Colorado Law · Use Restrictions

Short-Term Rentals in Colorado HOAs: The Declaration, the 67% Rule, and Wilson Mesa Ranch

Colorado's ski towns, Front Range cities and mountain subdivisions all face the same short-term-rental question. The state's association statute does not answer it. In Colorado, the answer sits in the declaration, in the statutory vote needed to change it, and in a rule of interpretation the Court of Appeals has said differs from Texas.

Educational notice. This information is educational in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. Statutory references are to the Colorado Revised Statutes as published by the Colorado General Assembly at the time of writing; later amendments are possible. Consult qualified association counsel regarding legal interpretation specific to your jurisdiction.

Currency: verified against the Colorado Revised Statutes 2024 (Office of Legislative Legal Services printout) and the session laws named in the text, each with its effective date. Later amendments are possible. Whether a particular declaration permits or restricts rentals is a question for association counsel; owners commonly consult their own attorney.

The Short Version

• CCIOA has no STR section. A full-text search of the 2024 Act for “short-term,” “leasing” and “rental” turns up only § 106.5(1)(h) (affordable-housing deed restrictions in certain counties) and § 302(1)(j) (fees for common-element use). CICSC's tracker found no 2025–2026 enactment adding an STR or leasing section. That was a search-based finding, not an exhaustive one.
• The declaration controls. A general amendment needs more than 50% of votes, or a larger percentage the declaration sets, up to a 67% ceiling. An amendment that changes the uses to which units are restricted needs at least 67% (§ 38-33.3-217(1)(a)(I), (4.5)).
• A board rule cannot supply a missing covenant. That was the holding in Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch HOA, 2015 COA 113, on the covenants in that case.
• Local STR ordinances operate separately from association covenants. They are not reviewed here.

The Source-of-Authority Question

Every Colorado STR question starts with the same issue: what do the recorded covenants actually say? CCIOA gives associations broad powers, including the power to adopt rules (§ 302(1)(a)) and to charge fees for the use or rental of common elements (§ 302(1)(j)). But nothing in the 2024 text creates a statutory STR ban, a leasing cap, or a rental registration scheme. A restriction on how owners use their own units therefore has to be found in, or added to, the declaration.

Colorado reads covenants under a specific rule. In Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch, the Court of Appeals said that “[u]nlike Texas, Colorado adheres to the common law principle that ambiguities in covenants are construed in favor of the unrestricted use of property.” Later Colorado decisions cite Buick v. Highland Meadow Estates at Castle Peak Ranch, Inc., 21 P.3d 860, 862 (Colo. 2001), for the propositions that covenant interpretation is reviewed de novo and that covenants are read as a whole in light of their purpose. Texas-derived guidance on rental restrictions should not be carried into Colorado unchanged.

Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch Homeowners Ass’n (Colo. App. 2015)

The court held that covenants requiring “residential” use and barring commercial or business use did not prohibit short-term vacation rentals. It also held unenforceable a board-adopted administrative procedure that banned unapproved short-term rentals and imposed fines. The court reasoned that “while the Association has the authority to enforce the covenants, it cannot rely on that authority to enforce a nonexistent covenant provision.” For short-term rentals to be prohibited, “the covenants themselves must be amended,” using the declaration's own amendment procedure. The association's request for attorney fees under § 38-33.3-123(1)(c) was denied.

Reading the case carefully. Wilson Mesa Ranch decided the covenants in front of it. It does not hold that every Colorado declaration permits short-term rentals. Declarations that expressly address rental terms, minimum lease periods or transient occupancy present different text. The case is best read as a statement of method:

• start with the recorded words
• resolve ambiguity toward unrestricted use
• change the covenant by amendment, not by rule

Amending the Declaration in Colorado

Two related cases show how far amendment power can reach. In Evergreen Highlands Ass’n v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a covenant allowing a majority to “change or modify” the covenants was broad enough to add a wholly new covenant. In Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., 2017 CO 69, the court enforced a declaration clause requiring the declarant's consent to amend one provision. Both turned on the specific declaration language.

