Airbnb in condominium ownership: how to persuade the co-owners — and what the law says

What the law requires

The starting point is uncomfortable: short-term letting in condominium ownership is neither generally permitted nor generally prohibited. It depends on the character of the property and on the association’s rules. In judgment 5A_436/2018 of 4 April 2019 the Federal Supreme Court upheld a prohibition imposed by an association — in the case decided, guests made intensive use of the roof terrace, gym, sauna and swimming pool.

For a resolution: simple acts of administration require a simple majority. More important acts of administration — and a rule on the type of use regularly counts as one — require, under Article 647b in conjunction with Article 712g of the Civil Code (Art. 647b i.V.m. 712g ZGB), a qualified majority, that is a majority by heads and by value shares at the same time.

The meeting is quorate if half of all condominium owners, but at least two, are present or represented and together hold at least half the value shares — the double quorum. Important: the association’s rules can provide for stricter requirements, for instance a majority of all owners rather than only of those present. Reading the rules comes before the motion.

Do you even need a resolution?

Not always — and that is the first question, not the last. If the rules do not restrict the use and the property has no intensively used communal facilities, short-term letting can be admissible without a resolution. A motion would then open a discussion nobody would otherwise have started.

Conversely there are cases in which a resolution is the safe route: where the rules are unclearly worded, where you are planning substantial investment, or where it is foreseeable that the use will be noticed. A resolution creates legal certainty — but it can also come out against you, and then the position is worse than before.

Weighing that up depends on the individual case. What applies in every case: read the minutes of the last two meetings. If guests, noise or third-party use have already been discussed there, you know the mood before you ask.

The objections that actually come

From hosts’ first-hand accounts the objections can be predicted well. They are almost never matters of principle but practical ones — and therefore answerable.

• «Strangers in the building» — security concerns. Answer: access codes per booking instead of keys in circulation, identity verification through the platform, and the cantonal guest registration, which the owner carries out.
• «Noise and parties» — the most frequent and legitimate objection. Answer: a minimum stay, an express prohibition on events, a maximum number of guests, a number for neighbours in case of disturbance.
• «Wear on the communal areas» — precisely the point from the Federal Supreme Court ruling. Answer: guests do not use the communal facilities, set out in writing in the house rules.
• «Loss of value of the property» — hard to evidence, in either direction. Answer: make no claim, but name the objection as open.
• «More traffic and hunting for parking» — answer: state in the listing that no parking space is available, where that is the case.

Preparing a motion that has a chance

What first-hand accounts consistently suggest: a motion without prior conversations fails. The meeting is the place of the vote, not of persuasion.

This order has proved itself: speak first to the owners holding the largest value shares — with a qualified majority both measures count, and a few large shares can be decisive. Then to the immediate neighbours, because they are the ones who would actually experience the disturbance. Only after that submit the written motion, within the deadlines under the rules.

What belongs in the motion: the planned use in concrete terms (number of guests, minimum stay, no events), the measures addressing the objections named, a contact person with a telephone number, and the proposal of a time limit — a resolution for two years with a review is easier to obtain than an open-ended one.

If the answer is no

Then it is no, and the use cannot be pursued against the resolution. A resolution can be challenged — there is a one-month deadline from becoming aware of it, and the prospects depend on whether the resolution came about lawfully and whether it is proportionate. That is a question for a lawyer, not for a website.

What remains in practice: a long-term tenancy, furnished letting to monthly guests, or your own use. Furnished letting with a minimum term of three months does not fall under «hotel-like operation» in many sets of rules — it can be the route that works without a resolution. Whether that holds for your property is stated in the rules.