Idaho HB 800 opens single-family zones to manufactured homes — but not HOA covenants
Idaho HB 800 opens single-family zones to manufactured homes — but not HOA covenants
2026-09-03 · Idaho · Legislation
What happened. House Bill 800 was signed by Governor Little on 26 March 2026, became Chapter 171 of the 2026 Session Laws, and took effect 1 July 2026. It amended Idaho Code § 67-6509A, the manufactured-home siting provision of the Local Land Use Planning Act.12
The votes were lopsided: the House suspended its rules and passed it 60-6 on 9 March, and the Senate followed 28-5 on 24 March.2
For community associations this is a story about a sentence that did not change. Section 67-6509A(3) still provides: “This section shall not be construed as abrogating a recorded restrictive covenant.”1
What the section now requires of local government
The section directs governing boards to amend their comprehensive plans to permit manufactured homes in single-family residential zones, historic districts excepted. It sets placement standards a city or county may apply — foundation requirements, roof-pitch specifications, siding and roofing materials compatible with dwellings in the community, and garage or carport parity with site-built homes.
It also sets the minimum size a local government may demand: a single-section home must enclose at least 400 square feet, and a multisectional unit at least 800 square feet. Those are floors on what must be permitted, not standards a jurisdiction may raise.
The section has been amended repeatedly since it was added in 1994 — in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2007 and now 2026.1 The 2026 pass is the one that moves manufactured homes squarely into single-family zoning as a matter of plan obligation.
Why the covenant carve-out is the story
Idaho's 2026 session ran two manufactured-home bills, and the difference between them is exactly this point. HB 800 is the siting-only measure and it passed. A broader bill, HB 647, would have added a new Idaho Code § 55-619 voiding covenants that prohibit or unreasonably restrict siting a manufactured home. It died in the House Business Committee — a story covered separately in this column.3
What it changes for an Idaho association: very little, deliberately
An association whose declaration prohibits manufactured or mobile homes, or imposes minimum-square-footage, foundation or site-built construction requirements that a manufactured home cannot meet, is in the same position on 2 July 2026 as it was on 30 June. The Legislature loosened what a city or county may forbid and expressly declined to touch what a recorded covenant may forbid.
That is not an accident of drafting. Idaho now has two live models in the same title:
- The consent model. Sections 55-3211 (rentals) and 55-3212 (accessory dwelling units) bar an association from adding, amending or enforcing covenants on those subjects without the affected owner's written agreement.
- The zoning-only model. Sections 67-6509A (manufactured homes) and 67-6539 (short-term rentals) constrain local government and leave private covenants alone.
Which model a subject sits in determines whether the association's declaration still governs. Manufactured homes are in the second.
The mismatch that awaits boards
The practical consequence is a widening gap between what an Idaho city must permit and what a subdivision permits. A lot inside an association may be zoned to allow a 400-square-foot single-section manufactured home as of plan obligation, while the declaration recorded over that lot requires 1,800 square feet of site-built construction on a permanent foundation with a pitched roof.
Both can be true at once, and the covenant is the operative constraint on the owner. Purchasers, and sometimes their agents, increasingly read the zoning and stop there.
What boards and managers can do
- Know which clause you are actually relying on. Very few Idaho declarations say “no manufactured homes.” Most operate through minimum floor area, foundation type, roof pitch, exterior materials or a site-built requirement. Those clauses are enforceable, and they are also the ones most likely to be ambiguous — which in Idaho resolves in favour of free use.
- Do not assume a general aesthetic clause will carry the weight. Idaho's appellate courts consistently decline to extend a restriction by implication. In Jordan v. Powers the Supreme Court walked through building-design, tree-removal, residential-use and nuisance provisions and found none of them prohibited what the board said they prohibited.
- Route the question through architectural review, not through a categorical no. A denial grounded in a written, applied dimensional standard is far more defensible than one grounded in a reading of a general clause.
- Watch the estoppel and disclosure moment. The gap between zoning and covenants surfaces at resale. An association that answers a statement-of-account request without flagging construction restrictions leaves a buyer to discover them later.
What to watch next
The covenant-voiding idea has been introduced once and can be introduced again. HB 647 was prospective only — it would have left covenants predating 1 July 2026 alone — and it carried an attorney-fee provision against anyone attempting to enforce a barred covenant. Idaho bills do not carry over between sessions, so any revival in 2027 starts with a new bill number.
The broader signal is the direction of travel. In four sessions Idaho has moved rooftop solar, political signs, flags, rentals and accessory dwelling units out of unilateral covenant control. Manufactured homes are the subject the Legislature has now considered and, for this session, left alone.
Related Idaho HOA Topics
Stay on top of Idaho HOA law
Every week: new Idaho legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.