse or fail to accommodate a person's physical or mental disability or serious medical condition, unless such accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship." The subsection names employers and no one else. There is no New Mexico analogue to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) in the housing subsections, and no page should describe state law as requiring a landlord to accommodate. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(G)(2)** (Terms, conditions or privileges of a rental: the state claim that does exist): Makes it unlawful to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental, assignment, lease or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property or in the provision of facilities or services in connection therewith" because of, among other classes, physical or mental disability. It does not compel an exception to a rule, but it does reach a charge imposed because of a disability, which is where a pet fee attached to an assistance animal is met in state law. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(G)(1)** (Refusal to rent because of disability): Makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, lease or sublease any housing accommodation, or to refuse to negotiate for one, because of physical or mental disability among other classes. Every housing subsection carries the same proviso: "provided that the physical or mental disability is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation." [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(G)(3)** (Discriminatory advertising): Bars printing, circulating, displaying or mailing any statement, advertisement, publication, sign or application form expressing a preference, limitation or discrimination on the protected classes, including disability. A no-pets listing is not itself an unlawful advertisement, but the absence of a discriminatory advertisement is a condition of the § 28-1-9(A) exemption, which is where it becomes load-bearing. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-2(V)** ("Reasonable accommodation" defined: for the workplace): Defines reasonable accommodation as modification of "the work environment, work schedule, work rules or job responsibilities … to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job" without undue hardship on the employer. The Bureau's rule at 9.1.1.7(X) NMAC is identical in scope and opens "for employment purposes." The Act's own vocabulary confirms that its accommodation concept never reaches a dwelling. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-11-2(A)–(B)** (Service Animal Act: emotional support animals excluded by name): Provides that a "qualified service animal" "does not include a pet, an emotional support animal, a comfort animal or a therapy animal," and separately defines an emotional support animal as one that "does not work or perform tasks." The exclusion opens "As used in the Service Animal Act," and § 28-11-1.1 defines that Act as the whole of Chapter 28, Article 11. The exclusion therefore reaches §§ 28-11-1.1 to 28-11-6 and stops there. It does not touch § 28-1-7 and it does not touch the federal Fair Housing Act. Added by Laws 2013, ch. 57, § 2. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-11-3(A)(1)** ("No additional charges": a public-accommodations rule, not a housing one): Provides that a person with a qualified service animal shall not be required to pay any additional charges in the places the Service Animal Act covers, "any building open to the public and to all other public accommodations" and common carriers. Dwellings appear nowhere in its scope. It is the sentence a searching tenant finds first and it does not reach a tenancy. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-7-3(C)** (White Cane Law: the guide-dog fee bar): The older of New Mexico's two fee-bar decoys, attached to a guide dog used by a person who is blind. Real and quotable, and not a provision an emotional support animal can use. Read together with § 28-11-3(A)(1) it explains why New Mexico looks, on a first search, as though it has a fee bar for assistance animals in housing when it has none. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-10(A)** (Complaint deadline: 300 days): Requires a complaint to be filed with the Human Rights Bureau within 300 days of the alleged act, raised from 180 days by Laws 2005 effective 17 June 2005. It is one of the longer state clocks in this corpus, and it is qualified by the Bureau's own filing rules rather than running as simply as the statute reads. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **9.1.1.8(E)(1) and 9.1.1.8(B) NMAC** (The 300 days run to a perfected complaint): Provides that a complaint is "deemed filed as of the date the perfected complaint is received," and that a complaint missing any listed requirement "shall be returned" before it will be deemed perfected. 9.1.1.8(B) restates the trigger as the last alleged act and makes it jurisdictional. Neither qualification is visible from § 28-1-10(A), and a complaint returned for correction close to day 300 is the practical risk this rule creates. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmac/en/18066/1/document.do)
- **9.1.1.8(F)(3) NMAC** (Evidence of disability: written certification of a physician or other appropriate medical authority): Provides that where a disability is alleged, "the complainant must offer evidence of the disability or serious medical condition during the course of the investigation," and that such evidence "may be provided by the written certification of a physician or other appropriate medical authority" unless the disability is not in dispute. It is the state agency describing the document, in its own regulation. It governs what the Bureau wants during an investigation and does not license a landlord to demand records at the point of a request. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmac/en/18066/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 28-1-9(A) and (D)** (Two exemptions, with different thresholds): Subsection (A) exempts a single-family dwelling sold or rented by an owner subject to reservations on the number of dwellings owned and the frequency of transactions, and (unlike Kansas's equivalent), it opens flatly rather than carving out discriminatory advertising, making the absence of a prohibited advertisement a condition instead. Subsection (D) is the separate owner-occupied exemption at four families. The reservations attached to (A) do not attach to (D), and the two must never be merged. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4365/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 47-8-18(A)(1)–(2)** (Deposits: a cap that turns on the length of the lease): Permits an owner to demand "a reasonable deposit" to recover damages caused to the premises. Under a rental agreement "of a duration less than one year" the deposit may not exceed one month's rent. Under an annual agreement there is no dollar cap, but a deposit above one month's rent obliges the owner to pay the resident annual interest at the passbook rate. The section authorises a deposit to recover damage, not to price a category of occupant. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4408/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, § 47-8-23** (When a rule: including a no-pets rule: is enforceable at all): Makes an owner's rules enforceable only if, among other conditions, they are "reasonably related to the purpose for which they are adopted" and "apply to all residents in the premises in a fair manner", and provides that a rule adopted after the tenancy began is enforceable only with reasonable notice and only if it "does not work a substantial modification of his bargain." It is not an accommodation duty and must not be described as one, but it constrains a mid-tenancy pet ban and gives selective enforcement of a pet rule a state-law answer. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4408/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, §§ 47-8-3(V), 47-8-33(A), (C), (G)** (Eviction over an animal runs through notice and cure, never the three-day route): Section 47-8-3(V) defines "substantial violation" as a closed list of seven kinds of serious conduct and says these "shall be the sole grounds" for one; an animal is not among them. Section 47-8-33(A) supplies the ordinary route instead, written notice specifying the acts and omissions with dates and specific facts, and termination no sooner than seven days if the breach is not cured. Subsection (C) requires the notice within thirty days of the breach or knowledge of it, and (G) confines the owner at trial to the grounds set out in that notice. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4408/1/document.do)
- **NMSA 1978, §§ 47-8-39(A)(4), 47-8-48(C)** (Retaliation: six months of protection, and what triggers it): Bars an owner from increasing rent, decreasing services, or bringing or threatening an action for possession because the resident has within the previous six months "made a fair housing complaint to a government agency charged with authority for enforcement of laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination in rental housing," and § 47-8-48(C) makes the owner liable for two times the monthly rent. The trigger is a complaint to a government agency, asking a landlord for an accommodation does not start the six months. [Text](https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4408/1/document.do)

