Question 1
A Virginia property management company manages a 20-unit apartment complex and enforces a policy that no more than two persons may occupy a one-bedroom unit. A family of three — two parents and one infant — is denied housing under this policy. Under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, this occupancy policy is most likely:
- A. Lawful because landlords in Virginia have absolute authority to set occupancy limits for any unit regardless of family composition
- B. Potentially unlawful if the occupancy standard is not based on legitimate factors such as health and safety codes, unit size, or building infrastructure, and functions to exclude families with children ✓ Answer
- C. Automatically lawful because any numerical occupancy cap is a facially neutral policy that cannot constitute familial status discrimination
- D. Unlawful only if the landlord also refuses to rent to single adults who wish to share the unit
Explanation: The Virginia Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimination based on familial status, which includes families with children under 18. Overly restrictive occupancy standards that are not grounded in legitimate factors — such as applicable health and safety codes, actual unit square footage, or infrastructure capacity — can constitute unlawful familial status discrimination. Virginia follows guidance consistent with HUD's occupancy standards analysis, which requires evaluation of the specific circumstances rather than automatic acceptance of any numerical limit. The policy here, applied to exclude a family of three including an infant, raises a significant fair housing concern.
Question 2
Under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, which of the following statements correctly describes the scope of the prohibition on discriminatory advertising?
- A. Only written advertisements published in newspapers are subject to the anti-discrimination provisions; online listings are regulated separately by federal law
- B. Advertisements that express a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on any protected class are prohibited, including statements suggesting a particular type of occupant is preferred ✓ Answer
- C. A landlord may state a preference for non-smokers in an advertisement without restriction because smoking is not a protected class under Virginia law
- D. Discriminatory advertising is only actionable if a qualified applicant actually applied and was rejected as a result of the advertisement
Explanation: The Virginia Fair Housing Law prohibits making, printing, or publishing any notice, statement, or advertisement that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on any protected class. This applies regardless of the medium, including online listings. An applicant need not have applied and been rejected; the advertisement itself is the violation. While stating a preference for non-smokers is generally permissible because smoking is not a protected class, expressing preferences tied to any protected class in any advertising medium is unlawful.
Question 3
Under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, a real estate licensee who engages in 'panic selling' or 'blockbusting' by inducing a property owner to list a home by making representations about the entry of persons of a particular religion into the neighborhood may have their license disciplined by:
- A. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development exclusively
- B. The Virginia Real Estate Board under its authority to discipline licensees for violations of the Virginia Fair Housing Law ✓ Answer
- C. Only a federal court upon complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice
- D. The Virginia Attorney General's Office exclusively, with no VREB involvement
Explanation: The Virginia Real Estate Board (VREB), operating under DPOR, has independent authority to discipline a licensee who violates the Virginia Fair Housing Law, including blockbusting or panic selling based on religion or any other protected class. VREB may suspend or revoke a license, impose fines, or require additional education. This disciplinary authority is separate from and in addition to any civil enforcement action the Virginia Fair Housing Office or a court might pursue.
Question 4
A Virginia landlord requires all applicants to provide a Social Security number as part of the application process. An applicant who is a lawful permanent resident presents a valid Permanent Resident Card but no Social Security number. The landlord denies the application solely on this basis. Under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, this action most likely constitutes:
- A. Lawful screening because landlords may set any documentation requirements they choose
- B. Unlawful discrimination based on national origin because the policy has a disparate impact on non-citizen immigrants and is not justified by business necessity ✓ Answer
- C. Lawful screening because federal immigration law requires landlords to verify citizenship status
- D. Unlawful discrimination only if the applicant can prove the landlord intended to discriminate
Explanation: The Virginia Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimination based on national origin. A blanket requirement for a Social Security number that excludes lawful permanent residents who use alternative government-issued identification can constitute discriminatory screening based on national origin if it is not justified by a legitimate business necessity that cannot be achieved through less discriminatory means. Federal law does not require private landlords to verify citizenship status, so that defense fails. Virginia fair housing law recognizes both intentional discrimination and disparate-impact theories, so intent alone is not required.
Question 5
Under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, which of the following best describes the concept of 'redlining' as it applies to a mortgage lender operating in Virginia?
- A. Refusing to make mortgage loans or setting less favorable loan terms based on the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood where the property is located ✓ Answer
- B. Requiring borrowers to pay higher interest rates when they select properties in rural areas due to increased lending risk
- C. Drawing boundaries around school districts to limit the number of applicants who qualify for federally backed loans
- D. Refusing to lend to applicants whose credit scores fall below a threshold applied uniformly to all applicants regardless of race
Explanation: Redlining is the unlawful practice of denying or limiting financial services, including mortgage loans, or imposing less favorable terms based on the racial or ethnic composition of a neighborhood rather than the creditworthiness of the individual applicant. This practice violates the Virginia Fair Housing Law's prohibition on discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions based on race, color, or national origin. The other options describe practices that may raise separate regulatory issues but do not define redlining.
Question 6
Under Virginia law, a licensed property manager who is found by DPOR to have commingled client funds with personal or operating funds may face which of the following consequences?
- A. Only a written warning for a first offense; license revocation is reserved for criminal convictions.
- B. DPOR may impose sanctions including license suspension or revocation, a monetary fine, and may require restitution to harmed clients. ✓ Answer
- C. The property manager's employing broker is solely liable; the individual property manager faces no direct DPOR sanction.
- D. DPOR may only refer the matter to the Virginia State Bar for disciplinary action.
Explanation: Under Va. Code § 54.1-2110 and DPOR regulations (18 VAC 135-20-260), commingling of client funds is a serious violation of a licensee's fiduciary duty and escrow obligations. DPOR has authority to suspend or revoke the license, impose civil monetary penalties, and order restitution to injured parties. Both the individual licensee and the supervising broker may face sanctions, and DPOR — not the State Bar — has jurisdiction over real estate licensees.