Monthly Archives :

September 2025

Quitclaim Deeds and Other Deeds in Arizona - Gottlieb Law
  • Gottlieb Law
  • No Comments

Quitclaim Deed and Other Deeds in Arizona: Insights You Need to Know
Quitclaim Deed and Other Deeds in Arizona: Insights You Need to Know 819 819 Gottlieb Law

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for informational purposes only. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship. Do not take action based on this article without consulting qualified legal counsel. Laws change, and only a licensed attorney can provide advice tailored to your specific situation.


What a Quitclaim Deed Actually Transfers (and What It Doesn’t)

A quitclaim deed allows the grantor to transfer whatever ownership interest they have in a property to the grantee. Importantly, it provides:

  • No warranties of title

  • No guarantees against liens or encumbrances

  • No protection from competing claims

The grantee takes the property as is, subject to all existing title defects.

While this principle applies nationwide, Arizona’s recorder-specific filing requirements, exemption codes, and statutory deed language make precision essential. If a quit claim deed is drafted incorrectly—or filed without legal review—the deed may be rejected or fail to achieve the intended transfer.

For a deeper breakdown of quitclaim deeds compared with other deed types, see our legal perspective on Quitclaim Deeds in Arizona here. This article builds on that by focusing on local risk factors and filing strategies.

Real Examples: When Quitclaim Deeds Work (and When They Can Backfire)

Appropriate Uses

  • Divorce Settlements: A spouse quitclaimed her interest in the marital home to her ex-husband per a divorce decree. By citing exemption code A5 (conveyance pursuant to court order, A.R.S. § 11-1134(A)(5)), the deed was accepted and recorded without issue.

  • Family Transfers: Parents transferred a cabin into their family trust via quitclaim deed. With no monetary consideration, exemption code A4 applied, allowing smooth recording.

  • Title Cleanup in Inheritance: An heir filed a quiet title action under A.R.S. § 12-1101 to secure clear title.

Problematic Uses

  • Improper Transfers: A deed was rejected for failing to include the full legal description required by A.R.S. § 33-401. This delayed refinancing and forced redrafting.

  • Sibling Land Disputes: A property gifted without documentation led to litigation. The quitclaim deed did not resolve potential tax and other issues and can still lead to legal issues if an underlying dispute exists.

Takeaway: Quitclaim deeds are valid legal tools, but they require accuracy, statutory compliance, and context-specific judgment and may not resolve underlying disputes.

Choosing the Right Deed in Arizona

Arizona recognizes several types of deeds, each serving different purposes:

  1. Quitclaim Deed – Transfers only the grantor’s interest; no warranties.

  2. Special Warranty Deed – Guarantees no encumbrances during the grantor’s ownership; limited scope.

  3. General Warranty Deed – Provides full title warranties against all claims, past and present.

  4. Beneficiary Deed – Transfers property to a named beneficiary at death, avoiding probate (A.R.S. § 33-405).

  5. Joint Tenancy Deed – Transfers property to two or more co-owners who accept the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.

Key Point: Selecting the wrong deed type can undermine your intent. Always confirm the deed structure with legal counsel before filing.

When transferring real estate in Arizona, selecting the appropriate type of deed is crucial to ensure the transfer aligns with your intentions and provides the necessary legal protections. 

Common Filing Mistakes in Maricopa County

Many rejections comes from preventable errors:

  • Incorrect parcel numbers (must match Assessor’s records exactly)

  • Omitted exemption codes under A.R.S. § 11-1134

  • Incomplete legal descriptions (shortened versions may be invalid)

  • Poor scan quality or improper margins in e-recordings

Checklist Before Filing:

  • Confirm exemption codes

  • Match all legal names to prior deeds

  • Use the statutory acknowledgment form with a clear notary seal

  • Record promptly to avoid disputes or probate complications

Does a Quitclaim Deed Affect Your Mortgage or Liens?

Yes. A quitclaim deed:

  • Does not remove existing mortgages or liens

  • Does not release you from loan liability unless the lender agrees (e.g., refinance or assumption)

  • May trigger lender action (such as acceleration of a HELOC) if transferred without consent

  • Can have gift tax implications if the transfer exceeds annual IRS thresholds

Protect Your Property Transfer with Professional Legal Review

There are no second chances with real estate transfers and many people misuse deed transfers, which causes more legal headaches later on.  

