Can Arizona cities still enforce noise ordinances against short-term rentals after the 2016 vacation-rental preemption law (SB 1350)?

Plain-English summary

In 2016, the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1350 (Laws 2016, Chapter 208), which preempted Arizona cities and counties from regulating vacation and short-term rentals (STRs) like Airbnb listings as a separate property category. The bill was a win for the STR industry: cities could no longer ban STRs outright or impose vacation-rental-only restrictions.

But SB 1350 had an important carve-out. The new statutes (now A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39 for cities and 11-269.17 for counties) explicitly preserved local authority to enforce "residential use and zoning ordinances, including ordinances related to noise, protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues" against STRs, as long as the ordinance applied "in the same manner" to all residential property classified under A.R.S. §§ 42-12003 and 42-12004.

Representative Jill Norgaard asked the AG two questions:
1. Did SB 1350 prohibit cities and counties from enforcing local noise rules against STRs?
2. Did the City of Tempe's specific noise regulation conflict with SB 1350?

The AG's answers, both no.

On question 1: The statutes explicitly allow generally-applicable local noise regulations. The line they drew was clear: a noise rule that singled out STRs (e.g., "vacation rentals must be quieter than other homes") would be preempted. A noise rule that applied to all residential property and just happened to also apply to STRs was not preempted.

On question 2: Tempe's noise ordinance (City of Tempe Code § 20-6) does not mention vacation or short-term rentals at all. It facially regulates "all residential property concerning acceptable noise levels for different parts of the day." That is exactly what § 9-500.39(B)(2) preserves. So Tempe could enforce the ordinance against an STR causing a noise complaint just like it could against any other home.

The constitutional principle behind the analysis: under Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 5(F) and art. XIII, § 2, city and county charters and local laws must be "consistent with, and subject to" state law. Local laws that can "peacefully coexist" with state law are valid. A generally-applicable noise rule that includes STRs along with all other homes peacefully coexists with SB 1350.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Arizona's short-term rental laws have been amended several times since (2019 SB 1442, 2022 SB 1168, and others), generally tightening regulation while preserving the underlying SB 1350 preemption framework. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2018

For Arizona cities and counties

The opinion gave municipalities a clear path to keep enforcing nuisance and noise rules against problem STRs. The legal framing: write rules in residential-property-neutral terms, and they survive SB 1350. Cities that had been worried SB 1350 stripped them of all enforcement authority got reassurance that they retained the generally-applicable nuisance toolkit.

For STR owners and platforms (Airbnb, VRBO)

The opinion was a reminder that SB 1350 was not a free pass. STR guests still had to comply with city noise ordinances just like long-term residential tenants. Hosts could not point to SB 1350 to escape a noise citation. That mattered for the operational economics: a host who could not control guest noise could face escalating fines through routine code enforcement.

For neighbors of STRs

The opinion confirmed that neighbors complaining about loud STR parties had a viable enforcement path through their city or county code enforcement office. They did not need a vacation-rental-specific ordinance; the existing residential noise rule applied.

For city and county attorneys advising on STR regulation

The opinion identified the line: ordinances that single out STRs are preempted; generally-applicable ordinances that include STRs along with other residential property are not. That distinction would shape how municipalities drafted any new STR-related rule. The opinion's references to "protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues" pointed to the broader categories of regulation that survived SB 1350 too.

For state legislators reconsidering SB 1350

The opinion implicitly endorsed the structure of SB 1350: preempt STR-specific rules but preserve generally-applicable residential rules. If the Legislature wanted to give cities more (or less) authority over STRs, it could amend the statute. The AG's job was to apply the law as written.

Common questions

Q: What is a "vacation rental" or "short-term rental" under Arizona law?
A: Per A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39(D)(2) and 11-269.17(D)(2), it is "any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative or timeshare, that is also a transient public lodging establishment or owner-occupied residential home offered for transient use," excluding commercial, industrial, or non-residential property.

Q: Did SB 1350 ban cities from regulating STRs entirely?
A: No. SB 1350 banned STR-specific regulation. Cities and counties can still enforce generally-applicable residential rules that include STRs along with other residential property.

Q: What kinds of local rules survive SB 1350?
A: Per § 9-500.39(B)(2), residential use and zoning ordinances "including ordinances related to noise, protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues," as long as they apply in the same manner as to other residential property under §§ 42-12003 and 42-12004.

Q: Could Tempe write an STR-only noise rule?
A: No, per the opinion. A noise rule that imposed special or differing requirements on vacation or short-term rentals would conflict with A.R.S. § 9-500.39 and be preempted.

