If you do move in, no harm no foul, but if you don't and there is an investigation you pretty much shot yourself in the foot by indirectly declaring your intention in your question.

Tenants just usually aren't that good at general maintenance and usually do more harm than good in the long term.

I'm not going into an ethics lesson.RE is full of shysters, the curse of the industry is the guru teaching things that are harmful to the public and more often with total disregard to rules, regulation and law. 

They fill you with hope but provide nothing of substance that puts money in your pocket. 

.- Sometimes you get surprisingly good tenants, like construction workers in town for a few months who are trying to live cheap and save all their money- Super high cap rates, cheap to buy- Can be in locations where regular tenants would not want to rent, like above shady bars or in shady parts of town.The down sides:- Many tenants have psychiatric and/or substance abuse problems. 3am calls are pretty regular.- Some cities try to put you out of business by cracking down on code compliance issues and nuisance calls- Not many people want to deal with the hassle, hence the high cap rates.- Can be hard to find good management when you want to grow or move on.

If the tenant pays on time and the dog is not harming the house, then this is between your tenant, their neighbors, and animal control.

I believe that releasing the tenants from their leases without consulting you has done your investment harm and was done without just cause if your rendition of the scenario is accurate.

. - Sounds like a phone call to your lawyer is worth the time to see what legal options you might have if they don't take it down.That sounds like overkill for something that just feels ethically wrong but isn't actually harming me.

Statutory Exemption from Fair Housing Act Liability for Exclusion Because of Illegal Manufacture or Distribution of a Controlled Substance Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit “conduct against a person because such person has been convicted … of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).”37 Accordingly, a housing provider will not be liable under the Act for excluding individuals because they have been convicted of one or more of the specified drug crimes, regardless of any discriminatory effect that may result from such a policy.

Childrens' wading only, and they pay to reseed any killed grass.Other banned stuff:Trampolines (insurance);Any dog adjudicated as dangerous or vicious (insurance);Any dog on the insurance banned breed list, including mixes containing any of the banned breeds (insurance);Venomous pets (after a tenant snuck a rattle snake into their apartment and it got out);Illegal substances or conducting an illegal business (duh).Mike