Enforcing a Rental Covenant: The Fine Limits Apply

Where a declaration does restrict rentals, enforcement runs through Colorado's general enforcement framework:

• A written fine policy. Fines may be levied only after notice and an opportunity to be heard. No fine is valid unless the association has adopted and follows a written fine policy guaranteeing notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker (§§ 302(1)(k)(I), 209.5(2)).
• No daily fines. Since HB22-1137, daily fines and daily late fees are prohibited.
• Cure periods and the cap. A violation that does not threaten health or safety gets a certified-mail notice and a 30-day cure period. Total fines for that violation are capped at $500. Two consecutive 30-day cure periods must pass before legal action (§ 209.5(1.7)(b)).
• Executive session. Disciplinary hearings may be held in executive session (§ 308(4)).
• Building restrictions. An action to enforce a building restriction must be filed within one year of when the violation was or should have been known (§ 123(2)).

See Fines in Colorado and HOA Hearing Rights in Colorado.

Other Statutes That Touch Rental Questions

• Affordable and workforce housing. Section 106.5(1)(h) addresses affordable and workforce deed restrictions in certain counties of fewer than 100,000 people, a provision associated with ski counties (HB 09-1220).
• Home-based businesses. Section 106.5(1)(l), added by SB24-134 effective August 7, 2024, bars an association from prohibiting a home-based business, subject to reasonable rules on architecture, parking, landscaping, noise and nuisance. Whether that provision bears on any rental activity is not addressed in the sources CICSC reviewed. It is a question for counsel.
• Accessory dwelling units. In subject or ADU-supportive jurisdictions, § 106.5(4) and (6) void certain restrictions on accessory dwelling units and middle housing, with the date rules in those subsections.

See What a Colorado HOA Cannot Prohibit.

Pre-1992 and Small Communities

For communities created before July 1, 1992, § 117 applies § 217(7) from July 1, 1992 and § 217(1) from January 1, 2006. Other subsections of § 217, including (4.5), are not on the § 117 list. Section 120 separately governs amending preexisting instruments. A pre-1992 community may elect full CCIOA coverage only through § 118. That was the holding in Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Ass’n, 2021 COA 87. Small communities exempt under § 116 are subject only to §§ 105–107 unless they opt in. For both groups, the declaration's own amendment clause carries more of the weight.

Common Mistakes & Pitfalls

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Colorado law regulate short-term rentals in HOAs?

A full-text search of the 2024 Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act for “short-term,” “leasing” and “rental” turns up no STR section, and CICSC’s tracker found no 2025–2026 enactment adding one; that was a search-based finding, not an exhaustive one. A restriction on how owners use their own units has to be found in, or added to, the declaration, and local STR ordinances operate separately. Whether a particular declaration permits or restricts rentals is a question for association counsel.

Can a Colorado HOA board ban short-term rentals by adopting a rule?

In Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch HOA, 2015 COA 113, the Court of Appeals held unenforceable a board-adopted procedure that banned unapproved short-term rentals, reasoning that the association “cannot rely on that authority to enforce a nonexistent covenant provision.” The case decided the covenants in front of it and does not hold that every Colorado declaration permits short-term rentals. How it bears on a specific community’s covenants is a question for association counsel.

What vote does a Colorado HOA need to amend the declaration to restrict rentals?

Under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-217(4.5), an amendment that changes the uses to which units are restricted needs at least 67% of votes, or a larger percentage the declaration specifies. A general amendment needs more than 50%, or a larger percentage the declaration sets up to a 67% ceiling (§ 217(1)(a)(I)), and an amendment is effective only when recorded in every county where the community lies (§ 217(3)). Which threshold applies to a particular amendment is a matter for association counsel.

How do Colorado courts read ambiguous HOA covenants about rentals?