Q: Could Tempe ban short-term rentals?
A: Not based on this opinion's discussion of SB 1350. The whole point of SB 1350 was to preempt STR-specific bans and restrictions. Subsequent legislative amendments may have changed this, but in 2018 the answer was no.

Q: How does the constitutional consistency requirement work?
A: Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 5(F) and art. XIII, § 2 require city and county charters and local laws to be consistent with state law. Per Jett v. City of Tucson, 180 Ariz. 115 (1994), local laws are valid if they can "peacefully coexist" with state law.

Q: What about HOA rules limiting STRs?
A: This opinion did not address private HOA covenants. SB 1350 limits government regulation; private covenant enforcement is a separate analysis turning on the HOA's recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

Q: What if a city's noise rule has different decibel limits at night for residential vs. commercial property?
A: That kind of distinction is generally fine under SB 1350 because it does not single out STRs. The line the statute draws is between STRs and other residential property, not between residential and commercial property.

Background and statutory framework

SB 1350 (2016) and its preemption framework

In 2016, the Legislature enacted Laws 2016, Chapter 208 (SB 1350), to preempt local regulation of vacation and short-term rentals. The bill added what is now A.R.S. § 9-500.39 (cities) and § 11-269.17 (counties). Both statutes:
- Define vacation and short-term rentals (§§ 9-500.39(D)(2), 11-269.17(D)(2)).
- Limit local authority to "discriminatorily regulate" STRs.
- Preserve local authority to enforce "residential use and zoning ordinances" of general application, including noise, welfare protection, property maintenance, and nuisance rules (§§ 9-500.39(B)(2), 11-269.17(B)(2)).
- Reference A.R.S. §§ 42-12003 and 42-12004 (residential property classifications) as the comparison baseline.

The constitutional consistency principle

Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 5(F) requires county charters to be consistent with state law. Art. XIII, § 2 imposes a similar requirement on city charters. Per State ex rel. Brnovich v. City of Tucson, 242 Ariz. 588 (2017) (Bolick, J. concurring), and State v. Coles, 234 Ariz. 573 (Ct. App. 2014), local governments may regulate matters affecting both state and local interests unless specifically preempted by state law. Per Jett v. City of Tucson, 180 Ariz. 115, 121 (1994), local provisions remain effective if they are "capable of peaceful coexistence" with state law.

Statutory interpretation principles

The opinion applies the standard plain-language approach: per Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (2003), the first step is the statute's language itself, applied without resort to other interpretive methods unless the plain meaning would produce impossible or absurd results.

Tempe's noise ordinance

City of Tempe Code § 20-6 establishes acceptable noise levels by time of day for all residential property. It does not single out STRs. Per the AG, that facial neutrality is what saved it under SB 1350's preservation clause.

Citations and references

State statutes:
- A.R.S. § 9-500.39 (municipal STR regulation; preservation of residential ordinances in subsection (B)(2))
- A.R.S. § 11-269.17 (county STR regulation; same preservation language)
- A.R.S. §§ 42-12003, 42-12004 (residential property tax classifications)
- 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 208 (SB 1350)

Constitutional provisions:
- Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 5(F) (county charter consistency with state law)
- Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 2 (city charter consistency with state law)

Local ordinance:
- City of Tempe Code § 20-6 (residential noise regulation)

Cases:
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (2003) (plain-language interpretation)
- State ex rel. Brnovich v. City of Tucson, 242 Ariz. 588 (2017) (Bolick, J., concurring) (local authority and preemption)
- State v. Coles, 234 Ariz. 573 (Ct. App. 2014) (state and local concurrent authority)
- Jett v. City of Tucson, 180 Ariz. 115 (1994) (peaceful coexistence test)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i18-004-r18-004
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I18-004.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Jill Norgaard

State Representative, District 18

Arizona House of Representatives

Questions Presented

Do the statutory amendments enacted by Laws 2016, Chapter 208, Senate Bill 1350 ("S.B. 1350") prohibit or restrict counties and municipalities from enforcing local noise regulations?

Does the City of Tempe's ("Tempe") specific noise regulation conflict with the statutory amendments enacted by S.B. 1350?

Summary Answer

No. The statutory amendments enacted by S.B. 1350 do not prohibit counties and municipalities from enforcing generally-applicable local noise regulations that are part of residential use and zoning ordinances.

No. Tempe's noise regulation does not conflict with the State laws enacted through S.B. 1350 because, consistent with the language enacted through S.B. 1350, the regulation generally applies to all residential property within the city.

