Apartment owners increasingly do not want to live next to short-term rental units. As a result, more and more resolutions are being adopted that restrict the freedom to rent out apartments.
Situations like this are becoming more common: someone purchases an apartment with the intention of renting it out, only to discover a few months later that the homeowners’ association—or sometimes even the owner of the entire building—has adopted a resolution limiting short-term rentals. The property owner’s options become significantly restricted, and in some cases they are effectively forced to sell the unit. At the same time, long-term residents also have legitimate concerns. Short-term rentals are often associated with noise, property damage, and a perceived decline in the prestige of the building.
“Excessive interference with private property”
Lawyers acknowledge that such conflicts are occurring more frequently. There are clearly two sides to the dispute, each with valid arguments, but reaching a compromise is often difficult.
Any provisions in developer agreements that impose or prohibit short-term rentals of purchased units raise serious concerns from the perspective of property rights.
“In my view, it can be assumed that in the vast majority of cases such provisions would constitute prohibited contractual clauses, as they conflict with generally applicable laws. This position is also consistent with the case law of the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly indicated that neither developers nor homeowners’ associations should interfere so extensively with ownership rights. In this respect, case law allows only for regulations adopted by the management board or property manager of a homeowners’ association that govern the use of common areas—not individual units. Such rules may, for example, prohibit excessive noise or littering in shared spaces,” comments Marek Jarosiewicz, attorney and partner at Wódkiewicz Sosnowski Jarosiewicz.
“Despite the inadmissibility of such clauses, some developers still include them in their agreements,” he adds. These types of provisions may also appear after a building has already been sold, when it becomes clear over time that short-term rentals are creating problems.
Experts: Short-term rentals increasingly unwelcome, but restrictions may be misguided
From a real estate market perspective, the issue is highly nuanced. On the one hand, buyers intending to live in their property pay close attention to whether nearby units are used for short-term rentals. On the other hand, those planning to rent out their apartments are facing increasing difficulties in acquiring such properties.
“It clearly depends on perspective. There have been cases where someone strongly opposed apartment rentals—until they themselves moved elsewhere and were unable to find a long-term tenant. At that point, their outlook changed, and the much higher returns from short-term rentals suddenly became less problematic,” says Mirosław Król, a real estate market expert.
“Short-term rentals are an important part of the tourism sector. The attractiveness of many cities would decline significantly if radical restrictions were introduced. While the comfort of apartment owners is important, solutions should focus on addressing the root causes—for example, by increasing owners’ responsibility for tenant screening or making them liable for potential damage in common areas or disturbances to residents,” he adds.
“Restricting short-term rentals or arbitrarily banning leasing within a building where someone owns a unit is a far-reaching measure and can, in some cases, block the ability to conduct business. This runs counter to the direction of announced regulatory policies,” Król concludes.
The expert notes that such situations are emerging in an increasing number of Polish cities. They are particularly controversial in new developments, where sellers sometimes explicitly state that units are intended “for residential use” or for rental periods of no less than three months.