Gottlieb Law has reviewed countless quitclaim filings that were rejected, misfiled, or challenged later in court. From estate planning to divorce settlements, we don’t just draft your deed—we advise on your legal matter to ensure what type of property transfer makes the most sense and why.  Gottlieb Law provides full-service legal work related to real estate law, deed preparation, legal review, and litigation, all tailored to your situation.

Call Gottlieb Law today at 602-899-8188 or use our Contact Us page here to schedule your initial consultation.

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for informational purposes only. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship. Do not take action based on this article without consulting qualified legal counsel. Laws change, and only a licensed attorney can provide advice tailored to your specific situation.

Legal Challenges in Co‑Living & Shared Housing in Arizona: Strategies for Success
  • Gottlieb Law
  • No Comments

Legal Challenges in Co‑Living & Shared Housing in Arizona: Strategies for Success
Legal Challenges in Co‑Living & Shared Housing in Arizona: Strategies for Success 1011 668 Gottlieb Law

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for informational purposes only. Nothing herein creates an attorney–client relationship. Do not take any action based on this information without first consulting qualified legal counsel. Laws change over time, and you should seek legal advice specific to your situation.

Co-Living’s Growth in Arizona

Co-living, once concentrated in larger metropolitan markets, is now expanding across Arizona as residents seek more affordable housing and flexible living options. Shared housing models include multi-tenant roommate arrangements, investor-owned homes with multiple occupants, and purpose-built co-living developments.

While demand is rising, Arizona’s legal framework was not designed with these models in mind. Property owners, developers, and tenants often face unclear or conflicting rules when it comes to zoning, occupancy, leases, and liability.

Why the Law Can Be Complicated

Unlike traditional rental housing, co-living arrangements must navigate:

  • Local zoning ordinances: Arizona cities and towns may impose occupancy limits and definitions of “family” that can restrict how many unrelated adults may live together. These rules vary widely by municipality.  It is important to consult local ordinances and legal counsel for city-specific guidance. 
  • The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA): Codified at A.R.S. § 33-1301 et seq., ARLTA generally governs residential rental relationships. Even if a landlord labels an agreement as a “license” rather than a “lease,” Arizona courts may still apply ARLTA protections if the arrangement functions as a tenancy. 
  • Insurance and liability: Standard landlord or homeowner policies may not cover claims arising from multiple unrelated tenants under one roof, creating additional exposure for owners.

How Legal Counsel Helps

Because Arizona’s statutes and municipal codes do not always align neatly with modern co-living models, careful planning is critical. Structuring leases, ensuring zoning compliance, and anticipating potential disputes can make the difference between a profitable investment and costly litigation.

At Gottlieb Law, our attorneys regularly advise clients on real estate, landlord–tenant, and contract issues, including those that arise in shared housing and co-living contexts. With the right strategy, property owners and investors can take advantage of Arizona’s growing demand for co-living while staying compliant with the law.

Regulatory & Zoning Landscape

State and Municipal Zoning Laws

Arizona cities have a patchwork of zoning regulations, and that’s a big deal if you’re planning to rent or own a shared living property. Many local ordinances restrict how many unrelated people can legally live in a single residence.

In 2024, Arizona enacted House Bill 2720, which requires cities with more than 75,000 residents to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family zones. Under the law, property owners must be permitted to build at least one attached and one detached ADU on qualifying lots, subject to size limits and building codes. The law also restricts cities from imposing extra parking requirements, design mandates, or family-relationship restrictions specific to ADUs.

This opens the door for more flexible housing arrangements, but implementation is still unfolding and HOAs or restrictive covenants can still prohibit ADUs even where the city allows them. Permitting delays, neighborhood opposition, and traditional occupancy caps could pose hurdles for investors and property owners.

Building, Occupancy, and Permit Requirements

In Arizona, when a rental property shifts from a standard single-family use to a higher-intensity co-living arrangement, cities may classify it differently under their zoning codes. Once a property is re-classified, it may be subject to additional requirements such as enhanced fire safety measures, minimum square footage per resident, and sometimes extra kitchen or bathroom facilities or other requirements. These standards are based on municipal zoning codes and the International Building Code, and they vary by city.

Enforcement typically occurs when neighbors file complaints or inspectors observe overcrowding. By understanding the local classification rules and securing proper approvals up front, landlords can avoid potentially costly citations and forced shutdowns.

Lease Structuring and Tenant Rights

Customizing Lease Agreements

Generic lease templates are rarely sufficient for shared housing. A well-drafted lease should address:

  • Rent contributions and utility sharing 
  • Use of common areas and quiet hours 
  • Guest policies and privacy expectations 
  • Dispute resolution procedures

Including these terms up front reduces conflicts and provides structure if disagreements arise. Gottlieb Law assists landlords and tenants in preparing customized leases that reflect the realities of shared housing while complying with Arizona law.

Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

The Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (A.R.S. § 33-1301 et seq.) governs deposits, notices, maintenance obligations, and eviction procedures across the state. These rules can apply even in roommate and co-living situations.

A common misconception is that only the person named on the lease is a “tenant.” In practice, Arizona courts may extend tenant protections to other occupants if they live at the property, contribute to rent or utilities, and establish it as their residence. Lockouts, unilateral changes to terms, or treating residents as “guests” without notice typically violate ARLTA.

It is important to note that ARLTA protections may not apply to certain agreements such as short-term stays under 30 days unless a court finds the arrangement functions as a tenancy.

Cohabitation and Roommate Agreements

Beyond leases, roommates and co-occupants may enter into private contracts that set expectations for financial obligations, shared responsibilities, and dispute resolution. Arizona courts recognize these agreements under general contract law. For example, an unmarried couple or group of roommates could sign a written agreement allocating rent, utilities, or household chores.

While these contracts do not replace a landlord–tenant relationship under ARLTA, they provide enforceable rights among the occupants themselves and can reduce uncertainty in informal living arrangements.

Insurance, Liability, and Risk Management

Insuring Co-Living Properties

Standard homeowner’s insurance may not apply when a property is rented to multiple unrelated tenants. In these situations, owners should obtain landlord insurance or commercial policies tailored to rental properties and confirm coverage with their insurance agent. Policies should address property damage, fire, liability claims, and risks associated with higher tenant turnover. If shared bedrooms or short-term occupancy are involved, it is critical to confirm with the insurer that the policy covers those uses.

At Gottlieb Law, we can help property owners identify legal risks associated with their housing model and work with insurance professionals to ensure coverage aligns with the property’s actual use.

Tenant Insurance and Liability

Requiring tenants to carry renters insurance is a common way to protect both landlords and tenants. These policies provide coverage for tenants’ personal belongings and may also help address liability claims involving tenants.

Lease agreements may also include indemnity clauses, which hold tenants responsible for their own actions and negligence. These provisions are especially valuable in shared housing, where overlapping use of property increases the chance of accidents. Indemnity language must be carefully drafted to comply with Arizona contract law.

Insurance carriers vary widely in how they treat co-living risks, and written confirmation of coverage is essential.

Fair Housing and Non-Discrimination Compliance

Co-living arrangements may be subject to the federal Fair Housing Act and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, with limited exceptions. Landlords cannot deny housing or apply different rental terms based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability, national origin, or ancestry.

This means all applicants must be evaluated using consistent criteria — such as credit checks, background screening, or income requirements — applied equally to every applicant. Maintaining written records of your criteria and decisions is an effective way to demonstrate compliance if challenged.

Tenants choosing their own roommates may have more flexibility, but landlords and property managers cannot endorse or advertise discriminatory preferences in listings or lease policies. Gottlieb Law can assist clients in developing screening practices that protect both property investments and compliance with fair housing laws.

Privacy and Consent in Shared Spaces

Privacy is often a key concern in co-living arrangements. Leases should clearly define which spaces are shared (such as kitchens, bathrooms, or living rooms) and which are private (such as bedrooms or designated storage areas).

Under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (A.R.S. § 33-1343), landlords must give at least two days’ notice before entering a tenant’s dwelling, including bedrooms in shared homes, unless there is an emergency.

Video surveillance in common areas must be disclosed to all tenants in writing. Surveillance in bedrooms and bathrooms is prohibited, and landlords should avoid audio recording due to additional legal restrictions under Arizona’s wiretapping laws.

Failure to follow privacy protections can result in serious legal consequences, including tenant claims for damages.

Shared Housing with Public Assistance

Some tenants in shared housing may use Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) or other public assistance programs. These arrangements are governed by HUD regulations and local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and apply when public assistance is involved.

Under HUD’s rules for shared housing (24 C.F.R. § 982.615):

  • The unit must provide adequate space and shared facilities (kitchen, bathroom, common areas). 
  • Rent and utilities must be divided on a pro-rata basis, with the lease reflecting the tenant’s share. 
  • The landlord must comply with inspection standards and administrative requirements imposed by the PHA.

While voucher tenants add complexity to lease structuring, participation can provide stable income streams for landlords and help meet community housing needs. Gottlieb Law assists property owners in structuring leases that satisfy HUD and PHA requirements while remaining enforceable under Arizona law.

