Rental restrictions are “more burdensome” by statute

“(5) A use restriction establishing or increasing the minimum term for the lease of a lot or prohibiting the rental of less than the entirety of the lot shall be considered a more burdensome restriction.”

This settles a question Louisiana associations have argued about for years. A thirty-day minimum lease term, a six-month minimum, a ban on renting a room rather than the house — each is a more burdensome restriction, so each needs more than eighty percent of the whole association, not a simple majority of a meeting.

Combine that with the grandfathering rule and the twelve-month abandonment clock, and the practical position for a community trying to shut down short-term rentals by amendment is: a very high vote, and no effect on an owner already renting until the use stops for a full year.

The design-standards route is genuinely different

“(6) Unless a greater percentage is required in the community documents, an association may adopt by two-thirds vote more burdensome restrictions governing construction, design criteria, and aesthetic standards, subject to the following limitations: (a) No more burdensome restriction governing construction, design criteria, aesthetic standards, set backs, or square footage requirements shall impose a duty on a lot owner to act affirmatively or remove or renovate any existing improvements, but more burdensome standards shall apply to new exterior renovations, repairs, or reconstructions as provided in Subparagraph (b) of this Paragraph. (b) Only those new exterior renovations, repairs, or reconstructions that increase the value of the improvements on the lot by more than forty percent are required to comply with the more burdensome construction, design criteria, and aesthetic standards. Unless the lot owner agrees in writing to comply with the more burdensome standards, the lot owner shall submit to the association, prior to the start of renovation, repair, or reconstruction, an estimate of the increase in value of the improvements as determined by a qualified appraiser.”

Three things follow, and the gap between them and subsection (C)(1) is the most consequential drafting detail in the whole Act:

• The vote is two-thirds of those present, not eighty percent of the association. Materially easier.
• No forced retrofit. Tougher standards cannot oblige an owner to act affirmatively or to remove or renovate what is already there.
• A forty-percent-of-value trigger, proved by an appraiser's estimate the owner must supply before starting work — unless the owner simply agrees in writing to comply.

So an association that wants stricter aesthetics has a realistic route. An association that wants to restrict how a lot may be used has a hard one.

One year to challenge an amendment, and then it is closed

“G. An action to challenge the validity of an amendment adopted in accordance with this Section shall be brought within a peremptory period of one year from the date that the amendment is filed for registry.”

“[P]eremptory” is the operative word. A peremptive period is not interrupted or suspended the way prescription can be; when it runs, the right itself is gone.

Rules are a separate track, with their own procedure

Not everything a board wants to do requires an amendment. R.S. 9:1141.37 governs rules, and it imposes notice and comment:

“A. Before adopting, amending, or repealing any rule, the board of directors shall give all lot owners notice of the proposed action and provide the text of the rule or the proposed change and the date on which the board of directors will act after considering comments from lot owners.”

And it limits what a rule can be:

“E. The board of directors may adopt rules that affect the use of or behavior on lots that may be used for residential purposes only to implement a provision of the declaration or to regulate any behavior in or occupancy of a lot that violates the declaration or adversely affects the use and enjoyment of other lots or the common areas by other lot owners.
F. Every rule adopted pursuant to this Section is required to be reasonable.”

A rule that does not implement something already in the declaration is outside subsection (E) — which is the line between a rule and an amendment, and the reason the eighty-percent threshold cannot be routed around by calling a restriction a rule.

What to watch next

Where an amendment threshold in a Louisiana declaration has actually been lowered in the last two years, it happened in federal bankruptcy court rather than under this section: a St. Tammany townhouse association in Subchapter V obtained court approval to amend covenants on a reduced threshold, with the court invoking 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 1123(a)(5). That is one decision on unusual facts, not a route.