In Wilson Mesa Ranch, the Court of Appeals said that, unlike Texas, Colorado adheres to the common law principle that ambiguities in covenants are construed in favor of the unrestricted use of property. Later Colorado decisions cite Buick v. Highland Meadow Estates at Castle Peak Ranch, Inc., 21 P.3d 860 (Colo. 2001), for reviewing covenant interpretation de novo and reading covenants as a whole in light of their purpose. How a specific declaration’s wording is read is a question for association counsel.

Do Colorado HOA fine limits apply to short-term rental violations?

Where a declaration does restrict rentals, enforcement runs through Colorado’s general framework: a written fine policy with notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker, and no daily fines. For a violation that does not threaten health or safety, § 38-33.3-209.5(1.7)(b) provides a certified-mail notice, a 30-day cure period, a $500 cap on total fines, and two consecutive 30-day cure periods before legal action. How a particular violation is classified is a question for association counsel.

Key Takeaways

• The 2024 CCIOA text has no STR or leasing section. The declaration is the source of any restriction.
• Colorado construes covenant ambiguity in favor of unrestricted use.
• On its facts, Wilson Mesa Ranch held that a board could not ban STRs by rule where the covenants permitted them.
• Use-change amendments take at least 67% of votes. Challenges must come within one year of recording.
• Enforcement is subject to the written fine policy, the statutory cure periods and, for violations outside the safety track, the $500 cap.
• Local STR ordinances apply separately. Check them with counsel.

References & Sources

1. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-217(1)(a)(I), (1)(b), (2), (3), (4.5), (7) — Amendment of declaration. Colorado Revised Statutes 2024, Title 38 (OLLS). content.leg.colorado.gov — crs2024-title-38.pdf
2. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(1)(a), (j), (k) — Powers of the association.
3. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(h), (1)(l), (4), (6) — Prohibitions contrary to public policy.
4. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-209.5(1.7)(b), (2) — Fine policy and enforcement limits (HB22-1137). leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1137
5. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-123(1)(c), (2) — Enforcement; attorney fees; limitations.
6. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-308(4) — Executive session.
7. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-116, -117, -118, -120 — Applicability; small and pre-1992 communities.
8. HB24-1383, Common Interest Community Declarations, Session Laws 2024, ch. 182. leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1383
9. SB24-134, Operation of Home-Based Businesses, Session Laws 2024, ch. 107. leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-134
10. Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch Homeowners Ass’n, 2015 COA 113, 360 P.3d 255. Caselaw Access Project
11. Buick v. Highland Meadow Estates at Castle Peak Ranch, Inc., 21 P.3d 860 (Colo. 2001).
12. Evergreen Highlands Ass’n v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003).
13. Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., 2017 CO 69, 395 P.3d 788.
14. Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Ass’n, 2021 COA 87.

Related Resources & Additional Reading from the CIC-SC Library

• Compliance Before Conflict in Colorado — an enforcement philosophy that fits Colorado's cure-period structure.
• Fines in Colorado — the enforcement policy, cure periods and HB22-1137 limits.
• What a Colorado HOA Cannot Prohibit — § 106.5 protected uses.
• Colorado HOA Board Member Governance Guide

Tags: Colorado short-term rentals · STR · HOA rental restrictions · § 38-33.3-217 · declaration amendment · 67% vote · Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch · covenant interpretation · CCIOA · Colorado HOA governance

Disclaimer. This article is published by the Common Interest Community Standards Council for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Statutory references and procedural frameworks are intended to support informed governance, not to substitute for advice from qualified Colorado legal counsel. Boards and managers should consult their association’s attorney about the application of any statute, governing-document provision, or enforcement decision to their specific circumstances. CIC-SC, its authors, and its members assume no liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.

Published by the Common Interest Community Standards Council (CICSC). Part of the CICSC Member Education Library. © 2026 CICSC. Educational use permitted with attribution.