Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was surprised to learn that a privately owned camp/cabin on a nearby small fishing/recreational lake (with a marina) cannot be occupied full-time or year-round. "They're meant to be vacation getaways." Who is to say, and what gives anyone the right to limit access to one's own property? It's true that the land on which these buildings sit is leased, but still, if someone chooses to winter over in his or her own house, how can it be prohibited? Not that it's relevant, but winters here are very mild, so it's not a question of someone potentially getting stranded in the snow and dying of starvation or exposure.
...what gives anyone the right to limit access to one's own property?
The contract you sign when you buy/lease it.
And by the way, there are plenty of "privately owned camp/cabin[s] on ... nearby small fishing/recreational lake[s]..." that do not have this restriction.
Look at the terms of the contracts before you sign them.
And by the way, there are plenty of "privately owned camp/cabin[s] on ... nearby small fishing/recreational lake[s]..." that do not have this restriction.
Look at the terms of the contracts before you sign them.
Okay, but... Again, I don't see how one can stipulate -- even in a contract -- that someone not occupy his own property.
Okay, but... Again, I don't see how one can stipulate -- even in a contract -- that someone not occupy his own property.
You write it in:
"Purchaser may not occupy said property more than 150 nights per year."
Purchaser signs it.
It is now a contractual obligation. How is that hard to understand? If it is an unlawful restriction, sue the appropriate person on the grounds that it's unlawful to write such a restriction. If you win, then the contract (and those of others who signed similar ones) will have to be re-written. It's unlikely you'll win since the original contract was probably drawn up by a lawyer who copied other similar contracts from similar developments.
(For example, restrictive covenants that prevent the sale of property to racial minorities are illegal now although they didn't used to be. There was a US Supreme Court case that overturned racially restrictive covenants. However, restrictive covenants that control what color you can paint your house are still totally legal.)
Having owned only SFHs, I was aware of HOAs and their various rules, but nothing limiting the amount of time one could spend in one's own purchased property (other than a timeshare), but apparently this is a "thing." Thanks for educating me!
I think it has to do with insurance for the owners, but I am not positive. I've seen plenty of beach places that are set up as RV/campgrounds, but allow year round campers to be there, but don't allow them to be occupied year round.
There are lots of trailer parks that do allow year round living. Just look around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
