Can an Arizona community college build and use tiny homes on its own campus without being regulated by the Office of Manufactured Housing?

Plain-English summary

Yavapai College asked, through outside counsel, whether the 264-square-foot tiny homes it wants to build for its own use on its own campuses would be regulated by Arizona's Office of Manufactured Housing (OMH). The Attorney General agrees with the college's own counsel: as long as the work is done entirely on the college's campuses, by college staff (the college being a political subdivision with statutory authority to do construction and education), the units are not "factory-built buildings" under A.R.S. § 41-4001(17). OMH only regulates buildings that are largely manufactured at one site and then transported and assembled at another. A campus that builds its own tiny homes for itself isn't doing that.

The opinion is narrow on purpose. It rests on three facts being true at the same time: the college does the manufacturing, it does the installation, and both happen on its own campuses for its own use. Pull any one of those out, say by trucking in modular components, hiring an outside contractor to do the building, or installing units on land the college doesn't own, and OMH may have a regulatory hook again.

What this means for you

For community college and public university planners considering tiny homes

If you're scoping out tiny home student housing or workforce training projects, this opinion gives a clean path: keep the build in-house and on-campus. That means the college's own employees do the framing, the wiring, and the installation, and the units don't leave the college's land. If you do that, OMH licensing, dealer rules, and installer registration probably don't apply. The opinion calls this a "factual" determination, so document it: project plans showing on-site work, payroll showing college labor, and site control showing the units stay on college property. The opinion is also limited to political subdivisions doing this for their own use; if you plan to lease units to outside parties or sell them, get fresh legal advice.

For Office of Manufactured Housing staff and inspectors

The AG draws a clean factual line: regulation under A.R.S. § 41-4001(17) attaches when there is off-site manufacturing followed by transport and assembly. The Yavapai facts (one political subdivision, one campus, one user) take the project out of that pattern. If you're auditing similar projects at other colleges or districts, the questions to ask are: who built it, where was it built, where is it installed, and who will use it? Off-campus manufacture, outside labor, or third-party use can each pull a project back under OMH jurisdiction.

For municipal attorneys and political subdivisions watching this for ideas

This opinion doesn't bless every government-built tiny home project. It applies because Yavapai College has explicit statutory authority to do construction (a community college can build instructional facilities), and because the units are for college use. If you're a city or special district, the analysis is similar in shape, but the question of statutory authority will turn on your enabling statute, not § 15-1448. Don't assume your authority is the same.

Common questions

Does this opinion mean any government can build tiny homes without permits or inspections?

No. The opinion only addresses regulation by the Office of Manufactured Housing under Arizona's manufactured-housing statutes. Local building codes, fire code, planning and zoning rules, and other state and federal requirements can still apply. The opinion is silent on those.

What if Yavapai contracts a builder to come on-campus and put the homes up?

The opinion doesn't directly address that, but its reasoning hangs on the college performing the work. Bringing in an outside contractor or buying components manufactured elsewhere starts to look like the kind of off-site manufacture and on-site assembly that A.R.S. § 41-4001(17) was written to cover. The AG flags this exact scenario as one that "may" trigger OMH authority. Treat it as a yellow light, not a green one.

Can the college sell the tiny homes to students or staff later?

Probably not without rethinking the analysis. The opinion is grounded in the college using the units. A sale to a third party converts the project into a transaction the manufactured-housing statutes are likely to reach.

Is this a binding court ruling?

No. AG opinions are persuasive but not binding on courts. They protect the requesting agency in good-faith reliance, and they signal how the AG would litigate the question, but a court could read § 41-4001(17) differently if the issue is litigated.

The opinion is dated 2025. What if the manufactured housing statute changes?

The conclusion turns on the current text of § 41-4001(17). Statutory amendments or new OMH rules could change the answer. If you're planning a project, verify the statute is unchanged before relying on the opinion.

Background and statutory framework

A.R.S. § 15-1448(H) is the procedure for the AG to review and revise legal opinions prepared by counsel for community colleges, similar to how § 15-253(B) operates for school districts. Yavapai's outside counsel had concluded the tiny homes were outside OMH's reach; the AG's role is to "affirm in part or revise in part" that conclusion before the college relies on it. Here the AG affirmed.

The substantive question turns on A.R.S. § 41-4001(17), which defines "factory-built building" for the purposes of OMH's regulatory authority. The statute's logic is to capture buildings that are largely manufactured in a factory and then shipped and finished on-site. A college campus that performs the entire build with its own crew, on its own land, doesn't fit that description, and so falls outside the regulatory net.

The opinion is short, but it is doctrinally important: it reads § 41-4001(17) as keyed to the manufacturing/installation split, not to the type of structure or its size. A 264-square-foot dwelling can be a "factory-built building" or not, depending on how it's made.

Citations

• A.R.S. § 15-1448(H) (procedure for AG review of community college counsel opinions)
• A.R.S. § 41-4001(17) (definition of "factory-built building")

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i25-003-r25-005
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I25-003.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Rory Juneman, Law Offices of Lazarus & Sylvin, P.C., on behalf of Yavapai College

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1448(H), we affirm the conclusion reached by the opinion you prepared for Yavapai College regarding whether its construction and use of 264-square-foot structures ("tiny homes") on its campuses subjects the College to regulation by the State's Office of Manufactured Housing (OMH). That opinion is attached hereto as Appendix A.

Specifically, the Office agrees that the College's manufacture and installation of the tiny homes occurs "on site" because all such activities are carried out by the College—a political subdivision of the State that is statutorily authorized to engage in building construction and education—and entirely within the College's own campuses. As such, the tiny homes at issue are not subject to OMH regulation as "factory-built buildings" under A.R.S. § 41-4001(17).

Please note that our determination is confined to these particular facts. That is, the conclusion that OMH lacks regulatory authority is necessarily dependent on the fact that the College is its own political subdivision, conducting all construction and installation within its own campuses, and for its own use. Should the College engage in any manufacture or installation of tiny homes off-campus, or utilize units, components, or labor from outside of its campuses in the installation of tiny homes on-campus, OMH may have regulatory authority.

Kris Mayes

Attorney General