**Registration myth:** New Mexico has no assistance animal registry, no certificate and no state identification card that does anything for housing. What it has instead is a Service Animal Act that names the emotional support animal in order to exclude it (NMSA 1978, § 28-11-2(B) says a "qualified service animal" "does not include a pet, an emotional support animal, a comfort animal or a therapy animal"), and that exclusion is confined by its own words, "As used in the Service Animal Act," to Chapter 28, Article 11, which does not govern dwellings. So a New Mexico registration certificate is not merely unnecessary; it points at the one body of state law that expressly says the animal is not covered. The document the state's own procedure actually contemplates is different in kind: 9.1.1.8(F)(3) NMAC provides that evidence of a disability "may be provided by the written certification of a physician or other appropriate medical authority." That is a clinical finding, not a membership.

## What New Mexico landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not refuse to rent, or refuse to negotiate, because of a physical or mental disability: NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(G)(1).
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental or in the facilities and services provided with it, § 28-1-7(G)(2). This is the state provision a charge attached to an assistance animal is met by.
- May not use the three-day substantial-violation route over an animal. § 47-8-3(V)'s closed list does not include one. The route is a written seven-day notice and cure under § 47-8-33(A), served within thirty days of the breach or knowledge of it.
- May not raise at trial any ground outside the written notice, § 47-8-33(G).
- May not retaliate by raising rent, cutting services or bringing an action for possession within six months of a fair housing complaint made to a government agency, on pain of liability for two times the monthly rent: §§ 47-8-39(A)(4), 47-8-48(C).

