Can cities require homeowners to live in their property to rent accessory units? Anderson v. Provo City Corp. Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed whether municipalities can require owner occupancy as a condition for renting accessory apartments in Anderson v. Provo City Corp. This decision clarifies the boundaries of municipal zoning authority and constitutional protections for property owners.

Background and Facts

Provo City amended its supplementary residential overlay (S Overlay) provisions governing neighborhoods near Brigham Young University. The amendment required property owners to occupy their primary residence to rent accessory apartments to students. Previously, owners could rent both the main dwelling and accessory apartment without living on the property. A group of homeowners challenged the ordinance, claiming it exceeded Provo’s statutory authority and violated constitutional protections including equal protection and the uniform operation of laws provision.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed four main challenges: (1) whether the ordinance exceeded Provo’s legislative authority by regulating land ownership rather than land use, (2) whether it violated equal protection guarantees, (3) whether it constituted an invalid restraint on property alienation, and (4) whether it burdened the constitutional right to travel.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Provo. The court held that requiring owner occupancy for accessory apartment rental constitutes valid land use regulation rather than impermissible ownership restriction. The ordinance did not prevent nonoccupying owners from renting their houses for single-family residential use; it merely restricted the supplementary activity of renting accessory dwellings. Under the uniform operation of laws analysis, the court found the distinction between occupying and nonoccupying owners reasonably related to Provo’s legitimate objective of preserving neighborhood character while accommodating student housing needs.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important precedent for municipal zoning authority. Courts will uphold ordinances that regulate supplementary uses while preserving primary residential rights. The decision demonstrates that owner occupancy requirements for special uses like accessory apartments can survive constitutional challenge when reasonably related to legitimate municipal interests in neighborhood preservation.