Before HB24-1007, dozens of Colorado municipalities controlled not just how many people could live in a home, but who those people could be.
The "Family" Definition Typical zoning language: "Family shall mean any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or other duly authorized custodial relationship."
The result: Unlimited related people could live together, but unrelated people faced strict caps:
- Boulder: 5 unrelated persons maximum
- Fort Collins: 3 unrelated persons ("U+2")
- Colorado Springs: 5 unrelated persons maximum
A family of twelve in a 3-bedroom home was legal; six unrelated friends in a 5-bedroom house violated zoning codes—regardless of space, parking, or actual problems.
Square Footage Requirements Colorado Springs used tiered limits (125 sq ft = 1 person; 740 sq ft = 10 people), but the key distinction remained: square footage limits could be exceeded for families, while unrelated persons faced absolute caps.
Why Communities Created These Limits
Local governments had legitimate concerns:
Neighborhood Character: Long-term homeowners worried rental properties with rotating tenants would create transient populations with less community investment. As one Jefferson County representative testified, an "over-occupied home had ruined a cul-de-sac," leading families to move out.
Parking and Infrastructure: More occupants meant more vehicles. The Old North End Neighborhood Association in Colorado Springs asked pointedly: "Where do they think these cars are going to go?" Concerns extended to trash collection, water/sewer capacity, and street maintenance.
Density Management: Occupancy limits served as preventive measures—restricting who could live together rather than enforcing noise ordinances after problems arose. Property Values: Senator Joann Ginal warned that "large investment companies" would buy homes and rent to large groups, causing neighborhoods to "go downhill."
The Growing Controversy
As housing costs soared, critics argued these limits created more harm than benefit:
Discriminatory Impact: Two single parents pooling resources faced restrictions that didn't apply to a married couple with the same number of children. Adults with non-family caregivers violated codes welcoming unlimited family members.
Affordability Barrier: A $2,000 rent split four ways costs $500 per person; split three ways (due to occupancy limits), it jumps to $667 per person. One CSU student testified: "I simply can't afford to live there with the rising housing costs without more than two roommates."
Civil Rights Questions: Why should the government dictate household arrangements based on biological relationships rather than actual impacts?
The fundamental tension: Were occupancy limits reasonable community protections, or discriminatory barriers making housing less accessible while doing little to address actual problems?
The Student Housing Catalyst
Boulder's Failed Referendum
With 33,000+ CU students in a city of 105,000, Boulder's housing crisis was acute. The 2021 referendum to eliminate occupancy limits revealed deep community divisions but ultimately failed 52-48%. The issue reached an impasse—significant support for change existed, but local politics couldn't deliver.
Fort Collins and Statewide Pressure
Fort Collins' even more restrictive "U+2" rule (only 3 unrelated persons) intensified pressure. When HB24-1007 came before the legislature, testimony was compelling:
Supporters: Senator Julie Gonzales highlighted diverse beneficiaries—"two single parents coming together," "people who live with their caretakers," and "students trying to make ends meet." Alexis Hermes, a Boulder caregiver, testified that moving into cooperative housing with a dozen people "has saved" her despite initial fears.
Opponents: Senator Ginal argued state control over local property rights was problematic and predicted investor purchases would transform neighborhoods. Neighborhood associations cited specific problems with over-occupied homes. In April 2024, the legislature sided with reformers, making the change statewide and mandatory.
What HB24-1007 Changes
What's Prohibited
Codified in C.R.S. § 29-20-111(3), the law is clear: "A local government shall not limit the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationship."
Specifically prohibited:
- Any distinction between related and unrelated persons
- "Family" definitions privileging blood/legal relationships
- Caps on unrelated persons (3, 5, or any number based on relationships)
- Different occupancy standards based on marital status, adoption, or guardianship
What's Still Allowed
Local governments retain authority for occupancy limits based on:
1. Demonstrated Health and Safety Standards
- International Building Code: 150 sq ft for first occupant + 100 sq ft for each additional (a 1,200 sq ft home = 11 occupants maximum)
- Fire Code Regulations: Based on exits, fire suppression, building construction, and bedroom specifications
- CDPHE Water/Wastewater Standards: Particularly for properties with septic systems or private wells
2. Affordable Housing Program Guidelines
Occupancy restrictions tied to local, state, federal, or political subdivision affordable housing programs remain valid.
The Critical Distinction: All limits must be based on objective standards related to capacity, safety, or programmatic requirements—not on whether occupants are related.
Who Must Comply
Everyone—no exceptions:
- All home rule and statutory cities
- All 64 Colorado counties
- Towns, territorial charter cities, consolidated city-counties
- Applies uniformly regardless of population or location
Local governments cannot opt out, grandfather ordinances, create exemptions, or delay beyond July 1, 2024.
Implementation Across Colorado
Boulder
Immediately ceased enforcement on April 15, 2024, with plans for formal code amendments. The 5-person limit voters narrowly kept in 2021 was eliminated by state mandate.
Colorado Springs
Acknowledged the conflict and stopped enforcement. Notably, the city had "not had any recent occupancy code enforcement actions" even before HB24-1007—making practical impact minimal.
Fort Collins and Others
Most communities adopted administrative non-enforcement while preparing formal amendments. DOLA guidance confirmed this approach satisfied legal requirements.
State Guidance (DOLA)
- Amendment preferred but not required: Communities can direct non-enforcement while working on formal code revisions
- Alternative compliance: Pass resolution directing non-enforcement, update staff procedures
- Update public materials: Websites, handouts, staff training must reflect new law
Impact on Property Managers
Loss of Municipal Enforcement
Critical change: You can no longer rely on city/county code enforcement to back up occupancy limits.
