Short-Term Rentals: How Your Board Can Actually Restrict Airbnb

A house on the cul-de-sac starts turning over renters every Friday. New cars in the driveway each weekend, trash out on the wrong day, a lockbox on the front door. Three owners email the board asking why nobody has stopped it. Someone suggests passing a rule at the next meeting: no short-term rentals, effective immediately.

That rule usually doesn't hold up, and knowing why changes what the board does next.

A board rule is not the same as a recorded restriction

A rule adopted by the board at a meeting and a restriction written into the declaration (the CC&Rs) are two different tools with different amounts of power behind them. The board can set rules about common areas, quiet hours, or parking, because that falls inside authority the declaration already gives it. Restricting how an owner uses their own unit, including whether they can rent it short term, usually isn't. That takes a recorded amendment to the declaration, approved by owners at the vote threshold the documents require.

Texas gave a clear example of what happens when a community skips that step. In Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Association, the Texas Supreme Court held that a covenant limiting lots to "residential purposes" did not stop an owner from renting his house on VRBO, no matter how short the stay, because the covenant never said anything about rental duration. If your declaration only says "residential use" and doesn't mention rentals or minimum stays, a board rule invoking that language stands on the same ground the association lost on.

What it actually takes to restrict rentals

Three things generally have to line up before a rental restriction is enforceable:

1. It has to be in the declaration or a properly recorded amendment to it, not just meeting minutes or a rules resolution.
2. It has to pass the vote threshold your governing documents set, or the state default when the documents are silent.
3. It has to be recorded in the county's real property records to take effect against owners and future buyers.

Your state statute and your association's own documents control the specifics, and the three states below show how differently that plays out.

Texas: the county clerk decides if the amendment is real

Texas Property Code Section 202.006 requires a property owners' association to file every dedicatory instrument, which includes amendments to restrictive covenants, in the real property records of the county where the property sits. Until it's filed, it has no effect, and the association can't collect on it. This applies to restrictive covenants statewide, regardless of when the declaration was created.

The vote threshold itself normally comes from your own declaration, not a single statewide number, so read that document before promising owners a percentage. (A separate statute, Property Code Chapter 204, sets a 75 percent default for adding restrictions, but it only reaches subdivisions in a handful of the state's largest counties and specifically excludes condominium developments, so don't assume it covers your community without checking.) What doesn't change anywhere in Texas is the recording requirement: a rental restriction the board voted on but never filed with the county clerk isn't binding on anyone.

Florida: two-thirds is the floor, and grandfathering can gut a new rule

Florida Statute 718.110(4) sets the default amendment threshold at two-thirds of the unit owners, and caps how high a declaration recorded after April 1, 1992 can push that number, at four-fifths. So a rental amendment typically needs at least two-thirds approval, sometimes more if your declaration says so.

The part that trips boards up is 718.110(13): an amendment that prohibits rentals, changes the minimum rental term, or limits how many times a unit can be rented applies only to owners who voted for it and to owners who buy after it's recorded. Everyone who didn't vote yes keeps their existing rental rights. A board that assumes a new restriction applies to the whole community the moment it passes is headed for a rough conversation with the owner who's been renting on Airbnb for years and never voted on anything.

California: you can limit short stays, you can't ban rentals outright

Civil Code Section 4741 sets real limits on what a California HOA can do here. An association cannot adopt or enforce a provision that prohibits or unreasonably restricts renting a unit, and it cannot cap the share of units that may be rented below 25 percent of the community. What the statute does allow, explicitly, is a restriction on transient or short-term rental for a period of 30 days or less. That's the tool a California board actually has: a minimum lease term, not a blanket rental ban.

Civil Code Section 4740 adds a grandfathering layer on top: an owner isn't bound by a rental prohibition that didn't exist, or wasn't yet part of the governing documents, when they acquired title. An owner who bought before the 30-day minimum was recorded may be exempt from it, and the association needs to check the timeline before enforcing against that owner.

Write the restriction so it survives a challenge

A few choices at the drafting stage make the difference between a restriction that holds and one that gets litigated:

• Set a minimum lease term (30 days, 60 days, whatever your community lands on) instead of naming a platform. A rule that says "no Airbnb" doesn't stop a booking made directly or through a different site.
• Don't rely on general language like "residential purposes only." Say explicitly what's restricted: minimum stay, maximum number of rentals per year, or both.
• Confirm which owners are grandfathered before the vote, not after, so the board isn't promising a clean cutover the law won't allow.
• Record the amendment. An unrecorded restriction, however well drafted, isn't enforceable against anyone.

Two layers apply at the same time

The city or county's short-term rental ordinance, permit, or occupancy tax is separate from what your association's documents say, and both apply at once. A homeowner might hold a valid city STR permit and still violate the declaration, or comply with association rules and still need a permit the city hasn't granted. Check both before telling an owner they're clear.

Enforcing it once the amendment is in force

Once the restriction is properly recorded and applies to a given owner, enforcement runs through the same tools the association already uses for condominium fines: notice, a chance to respond, then a fine schedule or suspension of amenity access if the violation continues. Understanding what the board can act on through a straight rule versus what needs a recorded amendment to the bylaws or declaration is worth reviewing before the next complaint lands in your inbox, and knowing the difference between the two documents in the first place helps: see bylaws versus the condominium declaration for how they divide authority.

Keeping track of which owners voted for the amendment, which are grandfathered, and which violation notices already went out gets messy fast in email threads and spreadsheets. Noque's board panel keeps documents, votes, and violation notices tied to the unit they belong to, so the history is there when an enforcement question comes up months later. Want to see how it would work for your board? Talk to a specialist.