Arizona HOA Short-Term Rentals

Quick-Reference Table

Last verified: July 17, 2026

Section 1: Overview — Can an HOA restrict short-term rentals in Arizona?

Yes, an Arizona association can restrict or prohibit short-term rentals — but only if the authority appears in the recorded declaration under the applicable statute, and Arizona law layers two additional state interventions on top of that declaration authority. Condominiums fall under the Arizona Condominium Act, Title 33, Chapter 9 (A.R.S. § 33-1201 et seq.), and planned communities fall under the Arizona Planned Communities Act, Title 33, Chapter 16 (A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.) — two parallel frameworks, not one.¹⁴ Arizona also directly regulates the association-to-owner rental relationship through A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 (condominiums) and § 33-1806.01 (planned communities), which cap the ancillary requirements an association may impose while confirming that an owner may rent unless the declaration prohibits it.¹ Separately, A.R.S. § 9-500.39 (cities and towns) and § 11-269.17 (counties) restrain local governments, not associations, by barring outright bans on short-term rentals while allowing licensing and health-and-safety regulation.³ The central operational question: whether a rental restriction added by later amendment binds owners who bought before it — an issue Arizona courts resolve through notice and foreseeability doctrine.⁸ Arizona runs as a comprehensive non-Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act state with unusually active short-term rental law, so readers need to track the two statutory chapters and the two state interventions separately. The sections below lay out the framework, the amendment and grandfathering problem, enforcement mechanics, and recent activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for HOA short-term rental restrictions

2A. The two statutes and the source of association rental authority

Arizona regulates community associations through two separate, parallel statutes. Condominiums fall under the Arizona Condominium Act, Title 33, Chapter 9 (A.R.S. § 33-1201 et seq.), based on the 1980 Uniform Condominium Act with Arizona amendments. Planned communities fall under the Arizona Planned Communities Act, Title 33, Chapter 16 (A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.), a bespoke Arizona framework.¹⁴ The two chapters aren't interchangeable — each supplies its own use-restriction, amendment, and rental provisions even where the language runs parallel. Arizona isn't a Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act state, so don't assume UCIOA features apply.

Under both chapters, any rental restriction originates in the recorded declaration, with the statute serving as a backstop. A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(A) provides that a unit owner may use the unit as a rental property unless the declaration prohibits it, and must use it in accordance with the declaration's rental time period restrictions.¹ A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) states the parallel rule for planned community members.² These provisions confirm that the declaration is the source of authority both to prohibit rentals outright and to impose rental time period restrictions — the mechanism a community uses to reach short-term or transient use specifically. Neither chapter defines "short-term" for association purposes; the length that separates a permitted long-term tenancy from a prohibited transient rental is whatever the declaration's rental time period restriction establishes. Where the declaration stays silent, the owner may rent, and the association cannot supply a prohibition by rule alone. The distinction between authority over long-term leasing and authority over short-term or transient use is a drafting question answered inside each declaration, not a bright line set by statute.

2B. The two state interventions: association limits and local preemption

Arizona imposes two distinct state interventions, and they shouldn't be merged. The first is the association-to-owner layer: A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 (planned communities) and § 33-1260.01 (condominiums). These sections limit what an association may require of owner-landlords and tenants. An association can't demand tenant information beyond the names and contact information of adult occupants, the lease term, and a description and license plate numbers of tenant vehicles. It may charge a fee of no more than $25 for the required disclosures on each new tenancy — but not on a lease renewal — and it can't otherwise assess, levy, or charge a fee or fine, or impose a requirement on a rental property differently than on an owner-occupied property.¹ The association can't require copies of the tenant's rental application, credit report, or lease, can't force a tenant to waive due process rights, and can't bar a non-occupant owner from board service.² Critically, these limits reach only the ancillary requirements an association may impose; they expressly preserve the declaration's underlying power to prohibit or time-restrict rentals. They neither ban HOA rental restrictions nor render them ineffective.