- Cities won't investigate complaints about "too many unrelated people"
- Code enforcement focuses only on health/safety violations (square footage, fire codes)
- Zoning violations based on family status are invalid
Lease Agreements Still Matter—Sort Of
You can still include occupancy limits, but:
- Cannot be relationship-based ("maximum 4 unrelated persons" is prohibited)
- Can specify neutral limits ("maximum 4 adults")
- Enforcement is purely contractual—no municipal backing
- Enforceability questions remain unsettled
Key concerns:
- Will courts uphold limits without health/safety basis?
- Could aggressive enforcement create Fair Housing liability?
- Are limits that recreate old caps discriminatory?
Your Critical Protection: Tenant Screening Requirements
HB24-1007 doesn't change your right—and responsibility—to screen every adult occupant.
One of the most important protections landlords retain is requiring all adults living in the property to be on the lease and pass your screening criteria. This requirement exists independently of occupancy limits and remains fully enforceable.
What this means in practice:
- Every adult (typically 18+) must complete a rental application
- Each applicant must pass your background checks, credit checks, and income verification
- You can deny occupancy to individuals who don't meet your screening standards
- Unauthorized occupants constitute a lease violation
Why this matters under HB24-1007: While you can't limit occupancy based on whether people are related, you can—and should—ensure every occupant qualifies individually. This naturally limits occupancy because:
- Not all proposed roommates will pass background checks
- Combined income must meet your income requirements (typically 2.5-3x rent)
- Criminal history, eviction history, or poor credit may disqualify individuals
- Each additional occupant must meet the same standards as the original tenant
Example: A 4-bedroom house with $2,400 monthly rent requires approximately $6,000-$7,200 in combined monthly income. Six roommates proposing to share the property must collectively demonstrate that income and each must individually pass background screening. If two fail background checks or the group can't prove adequate income, you can legally deny the application—not because they're unrelated, but because they don't meet your standard screening criteria.
Best practice: Make this clear in your application process. Language like "All occupants age 18 and older must complete a rental application, pay application fees, and meet property management's standard screening criteria including background, credit, and income verification" protects your interests while remaining compliant with HB24-1007.
This screening requirement provides significant practical control over who occupies your properties, even without relationship-based occupancy limits.
Three Strategic Approaches
Option 1: Maintain Conservative Limits
- Base limits on bedrooms, square footage, parking
- Enforce through lease provisions only
- Risk: Harder without municipal support; may face legal challenges
Option 2: Maximize Occupancy
- Allow more tenants to increase revenue
- Market to roommate groups and students
- Risk: More wear and tear, management complexity, higher turnover
Option 3: Use Building/Fire Code Standards (Most Defensible)
- Base limits on IBC square footage requirements
- Document health/safety rationale
- Cite specific property constraints (bathrooms, parking, septic capacity)
- Courts likely to view as reasonable
Practical Action Items
Review and Update Leases
- Remove "unrelated persons" and "family" language
- Replace with capacity-based language
- Document objective rationale for any limits
Audit Policies
- Remove discriminatory restrictions
- Base limits on square footage/building codes
- Ensure consistent application across portfolio
Train Staff
- Educate on what's prohibited vs. permitted
- Update screening procedures Practice discussing occupancy with applicants
Consult Legal Counsel
- Review lease enforceability
- Ensure Fair Housing compliance
- Address property-specific scenarios (HOAs, affordable housing)
Monitor Local Changes
- Track municipal code amendments
- Stay informed on enforcement policies
- Participate in local discussions if desired
Market Implications
Potential Benefits
- Increased affordability: More cost-sharing flexibility
- Better housing utilization: Large homes can accommodate natural capacity
- Non-traditional household flexibility: Single parents, caretakers, multi-generational arrangements
- Addresses shrinking household sizes: Better matches current demographic patterns
Potential Concerns
- Neighborhood character changes: Owner-occupied areas converting to rentals
- Parking pressure: More vehicles in areas designed for lower density
- Infrastructure strain: Trash, utilities, street maintenance
- Higher wear and tear: Increased maintenance costs and turnover
- Investor purchases: Corporate landlords maximizing returns through group rentals
Who Benefits Most
College students, young professionals sharing costs, single parents pooling resources, people with caretakers, and any community with housing shortages.
FAQ
Can I still limit occupancy in my lease? Yes, but limits must be relationship-neutral ("maximum 4 adults" not "4 unrelated persons"). Enforcement is contractual only, and overly restrictive limits may face legal challenges.
What if my property can't safely accommodate more people? Use IBC standards (150 sq ft for first + 100 sq ft each additional) and document health/safety rationale based on bedrooms, bathrooms, parking, septic capacity, fire egress.
Does this apply to short-term rentals? Generally yes, though STR-specific regulations remain valid. Consult counsel about interactions with local STR ordinances.
What about HOA restrictions? Separate legal question. HB24-1007 restricts government authority, not private HOAs. Review governing documents with counsel.
Can tenants sue if I enforce occupancy limits? Potentially. Limits appearing to circumvent HB24-1007's intent or having disparate impact on protected classes could create Fair Housing liability.
Bottom Line:
The HOME Act is Colorado's bet that removing barriers to shared housing will help address affordability challenges. For property managers, the message is clear: adapt your practices, update your leases, train your staff, and prepare for a market where "unrelated persons" restrictions no longer apply.
Whether this proves effective policy or creates unintended consequences will unfold over coming years. Success depends on basing practices on objective criteria rather than family status, understanding both what changed and what remains enforceable, and positioning properties strategically in this new regulatory landscape.
