Whether you are a residential rental property owner or a tenant, odds are at some point you are going to encounter a rental inspection ordinance.
Following the housing market crash in 2008, rental inspection ordinances grew in popularity, particularity for municipalities impacted by a high number of foreclosures. As foreclosures increased, previous owner-occupied single family homes became a target for investors, creating a significant increase in rental properties. In an effort to address persistent issues with the increased rental properties, municipalities began reviewing and updating their rental inspection ordinances which prompted increased enforcement and questions regarding the limits of a municipalities authority to compel inspections.
A typical rental inspection ordinance requires a property owner to register the rental property with the municipality and obtain a certificate of compliance confirming that the property complies with housing-code standards. These standards may vary state by state, but they are typically minimal standards in line with the International Property Maintenance Code. These codes are separate from stricter building codes, although obvious building code violations will typically also violate house laws.
If you intend to purchase rental property, it is recommended to check with the municipality to determine if it has a non-owner-occupied residential property registration and inspection ordinance. While some communities allow properties to be rented prior to obtaining a certificate of compliance, others may require the certificate before renters area allowed to occupy the property.
Some property owners have pushed back on mandatory registration and inspection ordinances challenging the right of a municipality to compel a property owner to consent to a warrantless search in exchange for obtaining a certificate of compliance arguing that it violates their Fourth Amendment rights. While rental inspection ordinances have generally been upheld, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Herschfus v. City of Oak Park, Mich., — F.4th —, Case No. 24-1451 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), recently addressed whether as a condition of obtaining a certificate of compliance, a municipality could require a property owner to consent to warrantless searches. The short answer is yes. Recognizing that the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine has not always drawn a clear line between permissible and impermissible conditions, the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that the government can choose to offer or not offer public benefits or privileges, such as rental licenses, and condition he receipt of those benefits on compliance with certain obligation. While there are limits to re-inspections and fees that can be assessed, the Sixth Circuit in Herschfus confirmed a rental inspection program does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the purpose of the inspections are limited, the burden imposed by the inspection is slight, and the only consequence of refusing an inspection is the denial of a license.
