Criminal History in Tenant Screening: The Compliance Guide

Criminal history can be one of the most useful signals in tenant screening — and one of the most legally dangerous to misuse. Two bodies of law govern it: the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which controls how you obtain and act on a background report, and fair-housing law, which limits how criminal records may factor into who you rent to. That second body of law changed: HUD’s 2016 criminal-records guidance was withdrawn effective September 25, 2025 and has no successor, so what governs is the Fair Housing Act itself, the discriminatory-effects rule at 24 CFR section 100.500, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Inclusive Communities. On top of both sits a fast-growing patchwork of state and local fair-chance laws. This guide shows you how to use criminal history the right way — screen on convictions with a real safety nexus, assess applicants individually, keep the policy written and consistent, and send a proper adverse-action notice — so you make safer leasing decisions without inviting a discrimination complaint.

The stakes are real. A landlord who runs a blanket “no criminal record” rule, denies someone over a decades-old or non-conviction record, or skips the required notices is not just being unfair — they are exposed to a Fair Housing Act complaint, FCRA liability, and, in a growing number of cities, a local fair-chance violation with its own penalties. The good news is that the compliant path is also the smarter one: it screens out genuine safety risks while giving qualified applicants a fair look, which is exactly what a defensible policy and a good screening partner are built to do.

Below, a short overview video frames the issue; the sections that follow walk through what a criminal check shows, the FCRA rules, what actually governs fair-housing-wise now that HUD’s 2016 guidance has been withdrawn, the fair-chance-law wave, what you can and cannot consider, how to write a defensible policy, the step-by-step adverse-action process, the mistakes that trigger complaints, and how a professional screening service keeps the whole thing compliant.

Landlords look at criminal history for a straightforward reason: they are responsible for the safety of a building and its residents, and they want to avoid handing a unit to someone who poses a genuine risk to neighbors or property. Used correctly, a criminal background check is a legitimate part of that duty. Used as a blunt instrument, it becomes a fair-housing liability and screens out far more qualified applicants than actual threats. The whole art of this topic is learning to keep the safety benefit while shedding the legal risk.

It helps to know what a criminal background check in a tenant screening report typically surfaces — and what it does not. A thorough report draws on county, state, and national criminal databases and, where lawful, sex-offender registry data.

The crucial distinction runs through that entire table: a conviction is a court’s finding of guilt, while an arrest is only an allegation. That difference is not a technicality — it is the legal line that separates a defensible screening decision from a discrimination claim, and it drives almost everything that follows. For the broader menu of what a full report includes beyond criminal data, see our guide on screening a rental applicant end to end.

Any time you obtain a criminal history report on an applicant through a screening company, that report is a “consumer report” and you are bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA is not about whether the applicant is a good tenant — it is about handling the report lawfully. Four duties matter most, and our FCRA landlord guide covers all of them in depth.

1. Permissible Purpose and Signed Authorization

Screening an applicant for a tenancy is a recognized permissible purpose, so you are allowed to pull the report. The FCRA’s clear, standalone disclosure-and-authorization rule (15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)) is an employment-screening rule; it does not govern tenant screening. For a report that includes credit, the applicant’s signed authorization is required; a background-only report (no credit) needs no signature.

2. The Seven-Year Reporting Limits

The FCRA, in the provision known as Section 1681c, restricts how far back a screening company may report certain adverse items. As a general rule, arrests and other non-conviction records that did not lead to a conviction may not be reported after seven years. Convictions are the key exception — the federal statute places no time limit on reporting a criminal conviction, so an old conviction can lawfully appear on a report. That is exactly why recency belongs in your own judgment even when the law would let the record be reported: many states and cities impose shorter windows, and a stale conviction rarely predicts present risk.

3. The Adverse-Action Notice

If you deny an applicant, charge a higher deposit, require a co-signer, or take any other adverse step based even in part on the report, the FCRA requires you to give an adverse-action notice. That notice must tell the applicant of the decision, identify the screening company that furnished the report (name, address, and phone number), state clearly that the screening company did not make the decision, and inform the applicant of the right to a free copy of the report within sixty days and the right to dispute anything inaccurate. Our dedicated guide on the adverse-action notice for landlords walks through the wording and timing.

4. Accuracy and the Applicant’s Dispute Rights

Criminal records are notorious for mismatches — common names, missing dispositions, records that belong to someone else. The FCRA gives applicants the right to dispute inaccurate information, and a responsible screening company maintains procedures to keep its data current and to reinvestigate disputes. As a landlord, you should never treat a raw hit as final truth; give the applicant the chance the adverse-action process is designed to provide before you close the door.

Start with what changed. The FCRA tells you how to handle the report; the Fair Housing Act tells you how you may use it. For a decade the standard reference on that second question was HUD’s Office of General Counsel guidance on the use of criminal records, issued April 4, 2016. That document was withdrawn effective September 25, 2025, announced in the Federal Register notice Notice of the Withdrawal of OGC Guidance Documents (Docket No. FR-6617-N-01, 91 FR 44867, published July 17, 2026). HUD’s own words are unambiguous: the withdrawn documents “have been removed from active use and should not be relied upon as authoritative.” No successor guidance has been issued — the notice says only that new guidance will be issued where necessary and appropriate. Any article that still presents the 2016 guidance as the governing standard is out of date. Our Fair Housing Act landlord guide puts the change in the broader fair-housing context.

The Fair Housing Act Itself Is Unchanged

Forty-two U.S.C. section 3601 and following is a statute. An agency withdrawing its own sub-regulatory interpretation cannot touch it, and did not. The Act still protects race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability, and a criminal-screening policy that produces an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected group can still draw a HUD complaint or a private lawsuit. Intent has never been required.

