Pets and Rental Homes: What the Data Shows, and What We’re Seeing in Upstate SC

Rising Utility Costs Are Becoming a Bigger Part of the Rental Conversation in the Upstate

May 16, 2026

Benefits of Multi-Property Ownership

May 27, 2026

Published by Clayton Jones on May 21, 2026

Pet ownership is now part of the rental housing conversation

Pet ownership is widespread across the country. The American Pet Products Association reported that 95 million U.S. households owned at least one pet in 2025. Dog ownership reached 53% of U.S. households, while cat ownership reached 39%.

That matters for rental housing because many pet owners are not homeowners. Zillow’s 2025 renter data found that 59% of renter households reported having at least one pet. That same report found renter households were more likely to include a pet than a child.

This helps explain what we are seeing locally. For many renters, pets are not an optional lifestyle feature. They are part of the household. When a rental listing does not allow pets, or when the pet policy is vague, a large portion of the renter pool may hesitate before ever scheduling a showing.

Zillow also reported that rental listings allowing pets were typically leased eight days faster, based on an analysis of more than 11 million rental listings. The same Zillow analysis found that nearly half of renters said they had passed on a property because it was not pet-friendly.

In our experience, this is not just a national trend. It shows up in the normal flow of rental inquiries in the Upstate. Homes with a clearly stated pet policy tend to generate more usable interest. Homes that do not allow pets can lose qualified prospects quickly, especially when renters have already filtered their search around pet-friendly housing.

Why this matters in the Upstate rental market

The Upstate continues to grow, and that growth affects rental demand. According to Census QuickFacts, Greenville County increased from a 2020 base of 525,549 people to an estimated 583,125 in 2025. Anderson County increased from a 2020 base of 203,721 to an estimated 219,930 in 2025.

Greenville-Anderson was also named one of the National Association of REALTORS’ 2025 housing hot spots, with NAR pointing to factors such as available inventory, net migration, income growth for young adults, and affordability conditions.

Those broader housing conditions matter because renters in growing markets often make practical tradeoffs. Some households may be renting longer before buying. Others may be relocating into the area and looking for flexibility before committing to a home purchase. Some are families, some are working professionals, and many are bringing pets with them.

In that environment, pet policy becomes part of how a rental home competes.

This is especially true for single-family homes. Zillow’s 2025 renter report found that 28% of renters live in single-family detached homes, while 6% live in duplexes or triplexes. Among renters deciding whether to rent a property, “allows pets” was considered essential by 65% of renters overall and 73% of renters in single-family detached homes.

That lines up closely with what we see in the Upstate. Pet owners often prefer single-family homes because they offer more room, more privacy, and fewer shared-wall concerns than many apartments or duplexes. A fenced yard can be especially attractive because it gives the pet more room to exercise and makes the daily routine easier for the tenant.

That can also benefit the owner. A well-exercised pet is often less likely to create issues inside the home. While no policy removes all risk, the property layout can make a difference.

At the same time, we are also seeing more pet-related questions on duplexes and small multifamily rentals. Pet demand is not limited to larger single-family homes. Even when the property type is smaller, renters still want clarity before they apply.

The hidden cost of a restrictive or unclear pet policy

For rental owners, the most obvious risk of allowing pets is potential damage. The less obvious risk of not allowing pets is reduced demand.

When a home is not pet-friendly, we often have to disqualify interested renters immediately. That does not mean those renters were unqualified. It means the home was not a fit because of the pet policy. Over time, that can reduce the lead base and make the listing more dependent on a narrower group of applicants.

An unclear pet policy can also slow the process. If the listing does not say whether pets are allowed, what types of pets are considered, or what fees apply, the leasing team may spend time answering questions from renters who are trying to decide whether applying is worth the effort.

That is why clarity matters. A pet policy should be stated plainly in the listing. Applicants should know whether pets are considered, whether screening applies, whether there are breed or weight restrictions, and what pet-related charges may apply.

Zillow’s 2025 renter report found that 94% of renters agreed rental listings should clearly list all fees. The same report found that 31% of recent renters reported paying a pet fee or pet rent, and among recent renters who paid pet fees or pet rent, the most common amount was $40 to $59.

In the Upstate, we see that many renters with pets already expect some combination of an upfront pet fee, pet deposit, or monthly pet rent. The bigger issue is usually transparency. Pet costs should be separated from base rent so the applicant understands the true monthly cost before applying.

That said, the affordability side should not be ignored. The Pets & Housing 2025 Data Report found that 69% of pet-owning renters identified fees as a key barrier to securing housing, with monthly pet rent cited as the most burdensome pet-related cost.

For owners, this creates a balancing act. Pet-related fees can help offset risk, but if the costs are too high or unclear, they may reduce the very demand a pet-friendly policy is supposed to attract.

Owner concerns are real, but they need to be weighed against actual outcomes

The most common owner concerns we hear are flooring damage, scratched doors, and odor. Those concerns are understandable. A poorly managed pet situation can create real turnover costs.

At the same time, we typically do not see significant pet-related damage as often as many owners fear. The properties that perform best tend to have the right combination of screening, clear lease language, appropriate flooring, inspections, and realistic expectations.

