# ESA Letter in North Dakota: The Law Says What It Must Say

> NDCC 47-16-07.5 sets who may write a North Dakota ESA letter and what it must confirm. NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) keeps the pet deposit off the animal by name.

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

**Summary:** North Dakota is the state that stopped leaving the assistance animal to inference. Most states give a tenant a general prohibition on disability discrimination and let the animal, the documentation and the fee be argued out from it. North Dakota legislated all three, in three consecutive sections of its landlord-tenant code. NDCC 47-16-07.5 says what supporting documentation a landlord may require and who may write it, "a physician or medical professional who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals", and requires that it confirm "the tenant's disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation." NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) permits a pet security deposit only for "an animal that is not a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws." NDCC 47-16-07.6 makes a knowingly false claim an infraction. The housing right itself sits in NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b), the state twin of the federal reasonable-accommodation duty, and not in the Human Rights Act, whose housing sections were repealed in 1999 and 2001.

## Most states leave it to inference. North Dakota wrote it down.

Work through the states in this corpus and a pattern repeats. The legislature bans disability
discrimination in housing, says nothing whatever about animals, and leaves a tenant to reason from
a general prohibition to a specific animal in a specific apartment. Kansas is the pure case: three
statutes promise "without being required to pay an extra charge" and all three belong to trained
dogs, so the emotional support animal gets there by a three-step argument or not at all.

North Dakota did something else. Three consecutive sections of its
landlord-tenant code: **NDCC 47-16-07.5, 47-16-07.1(2) and 47-16-07.6**:
name the documentation, name the fee, and name the penalty for faking it.
Not one of them requires the animal to be trained. Not one of them mentions
a registry. Taken together they are the most specific statutory treatment of
an assistance animal in rental housing anywhere in this corpus.

That specificity cuts both ways, which is the honest thing to say about it.
A statute that describes what a letter must contain is also a statute a
landlord can hold a letter up against.

## What NDCC 47-16-07.5 actually requires

> "A landlord may require reliable supporting documentation be provided by a tenant of a rental
> dwelling that is subject to a no pets policy, if the tenant asserts a disability requiring a
> service animal or assistance animal be allowed as an accommodation on the rented premises under
> any provision of law. **Reliable supporting documentation may be provided by a physician or
> medical professional who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for
> service or assistance animals. Reliable supporting documentation must confirm the tenant's
> disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested
> accommodation.** A landlord may not require supporting documentation from a tenant if the
> tenant's disability or disability-related need for a service animal or assistance animal is
> readily apparent or already known to the landlord."

Three requirements and one protection, in four sentences.

**The writer** must be "a physician or medical professional." Note the phrase. It is broader than
the "licensed mental health professional" other states use and it should be quoted rather than
translated.

**The exclusion** is the sentence people read backwards, so read it slowly: the documentation may
come from a professional *who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for
service or assistance animals*. That excludes an operation whose entire business in North Dakota
is issuing certificates. It does **not** require a North Dakota licence, and nothing in the
section requires an in-person visit. A clinician licensed elsewhere who conducts a genuine
evaluation is squarely inside the sentence. "North Dakota requires a North Dakota provider" is the
most common way to get this wrong, and it is wrong.

**The content** is two findings, not one: the documentation "must confirm the tenant's disability
**and** the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested
accommodation." The second finding is the one that gets skipped. A document asserting that
somebody has a condition, without connecting the condition to the animal, is short of what the
statute describes, and the connection is the part that requires a professional to have actually
formed a view.

**The protection** is the last sentence. Where the disability or the disability-related need is
"readily apparent or already known to the landlord," documentation may not be required at all.

## The pet deposit, carved out by name

Kansas needed an argument about the word "permits." North Dakota needed no argument:

> "A lessor may charge a lessee a pet security deposit for keeping an animal **that is not a
> service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable
> accommodation under fair housing laws**. A pet security deposit may not exceed the greater of
> two thousand five hundred dollars or an amount equivalent to two months' rent."

The pet deposit exists for animals that are not yours. That is the whole of
it: NDCC 47-16-07.1(2), one sentence, no inference required.