**Can:**
- Must make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services where necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, but under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.204, not under New Mexico law, which imposes that duty only on employers.
- May adopt a no-pets rule only where it is reasonably related to its purpose and applied to all residents fairly, § 47-8-23(B)–(C), and may impose one mid-tenancy only with reasonable notice and only where it does not work a substantial modification of the bargain: § 47-8-23(F).
- May demand only a reasonable deposit, and only to recover damage caused to the premises, § 47-8-18(A). Under a lease shorter than a year the deposit may not exceed one month's rent; under an annual lease anything above one month's rent obliges the owner to pay passbook-rate interest.
- Is outside the state Act only in the narrow cases § 28-1-9 describes: the single-family exemption at (A), with its reservations and its condition that no prohibited advertisement was used, and the separate owner-occupied exemption at (D) for four families. The federal Fair Housing Act draws its own exemptions and is unaffected.

## How to get an ESA letter in New Mexico

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in New Mexico. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for New Mexico clients who reviews your situation in a telehealth evaluation. (Telehealth evaluation)
3. **Complete your evaluation**, The professional evaluates whether an emotional support animal alleviates symptoms of a condition recognized in the DSM-5. Honest evaluations, not everyone qualifies. (Most of Our Applicants Qualify)
4. **Receive your signed letter**, Your letter arrives on the professional's letterhead with their license number: the documentation New Mexico landlords may lawfully request. (Typically within days of approval)
5. **Send it to your landlord**, Submit the letter with a short reasonable-accommodation request. Pet fees, pet deposits, and breed limits no longer apply to your animal in New Mexico. (Protection under FHA + state law)

## Conditions that can qualify for an ESA

No fixed government list exists. A licensed professional evaluates whether an animal alleviates symptoms of a DSM-5-recognized condition, commonly:

- Generalized anxiety disorder
- Major depressive disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Panic disorder
- Social anxiety disorder
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Bipolar disorder
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
- Phobias with housing impact
- Chronic stress affecting daily function

## City guides in New Mexico

- [ESA letters in Albuquerque](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/albuquerque.md)
- [ESA letters in Las Cruces](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/las-cruces.md)
- [ESA letters in Rio Rancho](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/rio-rancho.md)
- [ESA letters in Santa Fe](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/santa-fe.md)
- [ESA letters in Roswell](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/roswell.md)
- [ESA letters in Farmington](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/farmington.md)
- [ESA letters in Hobbs](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/hobbs.md)
- [ESA letters in Clovis](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/clovis.md)
- [ESA letters in Carlsbad](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/carlsbad.md)
- [ESA letters in Alamogordo](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/alamogordo.md)
- [ESA letters in Gallup](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/gallup.md)
- [ESA letters in Los Lunas](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/los-lunas.md)
- [ESA letters in Sunland Park](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/sunland-park.md)
- [ESA letters in Deming](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/deming.md)
- [ESA letters in Las Vegas](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/las-vegas.md)
- [ESA letters in Artesia](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/artesia.md)
- [ESA letters in Portales](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/portales.md)
- [ESA letters in Lovington](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/lovington.md)
- [ESA letters in Española](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/espanola.md)
- [ESA letters in Silver City](https://supportanimal.com/blog/new-mexico-emotional-support-animal/silver-city.md)

## Frequently asked questions

### Does New Mexico law require my landlord to make a reasonable accommodation?

No, and this is the fact most often got wrong about New Mexico. The Human Rights Act's only accommodation duty is NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(J), and it runs against "any employer." The Act's definition of reasonable accommodation, § 28-1-2(V), and the Human Rights Bureau's own rule, 9.1.1.7(X) NMAC, both describe modifications of "the work environment, work schedule, work rules or job responsibilities." The duty that requires a landlord to except an assistance animal from a no-pets rule is federal, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), implemented by 24 C.F.R. § 100.204.

