Michigan HOA Short-Term Rentals

Quick-Reference Table

Last verified: July 17, 2026

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

A Michigan community can restrict short-term rentals through its governing documents, but the first question is the legal form of the community, because a large share of Michigan communities that look and function like homeowners associations are legally condominiums governed by the Michigan Condominium Act rather than traditional deed-restricted subdivisions. The Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq. (1978 PA 59), is a comprehensive, non-uniform statute under which developers commonly organize even detached, single-family developments as "site condominiums," partly because the Land Division Act does not control divisions made for a condominium project.¹¹⁹ The consequence is that many detached-home communities have co-owners, a master deed, and condominium bylaws, and their rental authority is found in those instruments and the Act. Traditional platted subdivisions, by contrast, are not governed by a comprehensive Michigan statute; their rental authority comes from recorded deed restrictions, the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act for corporate governance, and common law.³ Whether short-term rentals violate a "residential use," "single-family residence," or "commercial use" restriction is heavily litigated and fact-specific in Michigan, and the appellate courts have generally, though not uniformly, found that transient rentals conflict with such restrictions.²⁰ Separately, a state preemption of local short-term-rental regulation has been repeatedly proposed but not enacted, so Michigan cities and townships continue to regulate short-term rentals primarily through zoning.⁴ The sections below detail the legal framework, the operational mechanics, and the most recent legislative and judicial activity.

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

2A. The Condominium Act and the site-condominium phenomenon

Condominium ownership in Michigan is governed by the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., enacted as 1978 PA 59 and described by practitioners as comprehensive.¹ It is a bespoke Michigan statute and is not based on the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, so its terminology and structure differ from many other states. The Act uses "co-owner" (a person who owns a condominium unit, MCL 559.106),²¹ "master deed" (the recorded document creating the project, with the bylaws attached as exhibits, MCL 559.108), "condominium bylaws" (which govern administration of the project, MCL 559.153), and "association of co-owners" (the entity that administers the project, MCL 559.103).²² These terms replace the "unit owner" and "declaration" vocabulary used elsewhere.

A distinctive Michigan feature is the site condominium: a development of detached, single-family homes organized under the Condominium Act rather than platted as a subdivision. Michigan's Condominium Buyer's Handbook, published by the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, describes a site condominium as a condominium development with single-family detached housing instead of two or more housing units in one structure, and states that site condominium developments must comply with the Act.² Developers use the form widely in part because the Land Division Act does not control divisions made for a condominium project, which lets developers avoid subdivision platting.²³ The practical consequence is that many communities that function like HOAs are legally condominiums, so their rental authority is the master deed and condominium bylaws read together with the Act.

Traditional platted subdivisions are the other model. They are not governed by a comprehensive Michigan common-interest statute. Their rental authority comes from recorded deed restrictions and covenants, from the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq., for the corporate governance of the property owners' association, and from common law.³ In both models, the governing documents are the source of authority to restrict rentals, and there is a practical distinction between authority over long-term leasing and authority over short-term or transient rentals; a document that permits "leasing" may still be read against transient use, and a document silent on rentals leaves the question to the residential-use analysis discussed below.

2B. Restricting rentals, amendments, grandfathering, and residential-use restrictions

For condominiums and site condominiums, a rental restriction is normally adopted by amending the condominium documents. Under MCL 559.190(2), the master deed, bylaws, and condominium subdivision plan may be amended, even when the amendment materially alters co-owner rights, with the consent of not less than two-thirds of the votes of the co-owners and mortgagees, and that two-thirds threshold cannot be increased by the documents.²⁴ Because a rental restriction modifies leasing rights, it also triggers a first-mortgagee vote under MCL 559.190a(9)(f), one of seven enumerated circumstances requiring mortgagee approval.²⁵ For traditional subdivisions, a rental restriction is added by amending the deed restrictions under their own amendment clause and Michigan covenant law.