Two numbers in that section get transposed constantly, so keep them apart.
The **ordinary** security deposit cap is **one month's rent** under
47-16-07.1(1), rising to two months only in two narrow cases: as an
incentive to rent to someone with a felony conviction, or where a judgment
has been entered against a tenant for breaching a previous rental agreement.
The **pet** deposit cap is **the greater of $2,500 or two months' rent**: a
larger figure than the ordinary cap, and "the greater," not the lesser. On a
$1,600 unit two months is $3,200, so the pet cap there is $3,200.

Neither cap is your problem if the animal is an accommodation, because
subsection 2 excludes it.

What is not excluded is damage. NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)(a) still lets a lessor apply the deposit to
damage caused by an animal or by a tenant's negligence. The carve-out removes the charge taken in
advance; it does not remove the bill for a chewed door. Against that, 47-16-07.1(3) gives the
lessor **thirty days** after termination and delivery of possession to itemize anything kept, and
47-16-07.1(4) makes a lessor "liable for **treble damages** for any security deposit money withheld
without reasonable justification." That is a real remedy, and stronger than most states here offer.

⚠️ One thing the deposit statute does not reach is **monthly pet rent**. NDCC 47-16-07.1 governs
security deposits "however denominated," and a recurring monthly premium is a term of the tenancy
rather than a deposit. The argument against pet rent for an assistance animal runs through
**NDCC 14-02.5-06(2)** (discrimination in "the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental
because of disability), and through 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). That one is reasoning, not
pointing, and it is worth knowing the difference.

## The chapter that isn't there any more

Search for North Dakota housing discrimination law and the North Dakota
Human Rights Act, NDCC ch. 14-02.4, comes up first. It is the wrong chapter,
and the code says so in plain type:

> "**14-02.4-12. Discriminatory housing practices by owner or agent.** Repealed by S.L. 1999, ch.
> 134, § 4.
> **14-02.4-12.1. Discriminatory housing practices.** Repealed by S.L. 2001, ch. 145, § 14.
> **14-02.4-13. Discriminatory housing practice by financial institution or lender.** Repealed by
> S.L. 1999, ch. 134, § 4."

Housing moved to **NDCC ch. 14-02.5, the Housing Discrimination Act**. Two further tells confirm
it if the repeal notes were not enough: 14-02.4's own definition of "discriminatory practice"
omits housing from its list, and its definition of "reasonable accommodations" is employment-only,
running to accommodations "by an employer."

The operative provision is **NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b)**, and it is the federal duty in state words:

> "A refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services if the
> accommodation may be necessary to afford the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
> dwelling."

No animal named. No training required. A no-pets policy is a rule; the accommodation is an
exception to it. Its honest other half sits at 14-02.5-06(6): nothing requires a dwelling be made
available where the tenancy "would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other
individuals" or "would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others."

## What North Dakota's service-animal definition does and does not do

Montana wrote the emotional support animal out of its service-animal
definition by name, and every Montana argument has to route around that
sentence. North Dakota did not.

**NDCC 25-13-01.1** does define a service animal as a trained dog. But it opens with the words
**"For purposes of this chapter,"** and chapter 25-13's operative right runs to public
accommodations, common carriers, health care facilities and places the public is generally
invited. **Dwellings are not on that list.** The definition never arrives at housing.

Meanwhile the housing chapters use "assistance animal" and "companion
animal", five times and once respectively, and define **neither**. So no
North Dakota definition shuts an emotional support animal out of rental
housing, and none of these three phrases should be presented as a fixed
statutory term outside chapter 25-13.

## Two exemptions, two thresholds, and one that reaches you

NDCC 14-02.5-09 has two, and merging them is the standard error.

**Subsection 2** is the owner-occupied exemption: a dwelling occupied or intended for **not more
than four families** living independently, where the owner occupies one of the units. It exempts
"section 14-02.5-02 and sections 14-02.5-04 through 14-02.5-08", a list that **includes
14-02.5-06**. A tenant in a genuinely exempt owner-occupied fourplex has no *state*
reasonable-accommodation claim.

