Newport implemented it cleanly, and added a restriction of its own

Newport adopted its ADU ordinance by Ord. No. 2024-27, § 1 on August 28, 2024, at Code §§ 17.79.010 to 17.79.050. Two of its provisions matter to a board.

Section 17.79.050, headed “Private restrictions”, restates the state rule rather than trying to soften it:

“Pursuant to R.I.G.L. § 45-24-73, private restrictions on ADUs imposed by condominium associations, homeowner associations, or similar residential property governing bodies, which conflict with the provisions of R.I.G.L. § 45-24-73 or the definition of an ADU as set forth in R.I.G.L. § 45-24-31, shall be void as against public policy.”²

And § 17.79.030(J) adds a use restriction that cuts the other way:

“ADUs shall not be offered or rented for guest house or transient use or through a hosting platform, as such terms are defined in R.I.G.L. §42-63.1-2.”

So in Newport an association cannot ban the ADU — and nobody needs the association to ban short-term renting it, because the ordinance already does. A board facing an owner who wants to build an ADU and list it on a platform can point at the town's rule rather than its own.

One caution: this is Newport. Whether other Rhode Island municipalities implemented § 45-24-73 as faithfully has not been established, and a local ordinance purporting to preserve conflicting covenants would itself conflict with the statute. Do not generalise from one town.

What is left of an association's authority over an ADU

More than boards assume, and less than they usually claim.

Gone: a prohibition. A declaration provision barring accessory dwelling units, barring second kitchens, barring “more than one dwelling per lot”, or requiring board consent that is withheld as a matter of policy, is void to the extent it conflicts with the statute.

Probably intact: conditions that do not conflict. Architectural review of materials, siding, roof pitch and colour; setback and screening rules that do not defeat the statutory right; rules about construction hours and contractor parking; the requirement to obtain the association's approval as to appearance rather than as to permission. Our Rhode Island architectural review page covers the source of that authority.

Unresolved: where the line between the two sits. The statute voids restrictions that “conflict with the provisions of this section or the definition of an ADU” and no Rhode Island court has construed that phrase in an association case. Neither the Executive Office of Housing nor Statewide Planning has published guidance interpreting the preemption, and no agency has published a process for a homeowner to invoke it. An owner whose association refuses has a statute and no forum designed for it.

Also intact, and worth remembering: a condominium is different from a subdivision here. Where the common elements are vested in the unit owners, building an ADU may involve altering common elements or limited common elements, which engages § 34-36.1-2.11 on alterations of units — an owner “[m]ay make any improvements or alterations to his or her unit that do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium” — and § 34-36.1-3.12, which requires eighty percent approval to convey or encumber common elements. The ADU statute voids the covenant; it does not hand an owner someone else's property.

A board's options

Read your declaration against the statute now, not when an application arrives. If it contains a flat ADU prohibition, that provision is unenforceable and continuing to publish it in a welcome packet is asserting a right you do not have.

Rewrite the provision as conditions rather than consent. Appearance standards survive; a veto does not.

Do not add a short-term rental condition where the town already imposes one. In Newport, § 17.79.030(J) does the work. Elsewhere, an association restriction on transient rental of an ADU is its own question, and the statewide ADU legislation has been read as barring platform rental of ADUs since June 2024.

Note the one-way ratchet in the proviso. An association whose covenants allow ADUs is “deemed in compliance”. There is no upside to resisting and a statutory safe harbour for permitting.

What to watch next

Rhode Island's Housing 2030 plan, approved as an element of the State Guide Plan by the State Planning Council on December 11, 2025, aims to triple accessory dwelling unit permitting. Section 45-24-76 already requires the Executive Office of Housing to report annually on municipal ADU activity. More ADUs means more association applications, and the phrase “which conflict with the provisions of this section” is going to be litigated by somebody. Watch also whether the sixteen-member condominium law commission, reporting by December 31, 2027, addresses ADUs in condominiums specifically — the statute reaches them, and the common-element problem it leaves behind has no statutory answer.