On grandfathering, the Condominium Act contains a targeted protection rather than a broad owner shield. MCL 559.212(1) provides that after the transitional control date the association may amend the documents as to rental of units, but the amendment "shall not affect the rights of any lessors or lessees under a written lease otherwise in compliance with this section and executed before the effective date of the amendment."²⁶ That protects existing compliant written leases, not a general vested right to keep renting. The Act does not contain the 2008-UCIOA rental-amendment owner-protection provision, so beyond MCL 559.212(1) the question of whether an amendment binds a co-owner or lot owner who purchased before it is governed by the documents and Michigan case law, and remains contested and fact-specific. There is no Florida-style or California-style statutory grandfathering shield to import.

Whether short-term rentals violate a residential-use or commercial-use restriction is the most heavily litigated question. The Michigan Supreme Court in O'Connor v Resort Custom Builders, Inc, 459 Mich 335 (1999), held that interval (timeshare) ownership did not satisfy a "residential purposes" restriction, emphasizing permanence and continuity of presence.²⁷ The Court of Appeals applied that reasoning to transient rentals in the published decision Eager v Peasley, 322 Mich App 174; 911 NW2d 470 (2017), holding on the facts that short-term rentals violated "private occupancy only," "private dwelling," and commercial-use restrictions, and stating that renting property to another for short-term use is a commercial use even if the activity is residential in nature.²⁸ The Court of Appeals reinforced that line in the published decision Aldrich v Sugar Springs Property Owners Association, Inc, 345 Mich App 181 (2023).²⁹ These holdings are fact-specific and turn on the exact language of the restriction; Michigan courts examine restrictive-covenant cases case-by-case and resolve genuine ambiguity in favor of free use of property, so the case law is best characterized as developing rather than a single settled statewide rule.³⁰ Michigan does not limit an association's rental-restriction authority by statute, unlike California (Civil Code § 4741) or Arizona (§ 33-1806.01).

2C. State law, the contested preemption debate, tax, and the local layer

As of the publication date, Michigan does not have an enacted statute preempting local short-term-rental regulation. Preemption has been proposed repeatedly and has advanced without enactment: House Bill 4722 of 2021 would have amended the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act to make renting a dwelling, including short-term rental, a residential use permitted in all residential zones. The House passed the bill 55-48 on October 27, 2021, the Senate Regulatory Reform Committee reported it in October 2022, but it received no Senate floor vote and died at the end of the 2021-2022 session.³¹ Similar efforts followed in later sessions.³² In the meantime, Michigan cities and townships regulate short-term rentals primarily through zoning, and the Court of Appeals confirmed in Reaume v Township of Spring Lake that a municipality may prohibit short-term rentals in a residential zone.³³ Local regimes vary: Traverse City requires a Vacation Home Rental License ($200 application plus $200 annual renewal), defines a vacation home rental as a commercial use of a dwelling rented for terms of less than 30 consecutive days, and generally confines whole-home short-term rentals to commercial and mixed-use districts, with an 11% total lodging tax (6% state use tax plus a 5% local assessment).³⁴ South Haven enforces a 1:4 housing-stock ratio cap (one short-term rental per four housing units, roughly 20% of the housing stock) with registration and bi-annual inspection under its Article V ordinance.³⁵

On tax, Michigan applies its 6% use tax to rooms or lodging furnished on a commercial basis, MCL 205.93a(1)(b), and the exemption for accommodations rented for a continuous period of more than one month is defined so that "1 month" means 30 days or the calendar month, whichever is shorter, under Mich Admin Code R 205.88.¹¹³⁶ Some local jurisdictions also impose accommodations or excise taxes under 1974 PA 263, MCL 141.861 et seq., and county-level assessments apply in various tourism markets.¹³

The critical point for associations is that local zoning and any future preemption statute govern the owner-to-government relationship. They neither grant nor remove association authority. An owner who holds a valid local short-term-rental permit and complies with zoning may still violate the master deed, condominium bylaws, or deed restrictions, and an owner who satisfies the association may still violate local zoning. The two systems operate independently.

