Short-term letting has created new challenges for Body Corporates, particularly around security, amenity use, and the balance between residents and short-stay guests. While Body Corporates have powers to regulate conduct within buildings, outright bans on AirBnB are difficult to enforce and have been challenged legally.
The Legal Framework – Unit Titles Act 2010
Body Corporates are governed by the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) and the Unit Titles Regulations. They can make and enforce rules relating to health, safety, security, and the use of common property. However, they cannot override core property rights that owners have under the law. The key test is whether a rule is “incidental to” the Body Corporate’s functions under the UTA.
A Tenancy Tribunal decision in 2018, for example, held that a rule banning short-term letting was invalid because it conflicted with owners’ rights. This shows that rules must be carefully framed to avoid being struck down.
What Rules Can a Body Corporate Make?
Body Corporates can regulate behaviour in ways that indirectly shape how AirBnB operates.
For example:
- Guest registration requirements with the building manager.
- Restrictions on rubbish disposal, use of pools, gyms, and car parks.
- Noise limits and quiet hours.
- Access protocols for keys and swipe cards.
These rules do not stop owners from letting on AirBnB but can minimise disruption to other residents.
Read more about Who Makes BC Rules and How are They Changed and Who Makes the Decisions in a Body Corporate?
Can Numbers of Guests be Limited?
A Body Corporate may set rules that limit how many people can occupy a unit at once, particularly for fire safety and building code compliance. These restrictions are more likely to hold up legally if they are tied to health, safety, or overcrowding concerns, rather than attempting to regulate short-term letting directly.
Can a Body Corporate Ban AirBnB Entirely?
Attempts to ban AirBnB outright are rare and often unsuccessful. For example, a rule stating “no unit may be let for fewer than 30 days” has been found invalid in past Tribunal decisions. Courts have also held that rules imposing obligations outside the UTA framework are ultra vires (beyond power). While Body Corporates may pass such rules at an AGM, they risk being challenged and overturned.
Why is AirBnB Growth a Hot Topic for Body Corporates?
The growth of AirBnB in New Zealand is significant:
- Airbnb contributed $5.1 billion to New Zealand’s economy in 2024, about 10% of tourism GDP.
- Over 33,000 jobs were supported by this activity.
- In Auckland alone, more than 6,400 listings were active in 2024–25, with average annual revenues of $38,000 per unit.
These numbers show why more owners are interested in short-term letting — and why neighbours and Body Corporates are concerned about the impact.
Practical Scenarios for Owners and Body Corporates
- An investor-owner lists their apartment on AirBnB. Guests create noise late at night, leading the Body Corporate to enforce noise and security rules. These are valid controls, even if they reduce hosting convenience.
- An owner-occupier requests that the Body Corporate pass a rule banning all stays under 7 nights. Such a rule could be legally challenged, as it restricts owners’ rights.
- A Body Corporate AGM passes a rule prohibiting all short-term letting. An affected owner appeals to the Tenancy Tribunal, which finds the rule invalid under the UTA.
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
Owners have strong rights over their units, but these coexist with obligations to maintain harmony within the building. The safest course for Body Corporates is to create clear, enforceable rules around behaviour and use of common areas, rather than seeking outright bans.
Conclusion
AirBnB in Body Corporates remains a grey area where property rights and community living intersect. While owners cannot easily be stopped from hosting, Body Corporates can and do manage short-term lets by regulating access, behaviour, and amenity use. The key is ensuring rules are lawful, reasonable, and framed within the Unit Titles Act.
