For starters, several federal agencies actually require COA's to limit the number of units that are not owner-occupied as a condition for government-backed mortgages. Some states and local laws also place caps on this to prevent condos from being used as unregistered hotels (see eg timeshares).
As for your options? Generally, for cases like this your option would be to sell the unit or request an exemption. If you're moving far away, it's very likely that the COA will not grant the exemption, because units rented out by distant absentee landlords tend to generate the most and worst problems that COAs deal with.
This seems incorrect. They are more common than you think, especially in neighborhoods built within the last 30-40 years.
But, most of those mid-70s neighborhoods have fairly light-weight rules... Some architecture review, but generally not the crazy "can't leave garage door open" or "potted plants must all be in pots 13.25" in diameter" stuff.
https://foundation.caionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...
I don't think I've seen a development in the last 30 years that doesn't have an HOA, and it seems like like all of Florida/Texas is HOA.
I'm on a condo board currently and those are an entirely separate thing, much more intense, much more money, and much more service (when run well).
So, yes, there is a positive side. Most people have lived in places with absentee landlords. Many people don't want a preponderance of absentee landlord properties in a place where there is such direct impact from doing so; the thinking goes that if you rent out a house across the street from me, they might be annoying, but if you rent out a condo unit above mine, your tenants might flood my apartment because they didn't tell you the toilet had problems. Important difference.
If you don't like that, don't buy into a condo association that does it. It is extremely rare for a rental-limit rule to be put in place these days, so in practice you should know going in whether those rules are in place. If by some chance you live in the one in a thousand that does try to put those rules in place today, sell and move on.
Folks can debate if government backed mortgages should be a thing, but as far as an association we decided we wanted to preserve the opportunity for folks to sell easily (well as easily as possible) by matching the government limits.
Some of the folks renting at the time were quite upset... until I explained for the 12th time to them that everyone renting on that day still could rent, and then there would be a limit... so they were actually in a good spot. Takes people a while to understand sometimes ;)
eropple kinda touches on a side concern about absentee landlords and such and that was very much on our mind as well.
I did say in another comment that we allowed some exceptions if the limit was reached. In fact we approved all exceptions that came our way as there were very few requests. We wanted folks to be able to rent if they had to move fast, family event, and couldn't sell quickly. We didn't want to put anyone in a bind.
HOAs no longer are able to do that directly (even though naked racial discrimination was actually central to the original purpose of HOAs and the covenants which give life to them), but they continue to enforce cultural standards that are designed particularly to enforce the behavior preferred by a particular subculture and exclude others.
Also dog owners. I know an HOA board that was, for a time, populated by fervent dog haters. They enacted a rule that forbid dogs from all streets and sidewalks. You could only walk your dog between your house and the next to the common grassy area behind. There's been some turnover in the board, but the rule is still in effect AFAIK.
I like dogs myself. But others don't so it's nice they have at least a few options on communities to live where they don't have to deal with dogs.
Neither children or dogs are associated with particular subcultures. They're both about as mainstream as you can get.
> I like dogs myself. But others don't so it's nice they have at least a few options on communities to live where they don't have to deal with dogs.
No, there's nothing "nice" about it. It was a shitty thing for the board to do to a community with lots of existing dog owners who had no say in the process. Now the neighborhood has to try to turn over enough board seats to get rid of the rule. The main instigator was a cranky old lady who is now gone, so it's probably just a matter of time. In the meantime it looks like people are largely ignoring it, but that's not a solution.
To me, the "isolated examples" like this are reason enough for HOA reform movements that seem to be gaining momentum across the country. The fact that HOAs can so easily forbid activities that residents enjoyed when they bought their home, such as walking their dogs, is proof to me that new laws are needed to restrict their power.
What does this mean? If I owned a house in your neighborhood and had to move away for work, my options are to sell the house, or get on a waitlist till the number of houses rented out reduces?
As someone that's never owned a house, that sounds like a shitty rule that should be disrupted. I'm assuming there is a positive side to that only homeowners can see.