But what if you own a single apartment?

This is the reply I got when I asked if the apartment was legal.

"Yes, due to the size of the building, it is legal".

I'm not aware of any such thing as a free-standing apartment - wouldn't that be a house?

Owning one apartment in a multi-family building would be a condo or co-op - and subject to their rules - as well as the law.

So, there are no buildings in NYC where you can own one unit without it being a condo or co-op? And even if that's the case, is it also always the case that the building rules will bar sub-lets. And again, what about the "relationship" clause? Does meeting someone for drinks or dinner constitute a relationship?

How can you own a unit without it being a condo or coop? In San Francisco, there is such a thing as tenancy-in-common, where you own a share of a whole building, and by written agreement have the right to exclusively occupy a particular unit. This is a legal form that was invented for the purpose of skirting condominium conversion rules, but they'd be subject to the same laws and they definitely have articles and by laws just like a condo or coop.

As for "relationships", is the person you just met for drinks or dinner paying you to stay in your apartment? If so, it's illegal.

nelsonian, I'm sorry but you are being naïve if you just accept the word of someone who obviously will not tell you that they are doing something illegal.

People are often told what they can do with their own property through zoning or other ordinances and through co op boards , HOAs and the like .

So, what effect does this have on couchsurfing, which is free?

When did this become an issue? vrbo has been operating, apparently illegally, for years, but I have only heard a fuss being made since airbnb got started. As a solo traveler apartments are usually out of my price range, and airbnb is much more attractive than vrbo.

Not to be unkind - but it doesn't make any difference what is attractive for the traveler. The rent laws in NYC are for the benefit of the residents - with the goal of maximizing decent affordable housing for the middle and working classes. Apartments, which are often subsidized by local tax benefits, are NOT meant for vacationers.

SF7307 - what you are describing is a co-op - which are very common in NYC.

"Owners" own shares in a corporation that allows them to reside in an apartment in the building (which they have bought). Co-ops typically have VERY stringent rules in their leases banning any form of subletting without prior written approval of either the managing agent or the board - and is never given for short-term - or without a full financial/criminal investigation and an interview with the potential subtenant.

There is a shortage of apartments in NYC. Short term renters (less than 30 days) make these apt. houses full of transients. It does not help those who actually need a permanent place to live in NYC. And, many "tourists" rent a room and then bring in their friends. It can be a nightmare for those who make this building their actual home.

Just for clarification (and slightly OT because it really has no bearing on whether its illegal or against the rules), but a tenancy-in-common and a coop are not legally-speaking the same animal.

Condo=you own the air rights (i.e. the interior of your specific apartment). The building is owned in common with the other condo owners, either directly, or via the association. You have the right to the non-exclusive use of most common areas, and sometimes have the right to exclusive common areas (parking spot, storage, roof deck, bike rack).

Coop- the coop corporation owns the entire building and the residents own the shares in the corporation. As an owner of shares, you have the right to occupy your specific unit, and to use the common areas (same as above, either non-exclusively or, sometimes, exclusively (ex. parking spot, roof deck)

Tenancy-in-Common - all the owners own all of the building, including the structure, roof, garage, storage, etc., in undivided interests. You have an agreement among you as to who will occupy which unit, and may also allocate certain common areas for exclusive use.

thursdaysd: So, what effect does this have on couchsurfing, which is free?

So far, nothing much, since the NY press and public hasn't been aroused against the couchsurfing community as it has against airbnb and small property owners. It appears that one can have as many "transients" pass through one's apartment, condo, coop, as long as there is no filthy lucre involved.

When did this become an issue? vrbo has been operating, apparently illegally, for years, but I have only heard a fuss being made since airbnb got started. As a solo traveler apartments are usually out of my price range, and airbnb is much more attractive than vrbo.

The current issue arose because someone got someone from the city "environmental" office to come and take a look -presumably only at this one unit - then that someone in the city environmental office got an environmental lawyer to sit in as judge and voila! down came the current decision. (Yes, this is a biased viewpoint with all kinds of half-truths, just like some of the opinions offered above).

We have been over this before. The city law has two sections. There is confusion as to which section applies to what. Someone should link to those two sections again or at least to the previous lengthy discussion on Fodors.

nelsonian may or may not be naive. If an owner owns all four units in a fourplex, he can do with the units however he pleases. I believe I saw some owner state exactly this on airbnb that he/she owned all of the units and therefore was doing nothing illegal.

There's a tendency on the part of those who want the NYC law to apply to airbnb, vrbo and the like to state categorically that such short-term rentals are prohibited. The reality is not all that clearcut, which is why this controversy has been around for several years now.

At least now the courts have made it amply clear.

There was a very interesting discussion of this on Askmetafilter yesterday, with emphasis on the Bay Area in California.

The discussion was from the point of view of a potential host, and the conclusion was that this is illegal in SF, even without a court ruling, that it is probably not permitted in his lease, endangering his tenancy, and that the liability issues for the host are huge.

That said, I just got back from a happy week in an illegal rental in Paris, where the city is cracking down because, as in US cities, there are housing shortages for locals. Not easy.

Short term rentals in the Quarter in New Orleans are also illegal. I wonder if they'll take a similar Air Bnb stand to that taken by the NY Judge?

So as a tourist, airbnb has been fantastic for me, and allowed me to stay in nice areas and apartments for less than $100/night. And its fantastic for the owner, to make cash out of an empty room...

Let me get this straight, if the stay is hosted, ie the owner lives in the apartment, the stay is legal?

I think it is a pretty crap rule though, and i can see overpriced hotels cheering about the rule.

Capitalism? Land of the free?? Lol.

Cheers,
Dan

I will not explain yet again the specific conditions of the real estate market in the city of new york. Suffice it to say that the laws are designed to provide affordable housing for middle and working class new yorkers - not provide cheaper lodging for tourists or illegally line the pockets of cheating landlords.

As for capitalism - we have modified it in a lot of ways - and given the housing shortage here - we don;t want to provide cheap lodging for tourists at the price of affordable housing for locals (who live here the whole year and VOTE).

Fair enough, but if we had to pay 300/night for a hotel we wouldbe taking the money out of our eating and spending money. Cheap accommodation means more money spent in the city, instead of hotels.

I am still puzzled by the notion that it is all about cheating landlords. My impression was that rentals on airbnb were more one-offs by individuals.