**Subsection 1** is narrower than its opening suggests: a single-family house, an owner of not
more than three of them, no broker or agent, no prohibited advertisement, and it applies to only
**one sale or rental in a twenty-four-month period** where the owner was not the most recent
resident. Anyone who owns a dwelling built for five or more families is "in the business" and
cannot use it at all.

Two things survive either exemption. The **federal Fair Housing Act** has
its own, differently drawn exemptions and its own advertising rule. And
**chapter 47-16 is not part of chapter 14-02.5**, so the pet-deposit
carve-out in 47-16-07.1(2) and the documentation rule in 47-16-07.5 are not
switched off by 14-02.5-09 at all.

## One year, and then two

**NDCC 14-02.5-18(1):** a complaint "must be filed on or before the first anniversary of the date
the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurs or terminates, whichever is later."

One year. Not the 180 days and not the 300 days that a search will surface.
Those are NDCC 14-02.4-19, the Human Rights Act, governing public services,
public accommodations and employment.

And there is a second door. **NDCC 14-02.5-39** allows a civil action within
**two years** of the occurrence or termination of the practice, tolled while
an administrative proceeding is pending, and available whether or not a
complaint was ever filed with the department. Agency and court are
alternatives here, not a sequence.

## There is no card, and buying one is the offence

North Dakota has no assistance-animal registry, no certificate, no database
and no state identification card for housing. NDCC 47-16-07.5 asks for
documentation from a physician or medical professional. The only photo
credential in the code is 25-13-02.1's trainer identification, issued by a
private training program for a service dog in public places, and chapter
25-13 does not reach dwellings. There is no administrative rule either:
Title 46 of the North Dakota Administrative Code has exactly one housing
article, Housing for Older Persons, and the word "animal" does not appear in
it.

Which makes **NDCC 47-16-07.6** worth reading before buying anything. Knowingly making a false
disability claim, or knowingly providing fraudulent supporting documentation, to obtain an
accommodation under 47-16-07.5, is an **infraction**, North Dakota's lowest offence grade, and it
should not be described as anything heavier. Subsection 2 adds an eviction right and a damage fee
of up to a thousand dollars, but only "**if the individual pleads guilty or is convicted of an
offense under subsection 1**." A landlord who merely doubts a letter has no statutory fee. The gate
is a criminal adjudication and the element is **knowingly**.

## What has to happen first

North Dakota has written down the standard, which makes the first step
unusually legible: a physician or medical professional has to confirm a
disability, and confirm the relationship between that disability and the
need for this animal. Everything downstream (the deposit carve-out, the
accommodation duty, the one-year clock), assumes those two findings exist.

Start with a clinician who already treats you, if there is one. That is the
cheapest and strongest route and it should be tried first. Its friction is
real, though, and worth naming: North Dakota's specialist mental-health
capacity is concentrated in Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks and Minot, waits in
the rural west and around Devils Lake run long, 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 both
findings, or says plainly that they will not. Both endings are real, and a
provider whose answer is settled before the appointment is selling the
certificate that 47-16-07.5's exclusion clause was written about.

The statute describes a document that reports a professional judgment. The
only way to hold one is for the judgment to have been made.

