Re: Rental policies?
From: Sharon Villines (
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:45:00 -0800 (PST)
On 8 Nov 2011, at 9:39 PM, Tim Pierce wrote:

> It appears that the California legislature passed SB 150 this year, a 
> law that affects condo associations' ability to limit rentals:

I've read several websites that have reported on this bill and read the bill. 
The websites don't seem to be accurately portraying the bill.

I'm not a lawyer, but in my English class it would be interpreted to say that 
(1) owners have the right to rent or lease under the regulations that were in 
place when they bought their units. The association can't _retroactively_ 
"prohibit" renting and leasing; and (2) a seller is required to give a 
prospective purchaser a statement describing any provisions that prohibit 
rental or leasing before title is transferred.

Thus after 1/1/2012, any new regulations would only affect units that are 
_purchased_ after the date of the community passes new regulations or units for 
which a unit owner expressly gave up their rights under the rules in force when 
they purchased their unit.

It applies to "prohibitions" not "limits." The distinctions between 
"prohibitions" and "limits" will have to be tested in the courts but seem to 
mean that limiting rentals to a minimum of 30 days or 6 months, to executing a 
formal lease document, etc., is still legal.

Reading bills is really helpful, and then get legal advice if you have to take 
a specific action. Plain English has been a huge movement in the legal 
profession for at least 20 years. If you take it slow, they are often quite 
clear. This bill includes the plain English version summary, in addition to the 
lawyerese that is more technical.

This is a link to the text of the bill and I pasted in the Legislative 
Counsel's Digest:


 SB 150, Correa. Common interest developments.
   Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act,
requires the declaration of a common interest development recorded on
or after January 1, 1986, to contain a legal description of the
development and the restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any
portion of the development. Existing law also provides that the
covenants and restrictions in the declaration of a common interest
development shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless
   This bill would prohibit the owner of a separate interest in a
common interest development from being subject to a provision in a
governing document, or a provision in an amendment to a governing
document, that prohibits the rental or leasing of all or any of the
separate interests in that common interest development to a renter,
lessee, or tenant unless that governing document, or amendment
thereto, was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to
his or her separate interest. The bill would also authorize that
owner to expressly consent to be subject to a governing document or
amendment thereto with that specified prohibition.
   Existing law requires the owner of a separate interest, except as
specified, to provide specified documents and information to a
prospective purchaser as soon as practicable before transfer of title
to the separate interest or execution of a real property sales
contract therefor.
   This bill would, in addition, require the owner of a separate
interest to provide a statement describing any provision in the
governing documents that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of
the separate interests in the common interest development to a
renter, lessee, or tenant, and its applicability, if there is such a
   This bill would incorporate additional changes to Civil Code
Section 1368 proposed by AB 771 that would become operative only if
both this bill and AB 771 are chaptered and take effect on or before
January 1, 2012, and this bill is chaptered last.

Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.