Background

In 2016, with S.B. 1350, the Legislature enacted statutory amendments to expressly permit vacation and short-term rentals statewide. See 2016 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 208, §§ 1-2.[1] In pertinent part, S.B. 1350 added what is now Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") §§ 9-500.39 and 11-269.17, which establish how and to what extent municipalities and counties respectively may regulate such rentals. Both statutes define "vacation rental" and "short-term rental" as "any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative or timeshare, that is also a transient public lodging establishment or owner-occupied residential home offered for transient use [excluding property that is commercial, industrial, or subject to any nonresidential use]." A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39(D)(2), 11-269.17(D)(2).

These statutes limit the authority of municipalities and counties to discriminatorily regulate vacation and short-term rentals, but do not bear on the authority of these political subdivisions to regulate vacation and short-term rentals through use and zoning ordinances of general application. Indeed, S.B. 1350 explicitly affirms that residential use and zoning "ordinances related to noise, protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues" apply to vacation and short-term rentals as long as the regulation "is applied in the same manner" as to other residential property. A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39(B)(2), 11-269.17(B)(2).

Analysis

1. The Relevant Statutes Enacted By S.B. 1350 Do Not Entirely Preclude Local Regulation Over Vacation and Short-Term Rentals.

The plain language of the relevant statutes explicitly provides that counties and municipalities can regulate vacation and short-term rentals in their jurisdictions by enforcing residential use and zoning ordinances that include generally-applicable noise regulations. The first step in statutory interpretation is to look at the language of the statute itself. Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464 ¶ 11 (2003). The plain language of a statute must be applied "without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation, unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, the plain language of the statutes is consistent with the Arizona Constitution's mandates that county and city charters, and the local laws enacted pursuant to such charters, be "consistent with, and subject to, the Constitution and the laws of the state." See Ariz. Const. art. XIII § 2, art. XII § 5(F); see also State ex rel. Brnovich v. City of Tucson, 242 Ariz. 588, 607 ¶¶ 80-81 (2017) (Bolick, J. concurring in part and in the result); State v. Coles, 234 Ariz. 573, 574, ¶ 6 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[w]hen an issue affects both state and local interests, municipalities may address the issue by enacting and enforcing relevant laws unless specifically preempted by state law."). Even when State law restricts what political subdivisions may do in a particular policy area, local provisions nevertheless may be effective if the local law is "capable of peaceful coexistence" with State law. See Jett v. City of Tucson, 180 Ariz. 115, 121 (1994) (citation omitted).

No conflict arises between the relevant statutes and local noise regulations if the local regulations are generally applicable to other residential properties. Even though the relevant statutes restrict local regulation of vacation and short-term rentals, the statutes expressly permit "residential use and zoning ordinances, including ordinances related to noise . . . if the ordinance is applied in the same manner as other property classified under [A.R.S.] §§ 42-12003 and 42-12004."[2] A.R.S. §§ 9-500.39(B)(2), 11-269.17(B)(2). Accordingly, these statutory provisions do not exempt vacation and short-term rentals from generally-applicable local noise regulations and local authorities would not run afoul of these State statutes by commonly enforcing such regulations.

2. Because Tempe's Noise Regulation Is Generally Applicable, It Does Not Conflict With State Law And Generally Can Be Enforced Against Vacation and Short-Term Rentals.

Tempe's noise regulation is squarely within what A.R.S. § 9-500.39(B)(2) expressly allows municipalities to promulgate and enforce. Tempe's noise regulation does not mention short-term or vacation rentals, and it facially regulates all residential property concerning acceptable noise levels for different parts of the day. See City of Tempe Code § 20-6. Although a provision that imposed special or differing requirements on vacation or short-term rentals likely would conflict with A.R.S. § 9-500.39, there are no such special provisions in Tempe's noise regulation. As previously noted, generally-applicable noise regulations fall within a statutory provision that permits municipal regulation of vacation and short-term rentals. See A.R.S. § 9-500.39(B)(2). Accordingly, because Tempe's noise regulation falls within what A.R.S. § 9-500.39(B)(2) allows, neither Tempe's regulation nor typical enforcement of that regulation by Tempe would generate a conflict with State law.

Conclusion

The plain language of the statutes enacted by S.B. 1350 provides that generally-applicable county and municipal residential use and zoning ordinances regulating noise apply to vacation and short-term rentals. Accordingly, such regulations may be enforced in the normal course. Because Tempe's noise regulation is generally applicable, there is no facial conflict between it and State law.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General

[1] The relevant statutes were renumbered from how S.B. 1350 numbered them originally.

[2] A.R.S. §§ 42-12003 and 42-12004 both relate to residential property classification for taxation purposes.