Since 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly has set and revised the boundaries of local government IPR programs. Originally codified in G.S. 160A-424 and G.S. 153A-364, these statutes prohibit regular inspections of rental units except in certain limited situations. Municipal by-laws also limit fees, permits and registration requirements for rental units. Details of IPR programs and legal limits are explained in more detail in this bulletin by Tyler Mulligan on Residential Property Inspection, Permits and Registrations: Changes for 2017. It should be noted that G.S. 160D-1207 allows registration requirements for residential rental properties in very limited circumstances due to past violations. This exception was neither part of the Wilmington Regulation nor the subject of the Schröder case. The average rental in popular destinations is $186 per night for a solo rental or for 2 people. An upper limit for land use may also appear in another context: there may be an upper limit to the amount of land use in a particular development or building.
Imagine an owner running a professional business out of a home office. If the use of offices is contingent on residential use, it may be permitted as an additional residential use. However, if the use of offices fills most or all of the residence – all bedrooms are converted into offices and the living room is a conference room – then the building will no longer be used primarily as an apartment. Different building rules and permits may apply to the use of the office building. Similarly, consider a condominium skyscraper. If some units are sometimes rented on a short-term basis, this may not radically change the nature of land use. But if all units are rented on a short-term basis, this building is effectively a hotel. Different zoning rules and permits may apply.
The law clearly prohibits a municipality from establishing and maintaining a rent register. A city cannot have a current database or a list of all short-term rental properties within its territory. In addition, the law prohibits short-term rentals (compared to traditional rental properties) from being treated unfairly, as permitted by the Construction and Housing Act. The city simply cannot subject these properties to enhanced or additional approval. This does not affect a municipality`s ability to subject such properties to increased zoning permits. However, such regulation under the Building or Housing Act is strictly prohibited by state laws. The analysis and analysis in the Court of Appeal`s opinion provides guidance and highlights issues relating to the further development of short-term rent regulations, IPR programs in general, and the interpretation of Chapter 160D. This blog focuses on short-term rental regulations. Local ordinances usually set restrictions and restrictions on development. This can include parking requirements, waste management, occupancy limits, operating restrictions, etc. The Schröder case upholds several development standards of Wilmington`s short-term rental regulations, including parking requirements, major event restrictions, waste management, insurance requirements, safety requirements, and other development limitations.
Under the general authority over planning by-laws and police force ordinances, similar development standards can be applied to short-term rental uses as long as they are not linked to an inappropriate rent registration program. According to the Schroeder case, a local government cannot require a short-term rental company to register with the local government, and the local government cannot require a permit or permit under the Building Code or the Housing Act to rent or rent real property. But can the local ordinance require the operator to obtain another development permit, for example: a permit to comply with zoning for land use? Short answer: Depending on the case and the legal authority, an order may require a building permit or similar development permit, but an order may not use a zoning permit in a manner equivalent to a registration program. What is the limit between an eligible building permit and an ineligible registration requirement? The Court clearly drew a distinction between the requirement for a licence and the requirement to register.