What the Law Really Says: Breaking Down Tennessee’s New Definition of Recovery Residence

Introduction

As Tennessee prepares for a major statutory shift on January 1, 2026, the recovery housing field is entering a new era of legal recognition and scrutiny. State law will redefine what constitutes a “recovery residence,” setting the stage for how recovery residences are regulated, protected, and understood across  the recovery ecosystem. This article takes a deep dive into the language of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7), interpreting each part of the statute and exploring the intent behind it. The goal is not only to clarify what the law says, but also to anticipate how it may be applied, and to equip recovery housing providers, policymakers, and advocates with the understanding needed to protect the integrity of this essential recovery support model.

Tennessee’s New Definition of “Recovery Residence”

The new definition appears in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7):

“Recovery residence” means a residence classified as a single family residence, as defined in § 13-24-102, or any other premise, place, or building that provides a substance-free living environment centered on supervised, monitored, or peer-led support that assists individuals in recovery from substance use disorder with services that promote long-term recovery, including direct connection to other peers in recovery, mutual support groups, and recovery support services but does not provide any medical or clinical services, treatment, or medication administration on-site except for verification of abstinence.”

At first glance, the definition may look straightforward, a legislative nod to the role recovery residences play in the addiction recovery ecosystem. The reality is more complicated. Every word of a statute matters, and how those words are interpreted will shape how recovery residences are treated under zoning ordinances, federal housing protections, funding decisions, and regulatory oversight. A clear understanding of this new language is essential to protecting both operators and residents, and to ensuring recovery residences are recognized as a distinct, nonclinical support model within the broader recovery ecosystem.

The Deep Dive

The statute begins by classifying a recovery residence as “a residence classified as a single-family residence, as defined in § 13-24-102.” This is not incidental. Section 13-24-102 requires that homes occupied by people with disabilities be treated the same as any other single-family residence for zoning purposes.

"The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, among other protected classes, in housing and housing-related activities.  U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. Individuals currently in recovery for substance abuse have a ‘disability’ and are protected by fair housing laws from discrimination in housing.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.201; Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Sys. Co., 298 F. 3d 1030 (9tth Cir. 2002); Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007)."(Kim Savage).

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that recovery residences are protected under the Fair Housing Act: Recovery residences “are ‘dwellings’ under  42 U.S.C. § 3602(b), and therefore the FHA prohibits discriminatory actions that adversely affect the availability of such group [recovery] homes.  Zoning practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities by ‘making unavailable or denying housing to those persons [with disabilities]’ violate the Fair Housing Act.”  Pacific Shores Properties LLC, v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F. 3d 1142, 1157 (9tth Cir. 2013). See also, Joint Statement of the Department of Housing & Urban Development and The Department of Justice (November 10, 2016) at 2.(Kim Savage).

“42 U.S. C. § 12132. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by state and local governments, including the programs and services offered by a jurisdiction’s housing development,  planning and zoning agencies. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Like the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities through zoning ordinances and decisions.”  Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F. 3d 725 (9tth Cir. 1999).(Kim Savage).  

In plain terms, recovery residences cannot be excluded or restricted by state and local governments, or planning and zoning agencies simply because individuals in recovery from a substance use disorder (disability) live in them, or because of NIMBY (not in my backyard) discriminatory neighborhood sentiment. 

In fact, “federal law prohibits consideration of the prejudices or fears of a community; a city or county may be liable for denying housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities if its actions or decision-making are motivated by discriminatory intent or it adopted the discriminatory animus of those in the community.” Horizon House Developmental Services, Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F. Supp. 683, 695-97 (E. D. Pa. 1992), aff’d mem., 995 F. 2d 217 (3rd Cir. 1993); Stewart McKinney Foundation, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Comm’n, 790 F. Supp. 1197, 1211-16 (D. Conn.1992); United States v. Audubon, 797 F. Supp. 353, 359-62 (D.N.J. 1991), aff’d mem., 968 F. 2d 14 (3d Cir. 1992);  Joint Statement at 5, 14.(Kim Savage).

Additionally, while a recovery residence in Tennessee is “classified as a single-family residence, as defined in § 13-24-102,” the Tennessee statute adds the phrase “or any other premise, place, or building that provides a substance-free living environment centered on supervised, monitored, or peer-led support…”  

This phrase in the statute expands these protections beyond traditional houses. It ensures that apartments, duplexes, and other types of housing that provide “a substance-free living environment centered on supervised, monitored, or peer-led support…” can also fall within the legal definition, so long as they meet the substantive criteria within the statute. This broader scope reflects the evolving landscape of recovery housing, where safe, supportive, substance free living environments are not confined to a single type of dwelling. 

As previously stated, recovery residences are “dwellings” under  42 U.S.C. § 3602(b), and  are protected under the Fair Housing Act.  Thus, federal law affirms that recovery housing is not a commercial facility, not an institution, and not a business enterprise. It is a dwelling, and the law explicitly recognizes it as such.

The statute also makes it clear that a recovery residence must provide “a substance-free living environment”  to be recognized as a recovery residence.  It is not about the physical structure of the house, or the credentials of the staff, but the environment itself.  Maintaining a substance-free living environment with community-based peer support (social model recovery) is what distinguishes recovery housing from other types of affordable housing and/or supportive housing and is the baseline condition that allows the home to serve its intended purpose:  To support individuals in recovery from substance use disorder as they build a new foundation for their lives, and increase recovery capital that promotes self-sustainability and long-term recovery.

