Condo HOAs will thus sometimes try to pass rules or amend bylaws to establish rental restrictions of various sorts -- most commonly setting a minimum lease term, but sometimes trying to set percentages of units that must be owner occupied, limiting the numbers of units that can be owned by a single owner, or establishing a time frame a unit must be owner occupied before it can be rented.
My understanding is that most of the new apartment buildings they are building around me in Oakland and trying to rent out are "pre-converted" or already titled as condos -- but as the investors are renting them out generally there is no HOA to speak of as there is one owner. But, should market conditions change, common areas and separate titles are already established so less paperwork would be required to sell off the units.
I'm asserting that buying a detached house that falls under an HOA is something that should generally be avoided. With a house, there are rarely shared resources that actually need to be managed so any potential benefit is minimal at best, and bad HOAs can be a nightmare, so the risk is high.
I'm also lamenting the fact that developers building new neighborhoods of detached houses (e.g. in places like Austin) are apparently putting almost all of them under HOAs, perhaps because of some legal meme that doing so somehow reduces risk for the developer, or increases sale prices. I think this is an unfortunate trend.