At first glance, Virginia, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Arizona might not seem to have much in common. These states span different regions, have varying population densities, and even differ in their sports franchises. But for mobile home park owners, these seven states stand out for a different reason: They have established some of the strongest legal protections for park owners through clear and definitive grandfathering laws.
This legal distinction is a critical win for those in the mobile home park industry, as it confirms that park owners are only bound by the zoning and land use regulations that were in place when the park was originally developed. The passage of these laws serves as a firm reminder to cities that they cannot arbitrarily enforce new restrictions on long-standing mobile home communities.
Understanding Grandfathering Laws
Grandfathering, in legal terms, refers to a "legal non-conforming" status. This means that a property was built in full compliance with existing laws at the time of its development, but later zoning changes have since made it technically non-compliant. However, rather than being forced to adapt to the new regulations, the property retains the right to continue operating under the original rules.
Federal and state laws affirm that a legally developed property cannot be subjected to new zoning laws unless it has been significantly altered, destroyed, or abandoned for a legally defined period—typically 180 days. This protection is fundamental for maintaining property rights and ensuring that long-standing investments are not undermined by shifting municipal policies.
Why Cities Struggle to Understand Grandfathering in Mobile Home Parks
The concept of grandfathering is widely accepted across various real estate categories. If an apartment complex, retail center, or warehouse was built under a previous zoning code, it retains its right to exist under those original regulations. However, when such a structure is demolished or abandoned, any new development on that land must comply with updated zoning laws.
Mobile home parks, however, operate differently. Unlike a typical real estate development, a mobile home park is not about a single structure—it is a land-use designation. A mobile home park functions more like a parking lot for homes rather than a singular building. Therefore, when a tenant moves out and their home is removed, this does not equate to abandoning the property in the way that demolishing an apartment building would.
Unfortunately, many city officials fail to grasp this distinction. They mistakenly assume that individual lots within a mobile home park are subject to the same rules as buildings. Some municipalities attempt to block the replacement of old homes with new ones, claiming that the park must now conform to modern zoning laws. This misinterpretation, however, holds no legal weight, as the grandfathered status applies to the entire park as a land use—not individual units within it.
The Legal Battles That Shaped These Laws
The seven states in question have all experienced legal conflicts between mobile home park owners and local governments—disputes that escalated to their state Supreme Courts. Each case resulted in rulings that reinforced the legal protections of mobile home parks, effectively codifying these rights into state law.
By securing victories in the highest state courts, these legal precedents have created a formidable shield against municipal overreach. Once a state Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a mobile home park’s grandfathered rights, cities are far less likely to challenge similar cases in the future.
So why don’t all states have explicit grandfathering laws on the books? Simply put, not every state has seen a case escalate to the Supreme Court. However, the established legal precedent in these seven states serves as a powerful reference point for any future disputes elsewhere.
What This Means for Mobile Home Park Owners Nationwide
For park owners across the country, these rulings send a strong message: Grandfathering laws are not up for debate. The legal framework supporting mobile home parks is deeply rooted in constitutional property rights, and cities that attempt to challenge it face a near-certain legal defeat.
Even in states without explicit Supreme Court rulings on the matter, the legal principles remain the same. Park owners who face resistance from local governments should be aware of these precedents and use them as legal leverage when needed. Understanding and asserting these rights is crucial for protecting long-term investments.
Conclusion
Every year, mobile home park owners find themselves in disputes with city governments that attempt to undermine their rights. Time and time again, these cases end in victories for the park owners, as the law clearly supports their position.
The clarity provided by these seven states makes it easier for park owners to defend their investments without prolonged legal battles. However, even in states without explicit legal precedent, the fundamental protections remain intact under federal and constitutional law.