Washington HOA Rental Restriction Rulemaking Limits

Washington's Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act draws a hard line between what a homeowners association board can do by simple rule and what requires a recorded declaration amendment. 510(10)(c)). That ties board-adopted leasing rules to the kind of owner-occupancy ratios Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac impose on condominium projects seeking conventional-financing eligibility. Anything stricter, a hard numeric rental cap, a waiting list, a minimum lease term, or an outright leasing ban, cannot come from a board rule alone. 285(1)(a) sets the baseline vote threshold at owners holding at least 67 percent of the association's votes, unless the declaration itself sets a higher figure up to 90 percent.

285(12) offers an alternate path: 67 percent approval combined with either no owner voting against the change and no written objection within 60 days of notice, or a court finding the amendment reasonable on the totality of the circumstances. 285(2) gives owners one year to challenge the amendment's validity, absent fraud. 130 let an association screen a prospective tenant, but only against the same criteria it could apply to a prospective owner.

A board rule that caps or bans leasing beyond the institutional-lender underwriting standard exceeds the board's statutory authority and is unenforceable; an affected owner can challenge it in court as beyond the board's power under RCW 64.90.510(10). A declaration amendment adopted without meeting the RCW 64.90.285 vote threshold, or the 67-percent-plus-notice alternative under subsection (12), is likewise invalid. Once a rental-restriction amendment is validly recorded, owners have just one year under RCW 64.90.285(2) to sue over its validity, except where fraud in the adoption process is shown.