## Key statutes

- **NDCC 47-16-07.5** (Disability documentation for service or assistance animal in rental dwelling): Permits a landlord to require reliable supporting documentation from a tenant of a rental dwelling subject to a no-pets policy who asserts a disability requiring a service or assistance animal. Sets three conditions on that documentation: it may be provided by "a physician or medical professional who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals," and it "must confirm the tenant's disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation." The final sentence bars a landlord from requiring documentation at all where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known. Note the exclusion is a double negative. It does not require a North Dakota provider, it excludes a certification mill. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c16.pdf)
- **NDCC 47-16-07.1(2)** (Pet security deposit: assistance animals carved out by name): Permits a lessor to charge a pet security deposit "for keeping an animal that is not a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws," capped at "the greater of two thousand five hundred dollars or an amount equivalent to two months' rent." The carve-out is by name rather than by inference, which is what separates North Dakota from states where a tenant has to argue the fee off from a general discrimination provision. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c16.pdf)
- **NDCC 47-16-07.1(1)** (Security deposit limit: one month's rent): Bars a lessor from demanding or receiving security, however denominated, in excess of one month's rent, with two exceptions: up to two months from an individual convicted of a felony offense as an incentive to rent, and up to two months from an individual with a judgment entered against them for violating a previous rental agreement. The deposit must sit in a federally insured interest-bearing account for the tenant's benefit. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c16.pdf)
- **NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)–(4)** (Itemization within thirty days, and treble damages): Requires a lessor who keeps any part of a deposit to itemize the application and deliver or mail it with the amount due within thirty days after termination of the lease and delivery of possession. Subsection 4 makes a lessor "liable for treble damages for any security deposit money withheld without reasonable justification." Subsection 3(a) separately allows the deposit to be applied to damage caused by the lessee's pet or the lessee's negligence, so the carve-out in subsection 2 removes the charge in advance and not the bill for actual damage. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c16.pdf)
- **NDCC 47-16-07.6** (Penalties for furnishing fraudulent disability documentation): Makes it an infraction to knowingly make a false claim of a disability requiring a service or assistance animal, or to knowingly provide fraudulent supporting documentation, in an attempt to obtain an accommodation under 47-16-07.5. Subsection 2 gives a lessor an eviction right and a damage fee not exceeding one thousand dollars, but only "if the individual pleads guilty or is convicted of an offense under subsection 1." The element is knowledge, and the consequence is gated on a criminal adjudication. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c16.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b)** (Refusal to make a reasonable accommodation): Provides that discrimination on the basis of disability includes "a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services if the accommodation may be necessary to afford the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." This is the state-law twin of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). It names no animal, requires no training and creates no registry. A no-pets policy is a rule; the accommodation is an exception to it. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-06(6)** (Direct threat: the limit on the accommodation duty): Provides that the section "does not require a dwelling to be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others." It is the honest other half of the accommodation duty and belongs on the same page as the duty itself. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-06(2)** (Terms, conditions or privileges of a rental): Bars discrimination against an individual "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of a disability of that individual." This is the provision that reaches a recurring monthly pet charge, which the deposit statute does not address by name: 47-16-07.1 governs security deposits, however denominated, and a monthly rent premium is a term of the tenancy rather than a deposit. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-09(2)** (Owner-occupied exemption: not more than four families): Exempts from section 14-02.5-02 and sections 14-02.5-04 through 14-02.5-08 the rental of rooms or units in a dwelling occupied or intended to be occupied by not more than four families living independently, where the owner maintains and occupies one of the living quarters as a residence. That section range includes 14-02.5-06, so a genuinely exempt owner-occupied fourplex is outside the state accommodation duty. It skips 14-02.5-03, so the advertising prohibition still applies, and chapter 47-16 is not part of chapter 14-02.5, so the pet-deposit carve-out is not switched off by this exemption. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-09(1)** (Single-family exemption: three houses, one rental in twenty-four months): Exempts sections 14-02.5-02 through 14-02.5-08 for a single-family house sold or rented by an owner who owns no more than three such houses, without a broker or agent and without a notice or advertisement prohibited by 14-02.5-03. The exemption applies to only one sale or rental in a twenty-four-month period where the owner was not the most recent resident, and is unavailable to anyone who owns a dwelling designed for five or more families. It is a narrower exemption than its first clause suggests. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-18(1)** (Complaint deadline: one year): Requires that a housing discrimination complaint "must be filed on or before the first anniversary of the date the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurs or terminates, whichever is later." The 180-day and 300-day periods in NDCC 14-02.4-19 belong to the Human Rights Act and govern public services, public accommodations and employment, not housing. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 14-02.5-39** (Private right of action: two years, no exhaustion required): Allows an aggrieved person to commence a civil action within two years of the occurrence or termination of the discriminatory housing practice, tolled while an administrative proceeding is pending, and available whether or not a complaint has been filed with the department. The agency route and the court route are two doors rather than a sequence. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-5.pdf)
- **NDCC 25-13-01.1** ("Service animal" defined: for purposes of that chapter only): Defines a service animal as a dog trained to do work, perform tasks or provide assistance for an individual with a disability, but opens with the words "For purposes of this chapter," and chapter 25-13's operative right runs to public accommodations, common carriers, health care facilities and places the public is generally invited. Dwellings are not in that list. North Dakota's housing chapters use "assistance animal" and "companion animal" and define neither, so no North Dakota definition excludes an emotional support animal from housing. [Text](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t25c13.pdf)
- **42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)** (Fair Housing Act: federal reasonable accommodation duty): 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. It runs alongside NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b) in the same words and carries its own exemptions, so it remains available to a tenant whose landlord is exempt under NDCC 14-02.5-09. [Text](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title42/html/USCODE-2023-title42-chap45-subchapI-sec3604.htm)