The National Apartment Association has reported that renters with pets stay an average of 21% longer than non-pet-owning residents, and that 83% of owners and operators say pet-friendly vacancies fill faster. Zillow’s renter data also found that among tenured renters, 62% said allowing pets encouraged them to stay in their current rental, while 56% cited private outdoor space such as a yard or garden.

This matches an important operational pattern we continue to notice: tenants with pets are often more likely to renew, stay longer, and treat housing stability as a priority. That does not mean pet owners are automatically better tenants. It means that when a renter has found a clean, well-managed home that accepts their pet, they may have more reason to stay.

For owners, retention matters. Every turnover creates cleaning, repairs, marketing time, showing activity, leasing work, vacancy loss, and uncertainty. If a thoughtful pet policy helps attract stable tenants and reduce turnover, it can be part of a broader asset-management decision.

Screening matters more than simply saying yes or no

A pet-friendly policy should not mean an unmanaged policy.

At Jones Assurance Property Management, we screen pets upfront to better understand risk. That includes gathering information about the animal and applying clear policy standards. In some cases, that also includes breed restrictions around aggressive or high-risk breed categories.

This is where the discussion becomes more practical than emotional. A rental owner does not have to approve every pet to recognize that pet-friendly housing can improve demand. The goal is to create a consistent process that evaluates risk, communicates expectations, and protects the property.

Breed restrictions and liability concerns should also be viewed through an insurance lens. The Insurance Information Institute notes that some insurance companies will not insure homeowners who own certain breeds categorized as dangerous, while others evaluate dogs case by case or do not ask about breed when writing or renewing coverage. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has also noted that breed-based insurance practices remain debated, with some states limiting the use of breed alone in coverage decisions and some insurers focusing more on bite history.

For rental owners, the takeaway is simple: pet policy should not be created in isolation. Owners should understand their insurance requirements, liability exposure, and management process before approving pets.

Assistance animals add another layer of complexity

Pet policy also has to be handled carefully because assistance animals are treated differently from pets under fair housing rules.

HUD explains that an assistance animal is not a pet and that individuals with disabilities may request to keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation to a housing provider’s pet restrictions. HUD also notes that reasonable accommodation requests may include living with an assistance animal at a property with a no-pets policy or waiving a pet deposit, fee, or other rule for an assistance animal.

This is an area where rental owners and property managers need to be careful. The goal is not to make assumptions or create conflict. The goal is to respond consistently, follow fair housing requirements, and handle accommodation requests properly.

There is also an operational reality worth acknowledging. When pet policies are extremely restrictive, unclear, or difficult for renters to navigate, housing providers may see more accommodation-related complexity. The Pets & Housing 2025 Data Report found that 41% of emotional support animal designations were at least partly motivated by housing needs, and nearly half of ESA owners cited size or breed restrictions as their primary reason.

This does not mean legitimate assistance-animal requests should be questioned or dismissed. It does mean owners should understand that no-pet policies and breed restrictions do not eliminate all animal-related decision-making. In many cases, a clear, compliant, and well-managed pet policy may create fewer operational surprises than a policy that simply says no.

Owners should consult qualified legal counsel when they have questions about fair housing compliance, assistance animals, or accommodation requests.

Why JAPM’s Pet Guarantee fits into this conversation

For owners, the central concern is usually risk. That is why a pet policy should be paired with systems, not just a decision.

JAPM’s Pet Guarantee is designed to help shift some of that risk away from the owner by providing up to $1,000 per approved pet in damage coverage above the security deposit. This makes the pet conversation more practical. Instead of asking an owner to simply accept more risk, the goal is to use screening, policy structure, tenant expectations, and additional coverage to manage that risk.

This is also why pet fees should be discussed carefully. Pet fees and pet rent are common in the market, but they should be clear, fair, and tied to a broader risk-management structure. For owners working with a professional manager, pet income may also support additional protections, administrative oversight, and damage coverage programs.

In other words, the conversation should not be reduced to “pets create revenue” or “pets create damage.”

The more useful framing is this: pets can expand the applicant pool, support tenant retention, and improve leasing activity, but only when the property is managed with clear standards and owner protection in place.

What owners should evaluate before allowing pets

Before deciding whether to allow pets, Upstate rental owners should look at the property itself, not just the market demand. A good pet policy depends on the home’s condition, layout, insurance requirements, and management process.

Flooring: Hard-surface flooring such as LVP is usually easier to manage than carpet.
Outdoor space: Fenced yards can make a home more appealing and more practical for pet owners.
Insurance: Some policies may limit certain breeds or animal-related liability.
Pet screening: Owners should understand the animal before approving it.
Lease expectations: Pet rules, fees, and tenant responsibilities should be clearly documented.
Risk protection: Programs like the JAPM Pet Guarantee can help reduce owner concern around approved pets.

These questions matter because pet-friendly housing is not just a marketing choice. It is an operational choice.

A single-family home with durable flooring and a fenced yard may be a strong candidate for a pet-friendly policy. A smaller duplex may still work, but it may require more careful expectations around noise, outdoor areas, and shared spaces. An older home with carpet, soft interior doors, or limited ventilation may need additional preparation before pets are allowed.

