Greystar, nation’s largest apartment manager, accused of rejecting renters with housing vouchers
Civil rights complaints accuse Greystar properties of refusing prospective tenants who use federal Housing Choice Vouchers
Greystar, the nation’s largest apartment manager, is facing more than 100 civil rights complaints alleging that its properties illegally turned away low-income renters who rely on federal housing vouchers.
The Housing Rights Initiative, represented by the law firm Cohen Milstein, filed complaints July 13 with civil rights agencies in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
The complaints allege 114 violations of state and local fair housing laws protecting renters from discrimination based on their lawful source of income.
Investigators working for the nonprofit posed as prospective tenants and called Greystar-managed apartment communities beginning in October 2025.
According to the complaints, employees at the properties either said they would not accept Housing Choice Vouchers — commonly known as Section 8 vouchers — or placed additional conditions on voucher holders that were not imposed on other applicants.
“We have never encountered a landlord that operates with such brazen contempt and hostility toward the rule of law as Greystar,” Housing Rights Initiative Executive Director Aaron Carr said in announcing the complaints.
Greystar has not been found liable, and the complaints are allegations that will have to be investigated by the agencies where they were filed.
In a statement reported by The Guardian, the company said it is committed to fair housing practices and provides fair housing training to its employees. It did not respond directly to the individual allegations.
The Editors
Why voucher discrimination matters
The Housing Choice Voucher program helps low-income families, older adults and people with disabilities rent homes in the private market.
A local public housing agency generally pays part of the rent directly to the landlord, while the tenant pays the remaining portion based largely on household income.
Federal law does not universally require every private landlord to participate in the voucher program. However, many states, counties and cities have enacted “source of income” laws that prohibit landlords from rejecting otherwise qualified applicants simply because some or all of their rent will be paid with government assistance.
HUD says source-of-income discrimination can include outright refusals to accept vouchers, as well as special screening requirements, additional references, larger security deposits or extra fees imposed only on voucher holders.
The complaints against Greystar were filed only in jurisdictions where voucher holders have legal protections.
At every property tested, according to Housing Rights Initiative, Greystar staff either rejected the voucher or imposed what investigators considered unlawful restrictions.
In California alone, the group filed 53 complaints. Two involved Alta O’side, a Greystar-managed apartment community in Oceanside, where investigators alleged that employees refused vouchers or attached improper conditions to their use, according to The Coast News Group.
A landlord with enormous reach
Greystar manages more than 1 million housing units nationwide, according to company and industry information, making its policies potentially consequential for renters across dozens of housing markets.
An analysis cited by The Guardian estimated that Greystar operates approximately 235,000 units in the states and jurisdictions covered by the latest complaints.
“As the largest landlord in America, Greystar should be setting the standard of best practices for the nation, not systematically rejecting legitimate prospective tenants,” Carr said.
Large corporate landlords have attracted increasing attention from regulators and tenant advocates because centralized policies can affect thousands of apartment communities at once.
A discriminatory instruction, screening rule or employee training failure at a small landlord might affect a handful of applicants. At a company the size of Greystar, critics argue, the same practice can restrict housing opportunities across entire metropolitan areas.
Greystar’s growing legal troubles
The voucher complaints are the latest in a series of legal and regulatory disputes involving Greystar.
In December 2025, Greystar agreed to pay $24 million to settle allegations brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Colorado attorney general that the company advertised deceptively low rental prices while excluding mandatory monthly fees.
Regulators alleged that prospective renters often did not learn the true monthly cost until after they had paid application or administrative fees. Greystar did not admit wrongdoing.
Greystar also agreed to pay $50 million as part of a broader proposed settlement of private litigation accusing major landlords of using RealPage rent-setting software and shared market data to inflate rents.
The settling landlords denied the allegations. The combined private settlements involving Greystar and other companies totaled approximately $141 million and were subject to court approval.
In a separate case announced in June 2025, the Justice Department said Greystar agreed to provide more than $1.4 million to resolve allegations that it illegally charged military servicemembers and their co-tenants early lease termination fees.
That agreement required Greystar to establish a $1.35 million compensation fund, pay a $77,370 civil penalty and change its policies and training.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced additional settlements in May 2026 resolving claims involving hidden rental charges at two Greystar apartment complexes. Those agreements included a combined $100,000 in consumer restitution.
What renters should do
Voucher holders who suspect they are being treated differently should document every interaction with the property.
That can include saving advertisements, emails, text messages, application requirements and the names of leasing employees. Renters should also write down the date and time of telephone conversations and exactly what they were told.
Warning signs may include:
- A blanket statement that the property “does not take Section 8”
- A higher income requirement applied to the full rent rather than the tenant’s portion
- Extra deposits, fees or references required only from voucher holders
- Claims that vouchers are accepted only for certain units or at certain times
- Refusal to provide an application after the renter mentions a voucher
Tenants can report suspected discrimination to their state or local civil rights agency. A complaint may also be submitted to HUD, particularly when the conduct may overlap with discrimination based on race, disability, family status or another category protected by the federal Fair Housing Act.
The underlying rules vary considerably by location. Renters should check whether their state, county or city prohibits discrimination based on source of income before assuming a landlord is legally required to participate.
But in jurisdictions with voucher protections, rejecting an applicant merely because the person uses rental assistance can expose a property owner or management company to investigations, damages, civil penalties and orders requiring changes in company practices.
