In recent years, short-term rentals – such as bed & breakfast (B\&B), holiday homes or bed and breakfast businesses – have become a very common source of income for owners, especially in tourist cities and historic centers. These businesses allow them to monetize otherwise unused spaces, generating income that is often higher than traditional rentals. However, living with other condominium owners is not always easy: the presence of frequent guests can lead to noise, intense use of common spaces (elevator, stairs) and a coming and going of strangers perceived as an element of insecurity. Some condominium owners even fear a devaluation of the properties due to the continuous hospitality activity in the building.
Faced with these fears, many condominium owners are wondering what legal tools they have to prohibit or limit short-term rentals in their building, seeking a balance between the owner's right to use his apartment and the need to ensure tranquility and decorum in the building. A recent ruling has shed light on this delicate issue, establishing when it is possible to block B&Bs and guest houses in condominiums in the presence of specific clauses in the condominium regulations. Let's look in detail at what the law says, what this ruling has decided and what the practical implications are for owners and neighbors.
Rome's ruling: stop B&Bs and guesthouses if there is a ban in the regulations
A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome (judgment no. 3419 of 2 June 2025) confirmed that a condominium can obtain the closure of B&B or guesthouse activities within the building if the contractual condominium regulations contain clauses that prohibit it. In the case examined, the condominium had sued two owners (and the management companies that managed the accommodation activities in their apartments) claiming that such activities violated the regulations. The latter in fact, in art. 4, prohibited the use of the properties for productive, commercial, public or public-facing activities and prohibited the rental of the units for periods of less than six months. In other words, the building regulations prohibited both the exercise of entrepreneurial activities in the apartments and short-term rentals (less than 6 months).
The first-instance court ruled in favor of the condominium, ordering the immediate cessation of the activities of B&Bs and guesthouses in the building. The convicted owners and operators appealed, but the Court of Appeal of Rome rejected the appeal, confirming the closure of the illegitimate accommodation facilities. This ruling represents an important precedent for all condominiums: it clarifies that, if there are specific prohibitions in the contractual regulations, short-term rentals can be legally blocked by the condominium.
Contractual regulation: the key to imposing limitations
Limit B&Bs and tourist rentals? It all depends on the contractual regulation
A central point that emerged from the case is the nature of the contractual condominium regulation. This is defined as the regulation approved unanimously by all the condominium owners (for example, prepared by the builder and accepted at the time of purchase of each unit) and which therefore has the nature of a contractual agreement binding on all. Only a regulation of this type can validly impose limitations on the rights of the owners on their real estate units (for example, restrictions on intended uses). A regulation adopted by a majority, on the other hand, cannot introduce prohibitions that affect the right of the individual to use his own property, since these are decisions that require the agreement of all.
In the case of Rome, the condominium regulations were contractual in nature: they were approved unanimously in 2003 and even transcribed in the real estate registers (an act that serves to make them enforceable also against future buyers). The Court of Appeal reiterated principles already established by case law: clauses of this type, if clear and explicit and specifically accepted by all condominium members, can limit the owners' rights over their units and be enforced against them (as well as against any tenants and heirs). In particular, the judges underlined two conditions of validity: the limiting clauses must be formulated in an unambiguous way and must be referred to in full in the purchase deeds and rental agreements, a generic reference to the regulations not being sufficient. This principle, moreover, had already been clarified by the Court of Cassation with a ruling in 2022: the restrictions of use contained in a contractual regulation constitute actual reciprocal easements between condominium owners, and in order to be enforceable against third-party purchasers they must be transcribed in the real estate registers (pursuant to art. 2643 n.4 and 2659 of the Civil Code).
In other words, if the condominium regulations (of a contractual nature) contain a clear prohibition – for example “it is forbidden to use the apartments for hospitality activities” or “it is forbidden to rent for periods under 6 months” – this prohibition binds all current and future condominium owners. In the event of violation, the condominium may take legal action and the judge may order the cessation of the activity incompatible with the common rules.
B&Bs and guest houses: “productive” activities or residential use?
An interesting aspect clarified by the Court of Appeal concerns the nature of the activities of B&Bs and guest houses. The sanctioned owners had defended themselves by arguing, in essence, that they were simply renting their units - a right normally belonging to any owner - and that the use remained "residential". In reality, the investigations revealed that such rentals, although formally presented as leases, included typical services of a hospitality facility: regular cleaning of the premises, change of linen, customer reception, online advertising as B&B, etc.