Tenant Collective Action and Retaliation

Arizona law explicitly protects tenants who join together to request repairs, report code violations, or assert their rights. Under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (A.R.S. § 33-1381), a landlord may not retaliate by raising rent, terminating a lease, or decreasing services in response to tenant complaints or organizing activity.

These protections apply in shared housing as well. Whether tenants are co-signers on a lease or roommates with individual agreements, landlords must address complaints lawfully and avoid retaliatory conduct. Tenants remain obligated to pay rent, but they cannot be punished for exercising their legal rights.

Risk from Enforcement and Shutdown

Co-living properties in Arizona are receiving heightened scrutiny. Demand for affordable housing is growing, but cities and state agencies are acting quickly when properties violate zoning, licensing, or safety requirements. Recent enforcement actions, many tied to unlicensed sober living or recovery housing, illustrate the broader risks for shared housing operators:

Illustrative cases include:

  • Tucson – Ocotillo Apartments (2023): City officials condemned an apartment complex operating as informal co-living and sober living after finding fire hazards, faulty wiring, and other unsafe conditions. Residents were displaced, underscoring the risk of operating without safety compliance.
  • Mesa – Canal on Baseline (2023-2024): Nearly 40 residents in a luxury condo complex were evicted after AHCCCS suspended payments to the operator over Medicaid fraud allegations. The site was never licensed for group housing, showing how unpermitted conversions can trigger both financial and housing disruption.
  • Phoenix/Laveen – Element on Euclid Subdivision (2023–2024): A behavioral health provider tied almost 30 homes in a new subdivision to unlicensed recovery housing. Maricopa County issued zoning violation notices for operating a “recovery community” in single-family homes. The case closed only after the homes were vacated, highlighting the zoning and licensing risks of high-intensity shared housing.

Common enforcement triggers in Arizona include:

  • Neighbor complaints about overcrowding or parking/traffic. 
  • Fire and building code violations. 
  • Unlicensed housing operations tied to Medicaid or voucher programs. 
  • Tenant reports of unsafe or unsanitary conditions.

The pattern is clear: informal or unpermitted shared housing may operate temporarily but is vulnerable to sudden enforcement. Landlords and investors should confirm zoning classification, licensing, and health/safety compliance before opening a co-living property.

Why Engaging with Local Agencies Matters

The speed and force of recent enforcement actions show why municipal consultation is critical. Whether you are a landlord renting to unrelated adults or a developer launching a co-living brand, the risk of operating without zoning clarity or permits is too high to ignore.

While this article is not exhaustive and cannot replace legal advice for your specific situation, here are practical steps to reduce risk:

  • Confirm whether your property is classified as a “rooming house,” “group home,” or standard residential use. 
  • Apply for appropriate permits or, if necessary, seek special use approvals or variances before renting to multiple tenants. 
  • Schedule voluntary inspections for fire safety, electrical systems, and occupancy compliance. 
  • Keep records of licenses, inspection approvals, and all correspondence with city zoning officials.

These Arizona enforcement examples underline one principle: co-living models succeed when built on a foundation of compliance and cooperation with local authorities. Gottlieb Law assists property owners, investors, and managers with legal strategies that reduce risk, protect tenants, and keep operations sustainable.

Strategies for Legal Success in Co-Living and Shared Housing

Upfront Compliance and Permitting

Begin with a zoning and code review. Confirm occupancy limits for unrelated adults, identify any structural changes requiring permits, and determine whether your property qualifies for accessory dwelling unit (ADU) options under Arizona’s new law. Even landlords renting a single-family home to four roommates must confirm compliance.

Tailored Lease and Cohabitation Templates

Generic leases rarely address the realities of shared housing. Customized agreements should cover rent allocation, utilities, privacy, and dispute resolution. Gottlieb Law can draft and review leases — and, where appropriate, supplemental roommate agreements — that bring clarity and enforceability.

Insurance and Liability Planning

Standard homeowner’s policies often exclude co-living risks. Landlord or commercial insurance should cover property damage, liability, and tenant disputes. Requiring renters insurance adds another layer of protection. Lease provisions can hold tenants accountable for their own conduct and negligence, reducing disputes in shared homes.

Fair Screening and Inclusion Policies

Arizona landlords are subject to the federal Fair Housing Act and the Arizona Civil Rights Act. Use standardized criteria such as income ratios, background checks, and credit history — and apply them consistently. Train staff to avoid discriminatory language in marketing or communications.

