HB 2363 makes a narrow definitional change to Arizona’s residential rental property statutes. The bill amends A.R.S. § 33-1901, which is part of the article governing residential rental property and slum property, by changing the definition of “residential rental property” to include property rented to lodgers for periods of less than thirty days. The bill also clarifies that, in a space-rental mobile home park, the rental space itself is included as residential rental property, while the mobile home or recreational vehicle is not included if it is owned and occupied by the tenant rather than the space owner.
The measure does not create a new regulatory program or enforcement mechanism; instead, it updates statutory definitions that determine what property is covered by the residential rental property article. Because those definitions are used in the state’s landlord-tenant and slum-property framework, the bill could affect which properties are subject to related duties, inspections, and enforcement provisions under Arizona law.
Impact
HB 2363 would amend Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1901, expanding and clarifying the scope of “residential rental property” for purposes of the state’s rental-property and slum-property laws. The change to include lodgings rented for less than thirty days may bring short-term residential rentals within the reach of statutes that rely on this definition, while the mobile-home-park language clarifies that the rental space is covered even when the dwelling unit itself is owned by the tenant. The bill primarily affects landlords, property owners, managing agents, and tenants in residential rental settings, especially in short-term rental and mobile home park contexts.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a technical or clarifying measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, and the bill’s status shows no substantive action yet. The sponsor list suggests some cross-member support, but there is no evidence in the record of formal opposition or debate.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the expansion of the definition of residential rental property to include lodgings rented for less than thirty days, which could be viewed as bringing short-term rentals under laws that previously may not have applied. Property owners and operators of short-term rentals may see that as an increase in regulatory exposure, while tenant advocates or code-enforcement interests may view it as a needed clarification to improve health and safety oversight. A second possible issue is the mobile home park language, which clarifies coverage of rental spaces but excludes tenant-owned dwellings, potentially affecting how responsibilities are allocated between space owners and residents.
In tenement buildings and multiple dwelling premises, further providing for definitions and providing for borrowing requirements, for abandonment of residential rental property and for maintenance by receiver; and imposing penalties.