According to the Court, these characteristics mean that the activity of renting rooms/B&Bs takes on an entrepreneurial connotation (referring to the definition of entrepreneur pursuant to art. 2082 of the Civil Code) and can no longer be equated to the mere enjoyment of a normal rental contract. In other words, managing a B&B in a condominium is not equivalent to “living” in the apartment, but rather means carrying out an economic activity (if services are provided and there is a profit-making organization). Therefore, if the condominium regulations prohibit productive or commercial activities in apartments, this prohibition also extends to B&Bs, renting rooms and similar short-term rental formulas with services.
This concept had also been affirmed previously by the Court of Cassation. Already in a 2016 ruling, the Court of Cassation declared that “ontologically, the activity of renting a room is completely superimposable – in contrast to residential use – to that of a hotel and, also, to that of a bed and breakfast”. In essence, according to that jurisprudence, starting a B&B in a condominium is equivalent to transforming the use of the unit from residential to hospitality, similarly to a small hotel.
It should be noted, however, that not all judges over the years have had the same vision. Other precedents of the Supreme Court have supported an opposite orientation: that is, that the operation of a B&B or a guest house does not change the intended residential use of the apartment. For example, a 2014 ruling deemed “an extensive interpretation inadmissible” of a clause in the regulation that prohibited uses other than private housing: according to the Court, even with that clause, the B&B activity had to be considered permitted in any case since the property remained intended for housing, albeit with paying guests. Similarly, another ruling from 2017 established that the prohibition on using apartments as a guesthouse or hotel does not prevent them from being rented out for short periods on an occasional basis, because occasional short-term rental does not necessarily fall within the concept of prohibited hotel activity.
In the face of these conflicting orientations, the importance of the specific wording of the regulatory clauses and the case-by-case assessment is evident. A generic clause that simply prohibits uses other than that of a private residence could be open to different interpretations (leaving a margin in which the activity of a holiday home/B&B could be considered legal). Conversely, a regulation that expressly lists the prohibited activities – for example, prohibiting “lodging houses, guest houses, guest houses, bed & breakfasts” or “rentals of less than X months” – drastically reduces ambiguity and will be much more effective in preventing the start of short-term rentals in condominiums. The recent ruling from Rome clearly falls into the more restrictive category: the one according to which, if the prohibition is written in black and white and is contractually valid, it prevails over the right of the individual owner to generate income from his property.
The Milan Case: Damages Compensation for the “Rebel” Owner
Another emblematic case, a sign of the growing tension on this issue, occurred in Milan. Here, a landlady had started a B&B in her apartment despite the condominium regulations expressly prohibiting the use of the property for hotel-type hospitality activities. The neighbors, after repeated attempts to stop the activity, took the matter to court. The woman was initially sentenced in civil court to pay a penalty of 100 euros for each day of activity carried out in violation of the regulations. Since the B&B remained open for a long time during the lawsuit, the accumulated sum exceeded 40.000 euros, an amount owed to the condominium as compensation. The landlady challenged the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court also confirmed the principle already expressed in previous degrees: a unanimous condominium regulation can legitimately prohibit the start of hospitality activities (B&Bs, bed and breakfasts, tourist rentals) in the building, and violation of such prohibitions can result in heavy sanctions for the defaulting owner.
This episode concretely highlights what the practical consequences of a violation can be: not only the obligation to close the unauthorized activity, but also the risk of having to financially compensate the condominium. In the case of Milan, the violated clause prohibited "the use of apartments for hotel-type hospitality activities", a formulation that the Court of Cassation deemed to also include B&Bs (confirming a now consolidated orientation, as seen above). It should be noted that, in order to make similar clauses enforceable against future buyers, it is essential to transcribe the regulation with such constraints as already mentioned: in fact, the law (art. 2659 cc) provides that limitations on the use of properties, having the nature of real burdens, are effective towards third parties only if they are recorded in the real estate registers. In the Milan case, this requirement was satisfied, making the clause binding and the sanction applicable also to those who had purchased and subsequently started the activity.
Practical implications for owners and condominiums
What does all this mean in practice for vacation rental owners and condominium residents? Here are some key points to keep in mind:
Always check the condominium regulations: Anyone who intends to rent their apartment to tourists must first check whether there is a contractual condominium regulation and what it provides. In particular, it is necessary to look for clauses that expressly prohibit hospitality activities, short-term rentals or non-residential uses. If the regulation contains phrases such as "prohibition of using the unit as a bed & breakfast, guesthouse, guest house" or "prohibition of rentals of less than 6 months", it is necessary to be aware that that activity would be prohibited and the other condominium owners could take legal action to block it. In the case of ambiguous clauses, it is prudent to consult a lawyer: sometimes generic wording ("only residential use") can be interpreted differently by judges, as we have seen.
