The riskiest part of owning a rental isn't a bad tenant - it's an inconsistent screening process. Here's how to choose well and stay protected.
Home / Insights / Tenant Screening
Most fair-housing trouble doesn't come from owners who set out to discriminate. It comes from good people screening inconsistently - a judgment call here, an exception there - until two similar applicants get two different answers.
Screening is the highest-leverage decision you make on a property, and the one most exposed to legal risk. Do it with a written standard applied the same way every time, and it protects both your return and you. Do it on instinct, and a single rejected applicant can turn a gut feeling into a complaint. Here is how to screen Texas tenants the right way.
Decide what qualifies an applicant before the first one applies, and put it in writing. In Texas this isn't just best practice - Property Code Section 92.3515 requires you to give applicants your written tenant selection criteria, and if you deny someone without having provided it, you can be on the hook to refund the application fee.
A clear standard usually covers income (a common bar is gross monthly income of about three times the rent), a minimum credit threshold, verifiable rental history, employment, and how you treat criminal history. Write it down, hand it to every applicant, and then hold the line. The written criteria is the thing that lets you say no to anyone for the same documented reason - which is exactly what keeps a denial defensible.
You have wide latitude to screen on objective, business-related factors, as long as you apply them identically to everyone:
The seven federally protected classes you cannot screen against are race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, and disability. Texas mirrors these, and some Texas cities add protections - Austin, for example, protects source of income, so a flat "no vouchers" rule can be unlawful there. Disability brings its own duty: you must reasonably accommodate, which is why a service or support animal is not a "pet" you can refuse under a no-pets policy.
This is where well-meaning owners create the most liability. A blanket rule - "any record is an automatic denial" - is exactly the kind of facially neutral policy HUD has flagged, because it can fall harder on protected groups and trigger disparate-impact liability. The safer approach is an individualized look: the nature of the offense, how serious it was, how long ago, and what's happened since. And never deny on an arrest alone - an arrest isn't a conviction. (Federal enforcement of disparate-impact rules has been in flux in 2026, but the underlying liability, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015, has not gone away.)
Here's the part owners underestimate. You can have a perfectly legal set of criteria and still lose, if you apply them unevenly. Approve one applicant who has a bankruptcy, then reject another with the same bankruptcy, and you've handed a fair-housing claim its best evidence - whatever your actual reason was.
The defense is boring and it works: document every decision in objective, criteria-based terms. "Declined: gross income 2.4x rent, below the 3x minimum" - not "wasn't a good fit." Keep the applications you reject alongside the ones you accept. If a complaint ever lands, that paper trail is the whole ballgame.
One more compliance layer that's easy to miss: under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, you need written consent before pulling a credit or background report, and if you deny someone based on what that report says, you owe them an adverse-action notice. It's a small step that quietly keeps you clean.
We screen every applicant against the same written criteria, tied to fair-housing policy, and we document each decision - so the qualified tenant gets placed and the file holds up if anyone ever asks. It's the discipline most self-managing owners mean to keep and rarely do. If you'd rather not carry that risk yourself, let's talk.
Talk to Alta ResidentialScreening is one link in a chain. The cost of getting it wrong shows up later - in the weeks an eviction takes and in what a broken lease costs you. For how screening fits into the full cost of managing a Texas rental, see our cost guide.
Yes. An income-to-rent standard is legal as long as it is reasonable and you apply the exact same ratio to every applicant. The rule isn't the number - it's consistency. Applying 3x to one applicant and 2.5x to another invites a discrimination claim.
You can consider convictions, but a blanket 'any record is an automatic no' policy creates fair-housing risk under HUD guidance, because it can disproportionately affect protected groups. Evaluate the nature, severity, and recency of the offense, and don't deny on an arrest alone - an arrest is not a conviction.
Yes. Texas Property Code Section 92.3515 requires you to give applicants your written tenant selection criteria. If you deny someone and never provided that written criteria, you may have to refund the application fee.
Generally yes, rental and eviction history are legitimate screening factors - but apply the standard uniformly and look at the full picture rather than auto-declining on a single old filing, which is the safer course under fair-housing principles.
This guide is general information for Texas rental owners, not legal advice. Fair-housing enforcement and HUD guidance evolve. Confirm your specific criteria and process with a licensed Texas attorney. Alta Residential · 325 N. St. Paul St., Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75201 · 214-775-0807.