Rental background checks in Lynn: what a landlord can see, and what the law lets them do with it

A Lynn rental application usually triggers one of two look-ups: the state's own CORI database, which c.6 §172 lets a landlord query specifically “to evaluate applicants for rental or lease of housing,” or a private screening report bought from a consumer reporting agency. Both are governed — and both are time-boxed harder than most renters (and some landlords) know. The CORI window is 10 years for felony convictions and 5 for misdemeanors; Massachusetts caps private reports at 7 years for arrests and convictions alike, closing a gap federal law leaves open; and the sealing statute erases eligible records from every lawful channel, then hands you the exact words: an applicant with a sealed record “may answer 'no record.'” What Massachusetts does not give you is a protected class — a landlord here may still lawfully decide against a record they lawfully saw — so this page is about clocks, copies, and erasers: what shows up, when it stops showing up, and the paper you are owed along the way.

What this page is: the rules that govern a criminal-history check on a Lynn rental application — what may be looked up, what may be considered, the copies and clocks you are entitled to, and where the record stops following you — each rule linked to its official source. It is not legal advice — when it matters, read the linked source or use the free legal help on our tenant rights page.

The landlord's window into CORI is a statute, and it is time-boxed: 10 years for felonies, 5 for misdemeanors

Massachusetts wrote landlords into the CORI law by name: c.6 §172(a)(3) authorizes a requestor to obtain criminal offender record information “to evaluate applicants for rental or lease of housing.” But the same subsection fixes what the request returns: felony convictions for 10 years after disposition — including the end of any incarceration — misdemeanor convictions for 5, and pending charges. Sealed records are not in a landlord's view at any age: under §172(a)(1) they go to criminal justice agencies and firearms licensing authorities, not housing providers. One rider worth reading twice: older convictions stay visible for as long as your most recent one is still inside its window — the statute keeps “prior misdemeanor and felony conviction records” available “for the entire period that the subject's last available conviction record is available.” The clock that matters runs from your last case, not your first. Source: M.G.L. c.6 §172

Before a landlord may even ask about your record, they owe you a copy of it

Chapter 6, §171A names housing in its first sentence: “In connection with any decision regarding employment, volunteer opportunities, housing or professional licensing, a person in possession of an applicant's criminal offender record information shall provide the applicant with the criminal history record… prior to questioning the applicant about his criminal history.” An adverse decision based on the record triggers the copy again. And a landlord or agency that runs 5 or more background checks a year must maintain a written CORI policy committing to notify you of a potential adverse decision, give you the record and the policy, and tell you how to correct a criminal record. In practice: if a Lynn rejection cites your record and you never saw the paper it came from, a statutory step was skipped — §171A makes that failure sanctionable by the criminal record review board. Source: M.G.L. c.6 §171A

Private screening reports are capped harder here than federal law caps them: seven years — convictions included

Most screening isn't CORI at all — it's a report bought from a consumer reporting agency, and that is where Massachusetts quietly out-protects federal law. The federal FCRA's seven-year limit covers arrests, suits, and judgments but exempts convictions — the CFPB says it plainly: “There is no time limit for criminal convictions.” Massachusetts closes the gap: c.93 §52(a)(5) bars any consumer report from containing “records of arrest, indictment, or conviction of crime which, from date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the report by more than seven years.” The statute's only exceptions (§52(b)) are $50,000-plus credit or life-insurance transactions — a rental application is neither. Same section, one clause down (a)(7): eviction records sealed under c.239 §16 may not appear either — the eviction-sealing machinery on our eviction page feeds directly into what a screening report may lawfully show. Source: M.G.L. c.93 §52 · CFPB — tenant screening records

Sealing is the eraser — 3-year and 7-year waits — and it makes 'no record' a legal answer on a housing application

c.276 §100A is administrative: a form to the commissioner of probation, signed under the penalties of perjury — no court hearing for time-based sealing. Misdemeanors qualify once 3 years have passed since disposition, including any incarceration; felonies once 7 have — and a new conviction restarts the wait. A sealed record drops out of the landlord's §172 CORI view and off any lawful c.93 §52 report, and the statute then writes your script: any application “used to screen applicants for employment, housing or an occupational or professional license” that asks about records must carry the notice that an applicant “with a sealed record on file with the commissioner of probation may answer 'no record.'” The honest edges: sex offenses wait 15 years and level 2/3 registrants cannot seal them; certain firearms offenses and most c.268/268A convictions are excluded; and notice the symmetry with the fact above — by the time §100A lets a felony seal (7 years), c.93 §52 has already aged it off private reports. Source: M.G.L. c.276 §100A

Read it honestly: Massachusetts gives you procedure, not a protected class — and the federal guidance the mills still cite was pulled in 2025

§171A says it about itself: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from making an adverse decision on the basis of an individual's criminal history.” Criminal record is not a protected class under c.151B — the Massachusetts machinery limits what can be seen and when, not whether a landlord may weigh what they lawfully saw. The federal layer also moved recently: HUD's April 2016 General Counsel guidance — the document behind every mill's “blanket criminal-record bans may violate the Fair Housing Act” paragraph — appears in a September 25, 2025 HUD memo listing guidance that “no longer express[es] the official legal opinion and/or official policies and procedures” of that office. The Fair Housing Act itself and the disparate-impact case law it rests on are not repealed by a memo — but a renter reading a pre-2025 guide should know the HUD document it links to is no longer HUD policy. If a “records policy” looks like cover for refusing a family, a voucher, or another protected class, that is a different page and a real agency: see our Section 8 discrimination page and MCAD. Source: HUD Office of General Counsel memo, Sept. 25, 2025 (PDF)

What the screen is gatekeeping at today's Lynn rents, by ZIP

The average Lynn rent is $2,300/month as of June 2026 (how we compute this). The application decision this page's rules govern is the gate in front of real money changing hands within days of a yes — in Massachusetts, up to the §15B closed list's maximum of first month, last month, and a security deposit, three months' rent (the item-by-item breakdown is on cost to move in):

Read it honestly: no statute prices a background check, and this table doesn't pretend one does — it shows the scale of the transaction the screening decision controls at each ZIP's current average, which is why the procedural rights above (the copy, the dispute window, the sealing clocks) are worth exercising quickly and in writing.

Honest caveat: these are smoothed market averages (Zillow's ZORI index — methodology), not your lease, and the third column is a statutory ceiling on what can be collected, not what every landlord charges.

The rest of the application, in order

The record check is one gate among several, and the others have pages of their own: refusing a Section 8 voucher is the screen that is flat-out illegal here — that law, and what it costs; what a yes actually costs at signing, item by item, is on cost to move in; the income screen landlords run — and the income it demands at today's rents — is on income to rent; and the eviction-record half of the screening report has its own sealing machinery, on the eviction page; what the unit should rent for in the first place is on the ZIP pages (01905, 01902, 01904, 01901).