It  should be understood that recovery housing is a very specialized subset of a wide and diverse array of housing options. SAMHSA illustrates this in its recent side-by-side comparison of recovery housing and supportive housing.  Additionally, The ASAM Criteria 4^th Edition reinforces the importance of differentiating recovery housing from other types of supportive housing. (see The ASAM Criteria, p. 385).

As we take a closer look at the Tennessee recovery residence statute regulating the governance, certification and operation of a recovery residence, the statute states that the living environment must be “centered on supervised, monitored, or peer-led support.” This specific phrasing mirrors the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) standards for Levels I, II, and III recovery residences:  Level I homes are peer-run, Level II are monitored, and Level III are supervised with greater structure and recovery support services.

By adopting this specific language, the legislature aligned Tennessee law with nationally recognized standards and acknowledged that recovery residences can take different forms, from peer-run to supervised, while remaining nonclinical in nature.  To make it clear that recovery residences in Tennessee do not provide “medical or clinical services, treatment, or medication administration on-site,” Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7) does not include a NARR level IV/type C (clinical) recovery residence as an option for certification. 

Additionally, while all level IV/Type C recovery residences have licensed treatment components, “not all licensed treatment programs qualify as a social model-based RR (Recovery Residence) Type C.”  (The ASAM Criteria, p. 387).  An “Alcohol and Drug Halfway House Treatment Facility” (a.k.a. “halfway house”) is an example of a type of licensed residential treatment program in Tennessee that is not a “social model” based recovery residence, which does not qualify as a recovery residence by any definition of the term, irrespective of the fact that Section 33-2-1401(7) prohibits “… any medical or clinical services, treatment, or medication administration on-site…”

Note:  To understand the three levels/types of recovery residences (supervised, monitored, or peer-led support) in the Tennessee statute, please click on the following link:   NARR Levels of Recovery Residences in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7).  Also, for more information regarding a proper understanding of how to implement three of the four NARR/TN-ARR levels/types of recovery residences which appear in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7), all inquiries should be directed to the Tennessee Alliance of Recovery Residences (TN-ARR), the only authorized National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) state affiliate in Tennessee.

Moving forward, the next clause in the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7), states that recovery residences must “assist individuals in recovery from substance use disorder with services that promote long-term recovery, including direct connection to other peers in recovery, mutual support groups, and recovery support services.” 

The word “services” is sometimes misunderstood when read through a clinical lens. In this context, it does not mean therapy, counseling, or medical treatment. It refers to the nonclinical supports that recovery residences provide, like peer mentorship, accountability, life-skills development, community engagement, and access to recovery support meetings. These are services recognized by federal agencies such as SAMHSA and by national organizations like the National Council for Mental Wellbeing as vital components of the recovery support ecosystem. By including explicit examples such as peer connections and mutual support groups, the statute confirms that “services” in this context are social and experiential, not clinical.

The closing clause in the statute that we previously discussed establishes a firm boundary by stating that recovery residences “do not provide any medical or clinical services, treatment, or medication administration on-site except for verification of abstinence.” This distinction is crucial. It prevents recovery residences from being mislabeled as unlicensed treatment programs while still allowing accountability practices such as drug testing. The law draws a bright line: Structure, oversight, and accountability in a recovery residence do not constitute treatment. Instead, they function as core components of a peer-support model rather than clinically-based medical interventions.

Final Considerations

How Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 33-2-1401(7) is ultimately interpreted and applied in practice will shape the future of recovery housing in Tennessee as much as these Tennessee statutes.  Based on current regulatory patterns and public statements, several points of interpretation are almost certain to emerge, and they will each carry significant implications for recovery housing operators and residents.

Some medical/clinical providers, or clinicians may in their scope of understanding ascribe greater   meaning to certain words, such as “supervised” or “services,” to suggest broader oversight or even licensure requirements. For example, “supervised” may be misinterpreted to imply clinical authority, and “services” may be misread as medical or clinical interventions. Both interpretations are antithetical to the text and the intent of the statute.

“Supervised” as it appears in the statute refers to a level III recovery residence that provides a high level of structure with multiple recovery support services offered in an environment of peer-to-peer support. “Services” as they relate to the three levels of recovery residences in the statute (supervised, monitored, or peer-led support) are nonclinical in staffing and services:  CPRS staff, house managers, recovery meetings (AA, NA, CR), supported employment, recovery coaches, life-skills training, sponsors, and other support services which are nonclinical social supports. The exception for “verification of abstinence” makes clear that accountability practices are permitted but do not convert the home into a treatment program. 

Note:  “Recovery support is nonclinical social support that promotes recovery from substance use and/or mental health challenges and includes emotional, informational, instrumental, and affiliation support.”  (The ASAM Criteria, p. 383). 

Finally, the Tennessee legislature did not draft Section 33-2-1401(7) in a vacuum. Each phrase was chosen with purpose, reflecting national standards and the need to codify “recovery residences” without conflating the “social model” of recovery with clinical/medical based care. By anchoring the definition to §13-24-102 (“Recovery residence” means a residence classified as a single family residence…”), lawmakers reaffirmed that recovery residences belong in the category of “single family residences,” a classification that ensures parity in zoning and housing rights. This move reflects a clear intent:  To protect recovery residences under the same legal framework that safeguards the rights of other residents with disabilities.

Kyle D. Duvall

TN-ARR Advocacy Committee Chairman           

NARR Advocacy Committee

NARR Standards Committee

Marlana Smartt-Byrge

TN-ARR Advocacy Committee Co-Chair