Short-Term Rental & Use Restrictions

The authority to restrict rentals, and its limits

An association can restrict leasing and use, but Washington does not give it a free hand, especially when the restriction is new. Under WUCIOA, the board can adopt rules restricting leasing only to carry out the declaration or to meet the underwriting requirements of institutional mortgage lenders (RCW 64.90.510), so a broader rental cap or ban usually has to go into the declaration itself. The leading Washington case, Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Association (2014), struck down a short-term rental ban that a simple majority added to covenants that allowed rentals of any length, because the new restriction was unrelated to any existing covenant. We advise boards on what they can restrict, for whom, and how.

Short-term rentals

The growth of Airbnb and similar platforms has pushed short-term rentals to the top of the board agenda in many communities. A general covenant may not be enough to stop them. In Wilkinson, the Washington Supreme Court held that short-term rentals did not violate covenants barring commercial use or limiting lots to single-family residential use. So the analysis starts with what the governing documents actually say about rentals and rental length, and it also has to account for any local short-term-rental ordinance that applies. We help boards decide whether to cap, license, or ban short-term rentals, and we draft the restriction so it actually reaches the conduct the board is worried about.

Amending the declaration to add restrictions

Adding a rental cap, a short-term-rental ban, or another significant use restriction usually means amending the declaration. In a WUCIOA community, an amendment can add restrictions, and it needs the vote or agreement of owners holding at least 67 percent of the association's votes unless the declaration sets a different percentage, which cannot exceed 90 percent (RCW 64.90.285). Getting the vote is only half the work. Wilkinson shows how an amendment fails when a simple majority adds a restriction the original covenants never contemplated, and, absent fraud, an owner has one year after the amendment is recorded to challenge its validity. That is why the amendment often grandfathers existing owners or units. We run the amendment process and write the language so the restriction does what the board intends without being struck down.

Use restrictions and rules that hold up

Rentals are only part of it. Communities also restrict nuisance, commercial activity, occupancy limits, parking, pets, and signage, and each restriction has to sit within the board's rulemaking authority and the statutory limits on it (RCW 64.90.510; RCW 64.90.505). A rule the board lacks authority to adopt, or one that contradicts the declaration, is vulnerable the moment an owner pushes back. We draft use restrictions and rules that say what the board means, fit within its authority, and stand up to the owner who reads them looking for a way out.

Enforcement and litigation

A restriction is only as good as the board's willingness and ability to enforce it. We enforce rental and use restrictions through the notice, hearing, and fine process, and when an owner challenges the validity of a covenant or amendment, we defend it. These disputes often turn on whether the restriction was properly adopted and evenly enforced, which is why the drafting and the record matter so much. The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in an action to enforce the governing documents (RCW 64.90.685), and the firm's trial group tries the contested cases.