Section 3: Operational mechanics and enforcement

A. Adopting a valid restriction (the tools)

The most common mechanism is a minimum-lease-term restriction adopted in the master deed or condominium bylaws (or, for subdivisions, in the deed restrictions), which sets a floor on rental duration and thereby excludes transient use. Michigan has no statutory minimum lease term binding associations, so the duration comes from the documents. Rental caps, such as a limit on the percentage of units that may be rented at one time, are permitted when authorized by the governing documents; the Condominium Act neither requires nor caps them, so the documents govern.⁶ Associations may also impose internal requirements: MCL 559.212(2) requires a co-owner who intends to rent to disclose that fact in writing to the association at least 10 days before granting possession and to supply the lease for the association's review for compliance with the condominium documents, or, if there is no written lease, to supply the occupants' names and the rental terms.¹⁰ These lease-filing and owner-information requirements give associations a compliance tool independent of the residential-use question.

B. Enforcement

Before an association fines a co-owner, the Condominium Act requires process: MCL 559.206(c) authorizes fines only after notice and a hearing.³⁷ Available remedies for a condominium association include injunctive relief and enforcement of the documents under MCL 559.206(a) and MCL 559.207,¹⁶ fines when the documents authorize them under MCL 559.206(c), recovery of attorney fees and costs when the documents expressly provide for them (the Court of Appeals held in Highfield Beach at Lake Michigan v Sanderson, 331 Mich App 636 (2020), that MCL 559.206(b) does not itself create an independent right to fees),³⁸ and the statutory assessment lien and foreclosure remedy under MCL 559.208.¹⁷ For traditional subdivisions, remedies and the notice-and-hearing process come from the deed restrictions and common law rather than a statute. Many enforcement actions turn on the residential-use question and proceed in the Circuit Court, with appeal to the Court of Appeals and discretionary review by the Supreme Court.¹⁸ Association enforcement of the governing documents is separate from local-government zoning enforcement; a municipality's decision to permit or deny a short-term-rental license does not resolve a private covenant dispute.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No bill classifying short-term rentals as a residential use and preempting local zoning bans was verified as pending in the 2025-2026 session; the recurring preemption vehicle (House Bill 4722 of 2021 and its successors) has not been enacted.⁴⁰

B. Recent rulings

C. Active legislative or local debates

The state preemption debate over classifying short-term rentals as a residential use continues without enacted legislation, and lakeshore and Up North municipalities, including Traverse City and South Haven, continue to revise short-term-rental ordinances (caps, districts, licensing) in ways that affect owners but not association authority.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Michigan sits apart from many states in how it reaches short-term rentals in community associations. It has a comprehensive, non-UCIOA condominium statute that reaches unusually far because the site-condominium form sweeps many detached-home communities into the Condominium Act, a deed-restriction-primary regime for traditional subdivisions with no comprehensive planned-community statute, well-developed but fact-specific residential-use case law that has generally disfavored transient rentals under residential and commercial covenants, and an unresolved state preemption debate. That contrasts with states that have preempted local bans, such as Florida and Arizona, and with states that directly limit HOA rental authority by statute, such as California and Arizona. Local zoning and any future Michigan preemption statute restrain governments and owners, not associations. For a multi-state operator entering Michigan, the practical implications are that the threshold question is always the legal form (site condominium versus platted subdivision), and that residential-use and commercial-use covenant language can bar short-term rentals even without an express rental prohibition.

HOA Weekly's Michigan Short-Term Rentals coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature, the Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and local governments act. Federal frameworks (the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, the FDCPA, the SCRA, and OTARD) also apply to Michigan associations regardless of the state framework.