The second intervention is the local-government layer: A.R.S. § 9-500.39 (cities and towns) and § 11-269.17 (counties). Arizona broadly preempted local vacation-rental bans in 2016 through Senate Bill 1350, then restored measured local authority through later amendments, including HB 2672 in 2019, which gave local governments authority to fine short-term rental operations for verified violations, and Senate Bill 1168, which the governor approved July 6, 2022.¹⁵ Under the current statutes, a city, town, or county may not prohibit short-term rentals or regulate them based on classification, use, or occupancy, except as the statute allows. Permitted local regulation now includes health-and-safety and nuisance rules, emergency-contact designation, a requirement that the rental maintain liability insurance in the aggregate of at least $500,000 — or advertise through an online lodging marketplace providing equal or greater coverage — sex-offender and sober-living limitations, and a local permit or license process.³ This layer governs the city-or-county-to-owner relationship. It neither expands nor contracts an association's declaration-based authority. An owner holding a valid municipal short-term rental license may still violate the declaration, and an owner who complies with the declaration may still need a municipal license. Local preemption of city bans doesn't enlarge what an association may do, because the association's power flows from a recorded contract, not delegated municipal authority.

2C. Amending the declaration to restrict rentals; grandfathering

The amendment threshold differs by chapter. For condominiums, A.R.S. § 33-1227(A) requires a vote of unit owners holding at least 67 percent of the votes, or any larger majority the declaration specifies. A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) adds that, absent unanimous consent, an amendment may not change the uses to which a unit is restricted — directly implicated when an association tries to add a rental prohibition.⁶ For planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) fixes no statutory percentage; it defers to the affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners or eligible voters the declaration specifies.⁷

Whether a rental restriction adopted by amendment binds owners who purchased before it stands as the highest-stakes operational question. In Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC (2022), the Arizona Supreme Court held that a general amendment power may be used only to adopt restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice — meaning amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable.⁸ The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, applied that rule to short-term rentals in Gross v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association (2024), invalidating an amendment that banned short-term leases because the original declaration had allowed leasing, while upholding a related occupancy amendment as a foreseeable refinement.⁹ The practical takeaway for managers: resolve conservatively where the law is unsettled. A validly adopted amendment may bind future buyers yet fail to reach non-consenting existing owners, depending on the chapter's amendment provision, the § 33-1260.01 / § 33-1806.01 limits, the original declaration's language, and this case law.

Section 3: Operational mechanics and enforcement

Adopting a valid restriction (the tools)

The most common mechanism is a minimum-lease-term restriction placed in the declaration. Because neither chapter defines "short-term," a community that wants to bar transient use writes a rental time period restriction, and A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(A) or § 33-1806.01(A) then requires owners to use the property in accordance with it.¹ Rental caps that limit the percentage of units available to rent aren't addressed by either the Condominium Act or the Planned Communities Act; a cap must originate in the declaration, and community type determines the governing chapter. Any owner-and-agent information, disclosure, or fee requirement an association attaches to rentals stays bounded by § 33-1260.01 for condominiums and § 33-1806.01 for planned communities, including the limit on collectible tenant information and the $25 disclosure fee per new tenancy.² The declaration can't expand a statutory default here, because the statute caps the association rather than the owner.

Enforcement

Before imposing a fine for a short-term rental violation, an association must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. For condominiums, A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11) authorizes reasonable monetary penalties only after notice and a hearing, and § 33-1242(B) gives the unit owner a defined period to respond by certified mail.¹⁰ For planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) states the parallel rule, with § 33-1803(C) supplying the response process.¹¹ The available remedies are reasonable fines, injunctive relief through the Superior Court to compel compliance, and a lien — subject to an important limit: monetary penalties aren't enforceable as assessments and don't support assessment-lien foreclosure. A fine becomes a lien only after the association obtains a court judgment and records it, and that lien takes effect on conveyance rather than through foreclosure — § 33-1256 for condominiums, § 33-1807 for planned communities.¹² Association enforcement runs on a track separate from municipal short-term rental licensing enforcement. A city can cite or fine an owner under § 9-500.39 without affecting the association's declaration claim, and the association can enforce the declaration regardless of the owner's municipal license status. For each tool, the source is the declaration as backstopped by the chapter that matches the community type, and the declaration may vary a statutory default only where the statute allows it.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

