Rental amendments
How boards actually change the rules on renting, and who those changes bind
A board cannot cap or ban rentals by simply passing a rule. In most states, restricting leasing changes a property right and must go through a declaration amendment, adopted by the vote your CC&Rs require. Whether that amendment binds owners who already hold title depends entirely on your state, not on the amendment's wording.
Why this takes an amendment, not a rule
Leasing is treated as a property right the owner acquired along with the unit. Because of that, most jurisdictions require any rule that prohibits or meaningfully limits rentals to live in the declaration itself, adopted by whatever vote your governing documents set for an amendment, usually a supermajority of owners. A board resolution that the board itself can pass and repeal is not enough to create a rental prohibition where the declaration is silent.
"Boards may impose restraints on leasing by resolution, but these policies must be reasonable, uniformly applied and based on objective criteria... most jurisdictions require that any rules or regulations that prohibit rentals exist by amendment to the declaration, not merely documents that may be amended or adopted by the governing board."
Source: Rental restrictions: Communities fighting corporate investors, Community Associations Institute
Does the amendment bind owners who already live here?
This is the question that splits hardest by state, and it does not have one national answer. Some states protect an owner's rental rights based on the date they took title. Others ask only whether the amendment process was properly followed and owners were on notice it could happen. A few carve out short-term rentals as their own, stricter category.
| State | Does a later amendment bind owners who already own? |
|---|---|
| Florida, condominiums | No, unless the owner consents or buys after the amendment takes effect. |
| Florida, HOAs (short-term rental limits specifically) | Yes, this narrower rule applies to all owners regardless of when they bought. |
| Texas | Sometimes, if the original declaration's amendment method was followed and owners had notice it could change. |
| California | No, if the owner held title before the restriction's effective date. |
| Nevada | No, unless the declaration already required rental approval when that owner bought. |
| North Carolina | Generally no, per practitioner commentary; confirm with current counsel. |
The Florida Supreme Court's leading case on this shows how far "properly adopted" can reach even against an owner who bought first.
"[R]espondents were on notice that the unique form of ownership they acquired when they purchased their units in the Woodside Village Condominium was subject to change through the amendment process."
Source: Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n v. Jahren, 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002), Supreme Court of Florida
Texas courts have reached similar results using ordinary covenant law rather than a dedicated statute, but only where the original declaration's amendment process was followed. California and Nevada instead run on a purchase-date rule: an owner who bought before the restriction existed keeps the right to rent, full stop, regardless of consent or notice.
What a well-drafted rental amendment usually covers
Associations that write these amendments carefully tend to address the same handful of moving parts: a cap on how many homes may be rented at once, a waiting period before a new owner may rent (often 12 to 24 months), and an explicit decision about whether existing rentals are exempt from the new rule or must eventually comply. That last choice is what determines how much of the retroactivity fight in Section 2 the association creates for itself.
Two things a rental amendment should not try to do on its own: grant the board discretion to waive the cap unless the declaration expressly says so (that discretion is its own topic, see hardship exceptions below), and assume that whatever the city or state allows for short-term rentals settles what the HOA may restrict. A city's inability to ban a rental type says nothing about the association's own contractual authority through its declaration.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
Your board wants to ban new rentals for the next two years to protect the community's mortgage financing. What's the legally sound way to do it?
Your declaration says "there shall be no restriction on the right of any owner to lease his unit." The board then adopts a rule banning rentals under 30 days. A court applying Texas's reasoning would likely say the rule is...
An owner bought her unit in a state that grandfathers rental rights by purchase date. The HOA amends the declaration two years later to ban new rentals. What happens to her existing right to rent?
Sources
- Florida Statutes Section 718.110(13), Florida Senate
- Florida Statutes Section 720.306(1)(h), Florida Senate
- Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n v. Jahren, 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002), Supreme Court of Florida
- Texas Property Code, Chapter 209, Texas Legislature
- JBrice Holdings, LLC v. Wilcrest Walk Townhomes Ass'n, Inc., 644 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. 2022), Supreme Court of Texas
- California Civil Code Section 4740, California Legislative Information
- Nevada Revised Statutes Section 116.335, Nevada Legislature, via Justia
- North Carolina General Statutes Section 47F-3-102, North Carolina General Assembly
- Rental Rebellion: New Bill Would Change the Leasing Landscape in Planned Communities, Ward and Smith, P.A.
- Rental restrictions: Communities fighting corporate investors, Community Associations Institute
Rentals & Leasing
Next, see how boards design a rental cap once the amendment authority is actually in place.
Whether a new rental amendment binds owners who already hold title, and the vote threshold needed to adopt one, vary by state and by your own declaration's amendment procedure.