Footnotes

1. Michigan Condominium Act, 1978 PA 59, MCL 559.101 et seq., Michigan Legislature ↩
2. Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, The Condominium Buyer's Handbook (site condominium) ↩
3. MCL 559.110(1) (Land Division Act does not control divisions made for a condominium project), Michigan Legislature ↩
4. Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, MCL 450.2101 et seq., Michigan Legislature ↩
5. House Bill 4722 of 2021 (short-term rental zoning preemption; not enacted), Michigan Legislature ↩
6. House Bill 4722 of 2021 (House-passed 55-48; died in Senate), Michigan Legislature ↩
7. MCL 559.212 (renting or leasing condominium unit), Michigan Legislature ↩
8. MCL 559.212(1) (protection of written leases executed before the amendment's effective date), Michigan Legislature ↩
9. MCL 559.156 (permissible bylaw provisions), Michigan Legislature ↩
10. MCL 559.190 (amendment of condominium documents; two-thirds threshold), Michigan Legislature ↩
11. MCL 559.190(2) (two-thirds amendment threshold; cannot be increased), Michigan Legislature ↩
12. MCL 559.190a(9)(f) (first-mortgagee vote on leasing restrictions), Michigan Legislature ↩
13. MCL 559.190a(9)(f) (first-mortgagee vote for modification of leasing restrictions), Michigan Legislature ↩
14. MCL 559.212(1) (amendment shall not affect rights under a written lease executed before the effective date), Michigan Legislature ↩
15. MCL 559.212(2) (co-owner lease disclosure to association), Michigan Legislature ↩
16. MCL 205.93a(1)(b) (use tax on rooms or lodging), Michigan Legislature ↩
17. Michigan Department of Treasury, Use Tax (6% on accommodations; one-month exemption) ↩
18. Michigan Department of Treasury, Use Tax (6% on accommodations; one-month/30-day exemption) ↩
19. Excise Tax on Persons Providing Accommodations, 1974 PA 263, MCL 141.861 et seq., Michigan Legislature ↩
20. MCL 559.206(c) (fines against co-owners after notice and hearing), Michigan Legislature ↩
21. MCL 559.206 (default by co-owner; relief), Michigan Legislature ↩
22. MCL 559.206(c) (fines after notice and hearing), Michigan Legislature ↩
23. MCL 559.207 (action for injunctive relief or damages), Michigan Legislature ↩
24. MCL 559.208 (assessment lien; foreclosure), Michigan Legislature ↩
25. Michigan Courts (Circuit Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court structure) ↩
26. Melvin R Berlin Revocable Trust v Rubin, COA No. 359300 (opinion), Michigan Courts ↩
27. MCL 559.106 (definition of co-owner), text of the Michigan Condominium Act ↩
28. Michigan Courts, Condominiums overview (citing Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass'n, 514 Mich 86 (2024); MCL 559.153; MCL 559.106) ↩
29. MCL 559.110(1) (Land Division Act does not control divisions for a condominium project), Michigan Legislature ↩
30. O'Connor v Resort Custom Builders, Inc, 459 Mich 335 (1999), discussed with citation ↩
31. Eager v Peasley, 322 Mich App 174; 911 NW2d 470 (2017), full opinion ↩
32. Aldrich v Sugar Springs Property Owners Ass'n, Inc, 345 Mich App 181; 4 NW3d 751 (2023), cited in Smiley v Szefer opinion ↩
33. Smiley v Szefer (quoting Eager on strict construction and doubts resolved in favor of free use of property) ↩
34. House Bill 5438 of 2024 (Short-Term Rental Regulation Act; prior-session package), Michigan Legislature ↩
35. Reaume v Township of Spring Lake (Michigan Court of Appeals, published; municipal STR prohibition upheld) ↩
36. Traverse City Code of Ordinances (Vacation Home Rental licensing and districts) ↩
37. City of South Haven, Short-Term Rental Registration (Article V; registration and inspection) ↩
38. Highfield Beach at Lake Michigan v Sanderson, 331 Mich App 636 (2020), discussed with citation (MCL 559.206(b) creates no independent right to fees) ↩
39. House Bill 5139 of 2025 (use tax definitions; tie-barred with HB 5138 and HB 5140; in House Economic Competitiveness Committee), Michigan Legislature ↩
40. House Bill 4722 of 2021 (recurring preemption vehicle; not enacted), Michigan Legislature ↩
41. Melvin R Berlin Revocable Trust v Rubin, Docket No. 166228, Michigan Supreme Court case information ↩
42. Timber Lake Drive Property Owners' Ass'n v Gribi, unpublished, COA Docket No. 369520 (Sept. 18, 2025), discussed with citation ↩
43. Smiley v Szefer, unpublished, COA Docket No. 375231 (May 14, 2026), full opinion ↩