By Grace Yurish
Recovery housing plays a crucial role in supporting individuals on their journey to sobriety, providing a structured and supportive environment essential for long-term recovery. However, the intersection of federal fair housing laws, local zoning regulations, and community perceptions often creates a complex process for recovery housing providers who establish and maintain these homes in New Hampshire.
The Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a cornerstone of protection for individuals in recovery. The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, and disability.
“The FHA states that people in recovery are people with disabilities as long as they’re not actively using, and are not registered sexual offenders or arsonists,” says New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences (NHCORR) Executive Director Kim Bock. “As people with disabilities, their housing rights are protected. They are to be considered for a reasonable accommodation to use a single-family home and be treated as a single family under all housing laws and regulations.”
Despite these protections, one of the most significant challenges for recovery housing in New Hampshire is the inconsistent treatment by local zoning and planning boards. With no clear guidelines, recovery homes are subject to misclassification.
“Town zoning boards try to define what recovery housing is without looking at the FHA,” Bock says. “They call it group homes, poverty housing, congregate care, and start enforcing all kinds of different regulations on them. What we’ve heard is that towns really want a definition of recovery housing. It would help them immensely. Zoning board officials are usually volunteers, and they want to do the right thing, but they need a pathway to do it. If they don’t have a definition of recovery housing, they don’t know how to classify it, so they try and put it into a bucket it doesn’t fit in, and they misclassify it.”
Each classification comes with its own set of regulations and requirements, creating a confusing and often contradictory legal environment for recovery housing operators.
“The zoning regulations for a single-family home are very different than an apartment house, congregate care, dormitory, or fraternity,” Bock explains. “Those have a lot more regulation and a lot more expensive regulation.”
One example of this is the fire safety requirements. Recovery residences certified by the NHCORR can apply for a variance to the safety requirement when more than four unrelated people are living together. This does not apply to any other class of housing residents or protected people, and it does not allow for the house to be treated as a single family would, in accordance with FHA.
This process can be complex and case-specific, requiring municipalities and recovery housing providers to work together to find reasonable solutions.
“There are few things under the FHA that are bright line rules, but almost always, the situations are relatively unique, so they are always going to be considered on a case-by-case basis,” says New Hampshire Legal Assistance Fair Housing Project Director Chris Schott. “That can be frustrating because different places are going to have different responses, and different agreements are going to be reached. But that’s kind of the nature of the Fair Housing Act. It’s very broad and it’s not always clear cut.”
Another challenge faced by recovery homes is resistance from the community. Neighbors are allowed to express their opinions on requests for zoning variances. Often, their statements stem from a place of fear and misunderstanding.
“You get a lot of the ‘not in my backyard’ effect,” says attorney Craig Donais, who frequently works with recovery providers. “Manchester, Concord, Nashua – a lot of the larger communities – have facilities to provide sober living services. But this isn’t just a Manchester, Concord, Nashua problem. There are people across the state that have substance use disorder, so these facilities really need to be available to everybody everywhere for them to be effective.”
One of the biggest misconceptions with recovery homes is that they house active drug users. This misconception creates worry from community members that introducing recovery homes will bring drugs and crime to their neighborhoods. However, all recovery residents must be clean of substances for at least 30 days prior to move-in and must remain sober during their time in the facilities.
“What people don’t recognize is that this is the only house in the community that has a good neighbor policy,” Bock says. “They are not supposed to use inappropriate language or loud voices outside the house, they have a curfew, everyone has to be working, getting an education, or volunteering during the day, and there are no drugs or alcohol being consumed by anybody.”
If a resident does reuse a substance they can be removed from the property without any kind of eviction procedure, according to a ruling by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in St. Onge v. Oberten.
In St. Onge, a resident of a recovery home was removed from the house and program after breaking the rules. They subsequently brought a landlord/tenant action against the recovery home operator claiming they were wrongfully removed from the property.
“When the individual signed up and committed, they signed an agreement that said residence was a component of their participation in the sober living program, and they did not follow that,” says Donais, who represented the recovery home operator in St. Onge. “A lot of times these programs work because you have this cohort of people who are in recovery, and they want that safe environment. The program itself relies on each of them having responsibilities in the house, participating in activities, and following and enforcing the rules with each other.”
Laws are being developed across the country to follow these procedures, but New Hampshire is the only state relying on case law.
“That’s pretty groundbreaking,” Bock says, explaining the importance of maintaining a drug-free family environment.
Efforts to clarify and streamline the regulatory process are ongoing. There have been legislative attempts, such as House Bill 1521, aimed at providing clearer guidelines for municipalities. Unfortunately, language was added by the Senate that would make it even more difficult for recovery homes to be established. The bill was moved to the Committee of Conference but was ultimately defeated.
Bock emphasizes the importance of continued legislative efforts, saying that in September of this year, another bill will be attempted.
The commitment of advocates, along with legislative efforts, offers hope for a more consistent and supportive regulatory environment for recovery housing providers. By addressing misconceptions, clarifying definitions, and ensuring compliance with fair housing laws, New Hampshire can better support the important work of recovery homes in helping individuals reclaim their lives from substance use disorder.