Recent bills

Recent appellate rulings

Active legislative or local debates

House Bill 2429 (2026 regular session) would amend A.R.S. § 9-500.39 and § 11-269.17 to let a local government limit overnight occupancy to two adults per sleeping area plus up to two additional persons, not including minors. It passed the House Commerce Committee on February 18, 2026 and remains pending further action, so it isn't enacted yet.¹⁸ Major municipalities keep operating permit or license regimes that affect owners but not association declaration authority; Scottsdale, for example, requires a $250-per-year license per property, at least $500,000 in liability insurance, a 24/7 emergency contact, and neighbor notification.¹⁹

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Arizona stands as a leading example of a state that both regulates the association-to-owner rental relationship directly, through A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and § 33-1806.01, and preempts then partly restores local short-term rental power, through A.R.S. § 9-500.39 and § 11-269.17. That dual posture sets Arizona apart from states that leave HOA rental authority entirely to the recorded declaration and from states with little short-term rental-specific law. The local-preemption layer restrains cities, towns, and counties, not associations, whose authority derives from the declaration as backstopped by the applicable chapter. For a multi-state operator entering Arizona, the practical implication is that three things need tracking at once: two parallel governing statutes by community type, direct state limits on the ancillary rental requirements an association may impose, and active municipal licensing that varies city by city.

HOA Weekly's Arizona Short-Term Rentals coverage updates quarterly as the legislature, the Arizona Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and the major municipalities act. Federal frameworks — including the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the OTARD rule — also apply to Arizona associations regardless of the state framework.

Footnotes

1. A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, Rental property; unit owner and agent information; fee; disclosure (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
2. A.R.S. § 33-1806.01, Rental property; member and agent information; fee; disclosure (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
3. A.R.S. § 9-500.39, Limits on regulation of vacation rentals and short-term rentals; state preemption; civil penalties (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
4. A.R.S. § 11-269.17, Limits on regulation of vacation rentals and short-term rentals; state preemption; civil penalties (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
5. Short-Term Lodging, Arizona Department of Revenue (citing A.R.S. § 42-5070; transient defined as under 30 days) ↩
6. A.R.S. § 33-1227, Amendment of declaration (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
7. A.R.S. § 33-1817, Declaration amendment; design, architectural committees; review (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
8. Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022), No. CV-20-0152-PR (Arizona Supreme Court; via Justia for cross-verification) ↩
9. Gross v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association, 558 P.3d 216 (App. 2024), No. 1 CA-CV 23-0394 (Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; via Justia for cross-verification) ↩
10. A.R.S. § 33-1242, Powers of unit owners' association; notice to unit owner of violation (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
11. A.R.S. § 33-1803, Assessment limitation; penalties; notice to member of violation (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
12. A.R.S. § 33-1256 (condominium liens) and § 33-1807 (planned community liens), Title 33 (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
13. Arizona Court of Appeals, Divisions One and Two, and the Arizona Supreme Court (Arizona Judicial Branch) ↩
14. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 33, Chapter 9 (Condominiums) and Chapter 16 (Planned Communities) (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
15. Senate Bill 1168 (2022), vacation rentals; short-term rentals; enforcement, Chapter 343 (Arizona State Legislature); HB 2672 (2019) preceded it in restoring local authority ↩
16. Senate Bill 1494 (2025), Senate Fact Sheet, amending A.R.S. § 33-1807 (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
17. Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 109, 545 P.3d 459 (2024), No. CV-22-0228-PR (Arizona Supreme Court; via Justia for cross-verification) ↩
18. House Bill 2429 (2026), House Bill Summary, amending A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39 and 11-269.17 (Arizona State Legislature) ↩
19. Vacation and Short-Term Rentals, City of Scottsdale (Ordinance 4566; $250 annual license, $500,000 liability insurance, emergency contact, neighbor notification) ↩