The point is not that every home should have the same pet policy. The point is that owners should make the decision intentionally.

What renters should understand

For renters, the main takeaway is that clarity and documentation matter.

If you have pets, ask about the pet policy before applying. Gather documents to provide accurate information about the animal, follow the screening process, and understand any pet-related fees or rent and don’t not assume restrictions can be ignored.

Renters reviewing available rental homes should also review the property details carefully before applying. The application requirements can help applicants understand what information is typically needed during the leasing process.

For assistance-animal accommodation requests, renters and housing providers should both recognize that these are handled differently from ordinary pet approvals. Because these requests involve fair housing rules, they should be handled through the proper process and with appropriate documentation where allowed.

Pet-friendly housing works best when expectations are clear on both sides. Owners need to know who and what is living in the home. Renters need to know the full cost and rules before they move in.

A balanced view for owners

Allowing pets is not risk-free. But neither is a restrictive pet policy.

In a growing rental market like the Upstate, excluding pets can reduce the applicant pool, slow leasing activity, and remove otherwise qualified tenants from consideration. At the same time, allowing pets without screening, standards, insurance awareness, or damage protection can create avoidable problems.

The better answer is usually somewhere in the middle.

For many rental homes, especially single-family homes with durable finishes and outdoor space, a well-managed pet policy can make the property more competitive while still protecting the owner. For other homes, restrictions may still make sense.

What we continue to see is that pet policy is becoming less of a small listing detail and more of a meaningful housing decision. Renters are asking about it earlier. Owners are weighing it more carefully. Property managers are having to navigate not only damage concerns, but also fair housing rules, insurance considerations, screening standards, and tenant retention.

The data supports what leasing teams are already seeing: pets matter in rental housing.

For Upstate owners, the opportunity is not simply to allow pets. It is to manage pet-friendly housing in a way that is clear, compliant, and practical for the long-term performance of the property. For owners who want help putting those systems in place, professional residential property management in the Upstate can make the decision easier to evaluate and manage.

Pet policy questions Upstate rental owners are asking

Why do so many renters ask about pets before applying?

For many renters, pet policy determines whether the home is even worth considering. This is often one of the first questions prospects ask us during the leasing process, especially if the listing does not clearly explain whether pets are allowed. If a home is not pet-friendly, many otherwise qualified renters are removed from the lead base before they ever schedule a showing or submit an application.

Does a fenced yard make a rental home more appealing to pet owners?

Yes, especially for single-family rental homes. A fenced yard can be a major advantage because it gives renters an easier way to exercise and manage their pets. It can also benefit owners because a well-exercised pet may be less likely to create problems inside the home. For pet-friendly homes in the Upstate, fenced yards are worth highlighting clearly in the rental listing.

Should pet fees be included in the advertised rent?

Pet-related charges should be clear, but they should usually be separated from the base rent so applicants understand the full cost structure. Many renters with pets expect some form of pet fee, pet deposit, or monthly pet rent. The issue is usually not the existence of a pet charge, but whether the listing clearly explains what is due upfront and what is added monthly.

What pet damage should Upstate rental owners actually plan for?

The most common owner concerns are flooring damage, scratched doors, and odor. Those are valid concerns, but in our experience, significant pet-related damage is not as common as many owners expect when pets are properly screened and expectations are clearly documented. Durable flooring, routine inspections, clear lease language, and professional management all help reduce risk.

How do assistance animals affect no-pet policies?

Assistance animals are handled differently from ordinary pets under fair housing rules. This means a no-pet policy does not automatically remove all animal-related decisions for a rental owner. Housing providers need to handle these requests carefully, consistently, and in compliance with fair housing requirements. This is one reason a clear, well-managed pet policy can sometimes be more practical than an overly restrictive or unclear policy.

Are breed restrictions usually a property management decision or an insurance issue?

Breed restrictions can involve both management policy and insurance considerations. Some owners have insurance policies that limit or exclude certain breeds or animal-related liability. For that reason, pet approval should not be based only on market demand. Owners should understand their insurance requirements, liability exposure, and screening process before deciding which pets can be approved.

Can allowing pets help a rental home renew more often?

In many cases, yes. We often see renters with pets stay longer and show stronger renewal interest because pet-friendly housing can be harder to find. When a tenant finds a clean, well-managed home that accepts their pet, they may have more reason to remain in place. For owners, that can reduce turnover, vacancy time, and make-ready costs.

Need help deciding whether your rental home should allow pets?

Pet policy is not a one-size-fits-all decision. The right approach depends on the property, the owner’s risk tolerance, the home’s condition, the insurance picture, and the leasing demand in that part of the Upstate.

If you own a rental home in Easley, Greenville, Anderson, Pickens, Powdersville, or the surrounding Upstate area and want help evaluating whether a pet-friendly policy makes sense, contact Jones Assurance Property Management. JAPM can help you think through screening, lease expectations, pet-related risk, and the systems needed to protect the property while keeping it competitive.

Sources referenced

Clayton Jones

Comments are closed.