A condominium meeting is not enough to ban short-term rentals: If your building does not have a ban in the regulations and a group of condominium members wants to introduce it, a majority resolution is not enough. A unanimous decision and a formal modification of the condominium regulations will be needed (better if with a notarial deed to be transcribed, so as to also bind future owners). Only in this way will the restriction be valid and effective ultra partes. Any ban imposed without the agreement of all would risk being annulled if challenged, because it limits the property rights of dissenters.
Tolerance and conclusive behaviors: Some owners may think that starting a small business and seeing that no one opposes is equivalent to a “green light”. In reality, as clarified by the Court of Appeal of Rome, the initial tolerance of the condominium does not legitimize the activity contrary to the regulations nor does it implicitly modify the common rules. Therefore, even if no one complains for months, a neighbor could always change his mind and enforce the violated clause. On the other hand, an owner who is against short-term rentals should not “rest on his laurels”: if he delays too long in acting, he could make it more difficult to obtain urgent measures; it is best to immediately report the irregularity in writing and then, if necessary, take legal action.
Tenants and management companies are bound by the same rules: Often, owners rent their unit to companies or professional managers, who then sublet it to tourists. It is important to know that the clauses of the regulation also extend to the tenants (lessees) if they have accepted them in the rental contract. For example, in the case of Rome, the companies that managed the bed and breakfasts were tenants under rental contracts, in which the condominium regulations were referred to: this made the clauses fully enforceable against them too, who were in fact forced to cease the hospitality business. Therefore, by stipulating a rental contract for a different (or temporary) use to allow third parties to manage a B&B, the owner must still inform the tenant of any existing prohibitions: ignoring them exposes both to the risk of legal action.
Pay attention to local regulations: In addition to condominium rules, those who operate short-term rentals must comply with municipal and regional regulations. In many cities of art, registration requirements have been introduced (such as the Regional Identification Code for short-term rentals) and limits on the number of days that can be rented, or even the tourist tax and dedicated controls. These public regulations go beyond the condominium area, but complete the framework of obligations. One thing is certain: the state law itself allows the owner to rent for short periods (within 30 days, without the need to register contracts), but this does not exempt you from observing both the condominium regulations and any more restrictive municipal regulations.
Expert Comments and Future Developments
Short-term rentals banned in condominiums? Experts explain what changes
The growing phenomenon of short-term rentals has attracted the attention not only of judges but also of trade associations and legislators. Agostino Ingenito, president of the Association of B&Bs and Guesthouses (ABBAC), observes that the activity of guesthouses and B&Bs is constantly expanding, so much so that it is the subject of new administrative measures at the local level, "not without conflict and controversy". He therefore advises caution before starting a hospitality business in a condominium, given the complexity of regional regulations and condominium regulations, inviting the assistance of experts to evaluate individual cases.
On the political side, clearer regulatory interventions are not ruled out in the future: for example, some propose to explicitly include in the civil code the ability for condominiums to prohibit short-term rentals with certain majorities, or on the contrary to protect owners by prohibiting overly punitive restrictions. For now, however, the line that has emerged from recent rulings is that the protection of private condominium autonomy prevails: if all the condominiums in a building agree on stringent anti-B&B rules, this will is respected and enforced in court. On the other hand, in the absence of a clear contractual prohibition, the owner remains free to use his unit even for short-term rentals, as long as he respects the law and good neighborliness.
Conclusions
In conclusion, renting an apartment to tourists in a condominium can be an excellent economic opportunity, but it must be done with full knowledge of the facts. Recent rulings – from the Court of Appeal of Rome to the Supreme Court – teach us that the condominium has effective tools to oppose short-term rentals, provided that the right rules are already written down in black and white. The owner interested in these activities must therefore proceed with caution: a preventive check of the regulations and perhaps a discussion with the neighbors can avoid incurring costly legal disputes. On the other hand, condominium owners worried about possible B&Bs in their building would do well to check the status of the regulations and, if necessary, work to update them with ad hoc clauses, approved by everyone and well formulated. Only in this way can that “quiet life” in the condominium be guaranteed without completely preventing individual economic initiative, balancing the rights and duties of each. Ultimately, the key word is balance: knowing the rules of the game allows you to find solutions that reconcile the profitability of short-term rentals with respect for life in the condominium.