Missouri Landlord Screening Rules: Understanding Local Limits Under § 441.043
Missouri law restricts certain city and county regulation of privately owned rental property. The current text of § 441.043, RSMo, effective August 28, 2025, addresses rent regulation, specified screening restrictions, security-deposit limits imposed locally, and automatic rights of first refusal. Owners should understand the statute’s scope before relying on a local ordinance or assuming that the state provision answers every leasing question.
The central distinction is between limits on local government regulation and obligations imposed by state or federal law. A restriction on what a municipality may require does not itself erase a lease, a federal housing-program obligation, or an independently applicable civil-rights rule.
View this graphic at full size. Graphic references: § 441.043, RSMo; § 535.300, RSMo; § 213.040, RSMo; 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a); 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
What the statute says about screening criteria
Section 441.043.2 restricts local ordinances that limit a landlord’s ability to use or consider specified income-qualifying methods, credit scores and reports, eviction or property-damage history, or criminal history under the landlord’s customarily applied criteria. It also addresses local restrictions on requesting that information.
The wording matters. The statute concerns what county or city government may enact, maintain, or enforce. It is not a statement that every possible criterion or every use of a report complies with all other law. Read the provision directly in § 441.043, RSMo and identify the source of the requirement you are evaluating.
Source of income and veterans’ benefits require careful distinctions
Subsection 2 also addresses local ordinances prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent because the applicant’s lawful income includes federal or other housing-assistance funding. That state restriction on local regulation should not be treated as a universal answer for a property that has voluntarily accepted program conditions or is subject to another applicable federal requirement.
Subsection 4 expressly preserves local authority to prohibit discrimination solely because a tenant or prospective tenant receives veterans’ benefits. A policy referring broadly to all government benefits can therefore raise issues that a narrower reading of subsection 2 overlooks. Review the actual benefit, property, ordinance, and contractual commitments rather than grouping every source together.
State security-deposit rules still matter
The statute restricts local ordinances limiting the security deposit a landlord may require. Missouri itself, however, imposes requirements in § 535.300, RSMo, including the general limit of two months’ rent and rules governing holding, accounting, and withholding. The statutory definition separately excludes money or property denominated as a pet deposit.
An owner should not interpret the local-government restriction as permission to demand any security deposit amount. Determine whether a charge is a security deposit under the state definition and whether other law, including fair-housing requirements, affects the proposed charge.
Federal reporting and fair-housing duties remain separate
When a landlord uses a consumer report to make an unfavorable rental decision, the federal adverse-action requirements in 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a) may apply. State protection of the ability to consider a credit report does not remove the federal notice obligations associated with using it.
Similarly, § 213.040, RSMo and 42 U.S.C. § 3604 address discrimination in covered housing. A screening policy and its application need review under those authorities. Consistent documentation is useful, but a policy is not necessarily lawful merely because it is written down or described as customary.
Rent regulation has stated exceptions
Section 441.043.1 addresses local regulation of rental amounts. Subsection 3 preserves specified authority concerning government-owned property, voluntary agreements regulating subsidized rents, and properties assisted with community development block grant funds. Those provisions can be important when an owner participates in a public program.
The statute also should not be mistaken for a method of changing an existing fixed lease’s rent. The owner’s contract with the tenant is a separate legal source that must be read. The absence of a particular local restriction does not by itself amend that contract.
A hypothetical policy review
Suppose a Missouri manager reads a local screening ordinance and then discovers § 441.043. The next step is to identify which ordinance provision is at issue and whether the state statute restricts it. The manager should also check the property’s program agreements, applicable fair-housing law, and the notices required when using screening reports.
If the proposed policy also increases deposits, § 535.300, RSMo must be reviewed independently. This example shows why a useful policy review follows the source of each obligation rather than treating one statute as complete authorization for every decision.
For related questions, read Tenant Screening in Missouri: When Landlords Must Give an Adverse-Action Notice.
Apex Law provides Missouri landlord-tenant legal services for Missouri owners, managers, and renters. contact Apex Law with the proposed criteria, lease, applicable ordinance, and program documents for a focused review. This article describes the statutory framework generally; a particular local provision, legal challenge, or property obligation requires current case-specific analysis.
Comments