Picture this: a housing inspector shows up at your door with a clipboard, points to the four people living in your shared house, and tells you the building doesn't qualify for the occupancy you're running. You knew the rules were murky. You just didn't think anyone would ever actually show up. This week's issue is about getting ahead of that moment — because the regulation landscape is moving faster right now than at any point in the last decade.
🏛 REGULATION & COMPLIANCE — LEAD ITEM
The ROOM Act just got its first real hearing. Here's why operators everywhere should be paying attention.
For years, co-living has existed in a legal gray zone that most operators quietly tolerated. Zoning codes weren't written for shared housing. Occupancy limits were designed for a different era. And most municipalities simply hadn't gotten around to deciding what they thought about a house full of unrelated adults splitting a kitchen and a Netflix subscription.
That gray zone is starting to close — and depending on where you operate, it could close in your favor or against you. On March 31, Rhode Island's House Municipal Government and Housing Committee heard H 8036, known as the ROOM Act: Restoring Options in Occupancy Models. The Institute for Justice drafted it and testified in support. It's the first bill in the country written specifically to make co-living and single-room occupancy legal, permitted, and workable at the state level — clearing out zoning barriers, occupancy limit laws, and building code provisions that currently make shared housing illegal in most municipalities.
Rhode Island is the opening act. IJ has already flagged Montana, Washington, and Texas as states with active co-living legislative momentum. When one state passes a clean framework, the others get a template — and political cover. The question isn't whether your state will eventually regulate this. It's whether the regulation that comes will look like Rhode Island's, or like something written by people who've never set foot in a co-living property.
There's a parallel story playing out in New York City, where Int. 1475 — backed by HPD and Mayor Adams — would legalize shared housing in new construction and require individual leases for every co-living tenant. It's still in committee, but it has more institutional support than any NYC co-living bill before it. If it passes, New York becomes the largest legal co-living market in the country overnight, and every operator's phone starts ringing with questions about how this works.
Pay attention to the definitions in both bills. The ROOM Act defines co-living housing as sleeping units that are independently rented, lockable, with shared kitchen facilities. That definition matters because it's the language regulators will use to classify your property — and whether you're operating a co-living property vs. a boarding house vs. an unlicensed rooming house will determine what rules apply to you.
→ Action this week
Pull up the ROOM Act bill text at ij.org/legislation and read the definitions section. Then look at how your property is currently classified in your local zoning code. If there's a mismatch between how you're operating and how you're classified, that's a conversation to have with a local real estate attorney before a housing inspector has it for you.
Single-home operators: check if your city has open zoning meetings in the next 60 days. Multi-unit operators: formally document your operation now — a well-documented co-living business is substantially harder to shut down than an informal one.
🔑 OPERATIONS
The individual lease question is coming for every co-living operator. Get there first.
Here's a scenario that plays out more often than operators admit: one tenant in a four-person shared house stops paying. You want to move on that one person. But your lease is a single agreement covering the whole property — which means your legal remedy involves everyone, the process takes months, and the three tenants who are paying on time are now living in a house with uncertainty hanging over it.
Individual room leases solve this cleanly. Each tenant has their own agreement, their own rent obligation, and their own legal exposure. If Room 2 stops paying, you serve Room 2. Rooms 1, 3, and 4 don't hear about it unless they look for it. Your eviction timeline tightens, your liability per tenant is cleaner, and your occupied rooms stay stable while you work the problem.
The NYC bill requiring individual leases is bringing this conversation into the open, but you don't need legislation to tell you it's the better structure. The tradeoff is real — individual leases require more documentation upfront and a system that can track rent by room rather than by property. That's where purpose-built co-living software earns its cost.
→ Action this week
Ask yourself one question: if a tenant stopped paying today, how long would it take to legally remove only that person — and would it affect the others? If the answer is murky, your lease structure needs attention. Talk to a local landlord-tenant attorney about converting to individual room agreements.
💬 COMMUNITY INTELLIGENCE
The big operators failed for a reason. Independent operators are quietly getting it right.
Common Living, WeLive, The Collective, Quarters, Bedly. The list of well-funded co-living companies that flamed out reads like a cautionary tale about what happens when you build on growth narratives instead of unit economics. Common operated 5,200 units in 12 cities when it filed for Chapter 7. WeLive had projections showing 34,000 residents by 2018 — it barely lasted two buildings. The pattern is identical every time: VC money, rapid expansion, master leases that assumed 90%+ occupancy, and no runway when the market softened.
Outpost Group survived and grew by doing the opposite. Slow growth, conservative occupancy assumptions, and landlord relationships built on reliability rather than projections. They've absorbed the portfolios of multiple failed operators — including Common — and positioned themselves as the adult in the room in an industry that kept producing cautionary tales.
The lesson for independent operators isn't complicated. Run the downside scenario before you add the next property. What does your operation look like at 70% occupancy? At 60%? If the answer is "I'd be negative," you either need lower fixed costs or more rooms to spread the risk. The operators who survived the shakeout weren't smarter — they just built businesses that could survive a bad quarter.
→ Action this week
Pull up your current numbers and calculate your break-even occupancy rate. Divide your fixed monthly costs by your total possible room revenue. If that number is above 75%, you have concentration risk worth addressing before you grow further.
Mid-scale operators: this is more acute for you than single-home operators. One vacancy in a 4-room house is painful but survivable. One vacancy across a 4-property portfolio built on thin margins is a spiral.
🛠 PRODUCT PICK
Turno — Turnover & Cleaning Management
Here's a situation every co-living operator knows. A tenant moves out of Room 3 on a Friday. You've got a new tenant moving in Sunday. The cleaner is coming Saturday morning — while two other tenants are still home, still using the kitchen, still very much present. Coordinating that via text at 7am is nobody's idea of a good system.
Turno handles the scheduling, cleaner payments, and checklist verification with photo documentation per room. That last part is what matters most for co-living operators specifically. A timestamped photo record of room condition at move-out is your primary defense in a deposit dispute. Without it you're arguing your word against a tenant's. With it you have evidence that holds up.
The mobile app lets cleaners run the job independently — they get the checklist, complete it, upload the photos, and mark it done. You get a notification. You don't coordinate anything.
Pricing: Free base plan. Pro from $10/month per property.
Visit Turno - cleaning management experts
Affiliate link — we may earn a commission.
⚠️ REGULATION WATCH
New York City — Int. 1475 (Shared Housing Legalization Bill) Status: In committee — Housing and Buildings Committee
NYC's proposed legislation would legalize shared housing in new construction and commercial conversions, require individual tenant leases for all co-living properties, and update the Fire Code specifically for shared housing. It's backed by HPD and Mayor Adams — more institutional support than any previous NYC co-living bill. Still stalled in committee but the political momentum is real.
If you operate in NYC: review your current lease structure now against the individual lease requirement. Don't wait for passage — the direction is clear.
If you operate anywhere else: the lease language in this bill is worth adopting regardless of your market. Individual room leases are operationally cleaner in every jurisdiction. Verify local requirements with a real estate attorney before restructuring.
The gray zone co-living has operated in for the past decade is closing — Rhode Island and New York City are drawing the lines, and a dozen states are watching which way they fall.
You're receiving this because you subscribed at The Co-Living Insider. To unsubscribe click below — but know that you'll be the only one who doesn't see what's coming next.