### Then what does New Mexico law add at all?

Three things, and they are worth having. Section 28-1-7(G)(2) makes it unlawful to discriminate in "the terms, conditions or privileges" of a rental because of disability, which reaches a charge attached to a required animal even though it does not compel an exception to a rule. The state forum comes with a 300-day clock under § 28-1-10(A), longer than most. And the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act constrains how a rule may be adopted and enforced, how an eviction over an animal must proceed, and what happens to a landlord who retaliates.

### I found a New Mexico statute saying no additional charges for a service animal. Does it help?

No, and there are two of them, which is why the impression is so durable. Section 28-11-3(A)(1) bars additional charges in the places the Service Animal Act covers, "any building open to the public and to all other public accommodations" and common carriers. Dwellings are not in its scope. Section 28-7-3(C), the White Cane Law, does the same for a guide dog used by a person who is blind. Both are real, both are quotable, and neither reaches a tenancy or an emotional support animal.

### New Mexico's Service Animal Act excludes emotional support animals by name. Does that end it?

No, because of where the exclusion stops. Section 28-11-2(B) provides that a "qualified service animal" "does not include a pet, an emotional support animal, a comfort animal or a therapy animal." But the definition opens "As used in the Service Animal Act," and § 28-11-1.1 defines that Act as the whole of Chapter 28, Article 11. The exclusion governs Article 11 and nothing else. It does not touch § 28-1-7 and it does not touch the federal Fair Housing Act, which is where a housing claim actually lives.

### Does New Mexico cap what a landlord can take as a deposit?

Only under a lease shorter than a year. Section 47-8-18(A)(2) bars a deposit above one month's rent under "a rental agreement of a duration less than one year," month-to-month included. Under an annual agreement, § 47-8-18(A)(1) sets no dollar cap at all, but a deposit above one month's rent obliges the owner to pay the resident annual interest at the passbook rate. Both are bounded by the word "reasonable" in subsection (A), and the section authorises a deposit to recover damage to the premises, not to price a category of tenant.

### Is there a New Mexico statute about pet deposits or pet rent?

There is not one of either kind. A search of the whole New Mexico statutory and regulatory corpus returns no results for "pet deposit," "pet fee" or "pet rent." New Mexico neither authorises a pet charge, as Kansas does, nor forbids one for an assistance animal, as some states do. It is simply silent, which means the route to getting such a charge removed is the federal Fair Housing Act together with § 28-1-7(G)(2).

### How long do I have to file, and when does the clock actually start?

Three hundred days under § 28-1-10(A), raised from 180 in 2005, but the Bureau's own rules qualify it in a way the statute does not show. 9.1.1.8(E)(1) NMAC provides that a complaint is "deemed filed as of the date the perfected complaint is received," and that one missing a listed requirement "shall be returned" before it is perfected. 9.1.1.8(B) NMAC measures from the last alleged act and makes that jurisdictional. A complaint sent in near day 300 and returned for correction is the risk this creates.

### If I ask my landlord for the accommodation, am I protected from retaliation?

Not by that request alone. Section 47-8-39(A)(4) protects a resident who has within the previous six months "made a fair housing complaint to a government agency charged with authority for enforcement of laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination in rental housing." The trigger is a filing with an agency, not a request to the landlord, and subsection (A)(3) does not fill the gap because the accommodation right is not a right under the Owner-Resident Relations Act. Once a complaint is filed, § 47-8-48(C) makes a retaliating owner liable for two times the monthly rent.

### Can I be evicted quickly over the animal?

Not by the fast route. Section 47-8-3(V) defines "substantial violation" (the three-day, no-cure ground), as a closed list of seven kinds of serious conduct and says these "shall be the sole grounds" for one. An animal is not on the list. An owner must instead give written notice under § 47-8-33(A) specifying the acts and omissions with dates and specific facts, allowing seven days to cure, served within thirty days of the breach or knowledge of it under (C), and at trial the owner is confined to the grounds in that notice under (G).

---

Get evaluated by a licensed provider: https://my.supportanimal.com/qualify?sa_source=blog&sa_medium=blog&sa_campaign=esa-guides&sa_content=markdown&ref=blog&sa_term=new-mexico-emotional-support-animal