**Registration myth:** North Dakota has no assistance animal registry, no certificate, no database and no state identification card for housing. NDCC 47-16-07.5 asks for documentation from a physician or medical professional, not a card, not a number, not a membership. The one photo credential anywhere in the code is NDCC 25-13-02.1's trainer identification, issued by a private training program for a service dog in public places, and chapter 25-13 does not reach dwellings at all. There is no North Dakota Administrative Code rule on assistance animals either: Title 46's only housing article is Housing for Older Persons, and the word animal does not appear in it. So every site selling a North Dakota registration is selling nothing, and buying one is closer to the fact pattern NDCC 47-16-07.6 describes than to compliance with 47-16-07.5.

## What North Dakota landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not refuse a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services where the accommodation may be necessary to afford an individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b).
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, or in the services and facilities provided with it: NDCC 14-02.5-06(2).
- May not charge a pet security deposit for a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws, NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) excludes that animal by name.
- May not demand or receive security, however denominated, in excess of one month's rent, except for a felony-conviction incentive or where a judgment has been entered for violating a previous rental agreement: NDCC 47-16-07.1(1).
- May not require that the documentation come from a North Dakota clinician. The statute excludes a provider who operates in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals; it does not require an in-state one, NDCC 47-16-07.5.
- May not claim the thousand-dollar damage fee or the eviction right in NDCC 47-16-07.6(2) on suspicion alone. Both arise only if the tenant pleads guilty to or is convicted of the subsection 1 infraction.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where the dwelling is subject to a no-pets policy (but not where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known), NDCC 47-16-07.5.
- Must itemize any part of a deposit kept and deliver or mail it within thirty days after termination of the lease and delivery of possession, and is liable for treble damages for money withheld without reasonable justification, NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)–(4).
- May still apply the deposit to damage actually caused by an animal or by the tenant's negligence, NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)(a). The carve-out removes the charge in advance, not the bill for real damage.
- May decline where the tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, NDCC 14-02.5-06(6).
- Is outside the state accommodation duty only in the narrow cases NDCC 14-02.5-09 describes: an owner-occupied dwelling of not more than four families, or a single-family house let by an owner of no more than three, without a broker, once in twenty-four months. The federal Fair Housing Act and chapter 47-16 are unaffected by that exemption.

## How to get an ESA letter in North Dakota

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in North Dakota. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for North Dakota 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 North Dakota 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 North Dakota. (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 North Dakota

- [ESA letters in Fargo](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/fargo.md)
- [ESA letters in Bismarck](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/bismarck.md)
- [ESA letters in Grand Forks](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/grand-forks.md)
- [ESA letters in Minot](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/minot.md)
- [ESA letters in West Fargo](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/west-fargo.md)
- [ESA letters in Williston](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/williston.md)
- [ESA letters in Dickinson](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/dickinson.md)
- [ESA letters in Mandan](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/mandan.md)
- [ESA letters in Jamestown](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/jamestown.md)
- [ESA letters in Wahpeton](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/wahpeton.md)
- [ESA letters in Devils Lake](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/devils-lake.md)
- [ESA letters in Valley City](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/valley-city.md)
- [ESA letters in Horace](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/horace.md)
- [ESA letters in Watford City](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/watford-city.md)
- [ESA letters in Lincoln](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/lincoln.md)
- [ESA letters in Grafton](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/grafton.md)
- [ESA letters in Beulah](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/beulah.md)
- [ESA letters in New Town](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/new-town.md)
- [ESA letters in Casselton](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/casselton.md)
- [ESA letters in Rugby](https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/rugby.md)