The Operative Rule Is 24 CFR Section 100.500

HUD’s discriminatory-effects rule at 24 CFR section 100.500 supplies the actual test, and it is in force — reinstated effective May 1, 2023. It is a burden-shifting litigation standard, in three steps:

1. Step (c)(1). The charging party or plaintiff must prove the challenged practice caused, or predictably will cause, a discriminatory effect.
2. Step (c)(2). The burden then shifts to the housing provider to prove the practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests. Under section 100.500(b)(2) that justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative.
3. Step (c)(3). The charging party or plaintiff may still prevail by proving those interests could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect.

Read the rule closely and one thing is conspicuous by its absence: section 100.500 imposes no individualized-assessment step, no pre-denial notice, and no waiting period. Those requirements came from the withdrawn guidance. Where they genuinely bind a landlord today, they bind through state or local fair-chance law, not through federal regulation.

Section 100.500 Is Itself Under Challenge

HUD has proposed to remove the discriminatory-effects regulation, “leaving to courts questions related to interpretations of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act.” A notice of proposed rulemaking was published January 14, 2026 (Docket FR-6540-P-01), and a supplemental proposed rule published August 10, 2026 (Docket FR-6540-P-02) reopened the comment period through October 9, 2026. A proposal is not a rule, and nothing has changed yet. Section 100.500 is in force today and under challenge at the same time; it is wrong to write either that it has been removed or that the question is settled.

What HUD Cannot Undo: Inclusive Communities

Whatever HUD does with its own regulation, disparate-impact liability under the Fair Housing Act rests on the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), which held such claims cognizable as a matter of statutory interpretation of the Act. HUD cannot overrule a Supreme Court construction of a statute, and its own proposal concedes the point by choosing to leave the question to the courts. A private disparate-impact claim against a blanket criminal-record ban survives all of this. The decision cuts both ways, though, and an honest reading says so: it requires a robust causality showing, holds that a racial imbalance does not without more establish a prima facie case, and requires the plaintiff to point to the specific policy causing the disparity.

Arrest Records Stand on Independent FCRA Footing

The rule never to screen on an arrest that produced no conviction does not need the 2016 guidance at all. An arrest is an allegation, not evidence that any conduct occurred, and the FCRA’s reporting limits at fifteen U.S.C. section 1681c independently keep most non-conviction items off a consumer report. Screen on convictions.

Blanket Bans Remain the Highest-Risk Policy

A policy that automatically excludes every applicant with any conviction — regardless of what the offense was, how serious it was, or how long ago it happened — is the hardest policy to defend at step (c)(2). It sweeps in minor and ancient offenses that say nothing about present risk, and section 100.500(b)(2) forbids justifying it on a hypothetical or speculative safety rationale. Because criminal records fall unevenly across racial and national-origin groups, such a policy is a textbook discriminatory-effects target. The safer replacement is a policy that looks at the specific offense and its connection to the tenancy.

Nexus, and Where the Assessment Duty Really Comes From

The practical through-line is nexus: any use of criminal history should connect to a real resident-safety or property-protection interest, because that is precisely what a landlord must prove at step (c)(2). The question is never merely “does this person have a record?” but “does this specific offense create a genuine risk to this property, and can I prove it?” An individualized, documented assessment is the strongest defensible practice available and the best evidence a landlord can put in front of a factfinder. Where a procedure is actually mandatory — a conditional offer first, a written notice, a set number of days to respond — it comes from a state or local fair-chance law, which the next section covers.

Federal law sets a floor; a growing number of states, counties, and cities build far above it. “Fair-chance” or “ban-the-box” housing laws limit how and when a landlord may consider criminal history — and some go much further than federal law ever did. This is the fastest-moving corner of the topic, and the single most important practical rule is simple: check your local law before you build your policy, because your city may forbid something federal law permits.

The specific requirements vary widely, but they tend to fall into a few families of restriction:

Read that table as a trend, not a checklist. The examples above capture the general direction of each law, but the details — exact lookback periods, which offenses may be considered, what notice you owe, and whether an individualized assessment is mandatory — change as these ordinances are amended and as new ones pass. Do not rely on a summary to run your business; confirm the current rule in the state, county, and city where the unit sits. Where a local ordinance conflicts with the federal floor, the stricter local rule almost always controls.

Pulling the federal floor and the fair-housing standard together produces a workable line between defensible and dangerous uses of criminal history. Nothing here overrides a stricter local law, but as a baseline the distinction looks like this.

The pattern is consistent: the safe side rests on a specific, recent, safety-relevant conviction assessed individually and applied uniformly; the dangerous side rests on arrests, blanket rules, stale or cleared records, and irregular treatment. Applicants who screen as strong on everything else deserve the individualized look before criminal history alone decides the outcome — and the same red-flag discipline you apply elsewhere on the application, covered in our guide to red flags on a rental application, applies here too.

The best protection against a fair-housing complaint is a written policy you follow every time. A consistent, nexus-based, individualized policy is not only lawful — it is the record you point to if a decision is ever questioned. Build yours around these elements.

Put It in Writing

Document exactly which offenses you will consider, the lookback period you apply, and the assessment steps you follow. A written policy proves the decision was systematic, not arbitrary, and gives every staff member the same standard to apply. An unwritten policy is, in practice, no policy at all.

Define a Relevant Lookback Window

Rather than looking back indefinitely, set a reasonable window keyed to the seriousness of the offense and shaped by your state and local law. Older, minor offenses should generally drop out of consideration. Recency is a legitimate, defensible filter that also keeps you out of trouble with the many jurisdictions that cap how far back you may look.

Require Individualized Assessment

Bake the individualized assessment into the policy itself, so it happens automatically rather than as an afterthought. Before any denial based on a