## Frequently asked questions

### Does North Dakota law actually say what an ESA letter has to contain?

Yes, and few states do. NDCC 47-16-07.5 says reliable supporting documentation "may be provided by a physician or medical professional who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals," and that it "must confirm the tenant's disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation." Two findings, not one: that a disability exists, and that this animal answers it. A document that asserts the first and skips the second is short of what the statute describes.

### Do I need a North Dakota clinician to write it?

No, and the statute is easy to read backwards on this point. NDCC 47-16-07.5 excludes a provider "who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals": the target is an operation that exists only to issue certificates, not an out-of-state licence. A clinician licensed elsewhere who conducts a real evaluation is inside the sentence. Nothing in the retrieved text requires North Dakota licensure or an in-person visit.

### Can a North Dakota landlord charge a pet deposit for my emotional support animal?

No. NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) permits a pet security deposit only "for keeping an animal that is not a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws." The animal is carved out by name rather than by argument, which is unusual, most states leave a tenant reasoning from a general discrimination provision. The cap that subsection sets, the greater of $2,500 or two months' rent, applies to pets and not to your animal at all.

### What about monthly pet rent rather than a deposit?

That runs through a different provision. NDCC 47-16-07.1 governs security deposits, however denominated, so a recurring monthly charge is not addressed by name in it. The argument against pet rent for an assistance animal is NDCC 14-02.5-06(2), which bars discrimination in "the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental because of disability, together with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). That is reasoning from a general prohibition rather than a sentence you can point at, and it is worth knowing which of the two you have.

### How long do I have to file a housing complaint in North Dakota?

One year. NDCC 14-02.5-18(1) requires a complaint "on or before the first anniversary of the date the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurs or terminates, whichever is later." Ignore the 180-day and 300-day figures that turn up in searches. Those are NDCC 14-02.4-19, the Human Rights Act, and they govern public services, public accommodations and employment rather than housing. Separately, NDCC 14-02.5-39 allows a civil action within two years, and it does not require going through the department first.

### Which North Dakota chapter is the housing right actually in?

Chapter 14-02.5, the Housing Discrimination Act. This matters because the obvious answer is wrong: the North Dakota Human Rights Act's housing sections (14-02.4-12, 14-02.4-12.1 and 14-02.4-13) were repealed in 1999 and 2001 and the chapter now prints the word "Repealed" where they stood. Its definition of reasonable accommodation is also employment-only, running to accommodations "by an employer." A citation to 14-02.4 in a housing letter tells the reader on the other side that the letter was not checked.

### Does North Dakota's service animal definition exclude emotional support animals?

Not from housing. NDCC 25-13-01.1 defines a service animal as a trained dog, but it opens "For purposes of this chapter," and chapter 25-13's right runs to public accommodations, common carriers, health care facilities and places the public is invited, dwellings are not on that list. The housing chapters use "assistance animal" and "companion animal" and define neither. So unlike Montana, which wrote the emotional support animal out of its service-animal definition by name, North Dakota leaves the housing door open.

### Can my landlord fine me a thousand dollars if they think my letter is fake?

Not on suspicion. NDCC 47-16-07.6(1) makes it an infraction (North Dakota's lowest offence grade), to knowingly make a false disability claim or knowingly provide fraudulent documentation. Subsection 2's eviction right and damage fee of up to one thousand dollars arise only "if the individual pleads guilty or is convicted of an offense under subsection 1." The gate is a criminal adjudication, and the element is knowledge, which is why what matters is whether a licensed professional actually made the findings.

---

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=north-dakota-emotional-support-animal