Privacy Safeguards

Clearly define which areas are shared and which are private. Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1343) requires landlords to give at least two days’ notice before entering a tenant’s private space, regardless of lease language. If cameras or smart locks are used in common areas, disclose this in writing. Surveillance of bedrooms or bathrooms is never permitted.

Tenant Engagement and Communication

Tenants who feel heard are less likely to escalate disputes. Regular communication — whether through meetings, group chats, or shared boards — can prevent problems. Remember: tenants have the right to organize, and landlords cannot retaliate against those who exercise that right (A.R.S. § 33-1381).

HUD and Public Assistance Compliance

Shared housing may be eligible for Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) participation, but HUD rules (24 C.F.R. § 982.615) require pro-rata rent allocation, shared facility access, and PHA inspection approval. Gottlieb Law helps landlords adapt their agreements and property structures to meet these requirements and avoid interruptions in rental income.

Emergency Preparedness

Because inspections, zoning actions, or neighbor complaints can happen unexpectedly, landlords benefit from having legal counsel already familiar with their property. Gottlieb Law assists in defending against eviction claims, appealing zoning decisions, and negotiating with city officials to keep operations compliant.

Co-Living, Cohabitation Agreements, and Shared Housing in Arizona

Co-living and shared housing are reshaping Arizona’s housing market. They provide affordability and flexibility but also bring legal complexity. Success depends on getting the details right — zoning, lease structuring, insurance, tenant rights, and municipal compliance.

At Gottlieb Law, we regularly advise clients on real estate transactions, landlord-tenant disputes, and municipal permitting. Our goal is to help you avoid legal missteps and build housing strategies that last.

Let Gottlieb Law guide you through Arizona’s housing regulations. Whether you are an experienced investor or managing your first shared rental, we help ensure your property is compliant, protected, and positioned for long-term success.

Call us today at 602-899-8188 or schedule a consultation here. You can also explore our full range of Arizona real estate legal services including landlord-tenant representation, contract drafting, and more.

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for general informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or creates an attorney–client relationship. You should not act or refrain from acting based on the information provided here without seeking advice from qualified legal counsel regarding your specific situation. Laws change over time, and the application of law can vary depending on individual facts and circumstances.

Eminent domain laws in Arizona for 2024 continues to be a critical issue for property owners, understanding the legal expectations pertinent to these proceedings is increasingly vital.
  • Gottlieb Law
  • No Comments

Arizona’s Eminent Domain Laws: What Every Landowner, Investor, and Developer Should Know
Arizona’s Eminent Domain Laws: What Every Landowner, Investor, and Developer Should Know 1920 1280 Gottlieb Law

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for informational purposes only. Nothing herein creates an attorney–client relationship. You should not act on any of the information contained without consulting qualified legal counsel. Laws change over time, and you should seek legal advice about your specific situation.

Understanding Eminent Domain in Arizona

If you own property in Arizona or are planning to develop land, it’s important to understand how eminent domain works. In a fast-growing state, governments and certain private entities regularly acquire property for infrastructure, utilities, and other public purposes.

At its core, eminent domain is the power to take private property for a “public use,” so long as the owner is paid “just compensation.” This requirement comes from both the U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment) and the Arizona Constitution (Article 2, § 17).

Who Can Exercise Eminent Domain?

While eminent domain is most often associated with city, county, or state governments, Arizona law also authorizes certain private entities to use it when the legislature has granted the power. These include utility companies, railroads, and pipeline operators. The authority comes primarily from Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-1111 through 12-1129.

What Protections Do Landowners Have?

Property owners are not powerless. Arizona law sets out strict requirements to ensure fairness:

  • Public Use Requirement – The taking must be for a valid public purpose, such as roads, utilities, schools, or other community infrastructure.
  • Just Compensation – Owners must be paid fair market value for the property taken, which may include damages for partial takings.
  • Procedural Safeguards – Courts oversee the process to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines and constitutional protections.
  • Proposition 207 Protections (A.R.S. § 12-1134) – Arizona provides additional protection against “regulatory takings,” where land use restrictions reduce property value without a direct taking.

Why This Matters

Eminent domain is not rare in Arizona — it often arises in highway expansions, light rail projects, and utility easements. Understanding the process, the defenses available, and how compensation is calculated can make the difference between a fair resolution and a costly loss.

The Legal Landscape: What Authorizes Eminent Domain in Arizona?

Eminent domain in Arizona is governed by both the Arizona Constitution and a detailed statutory framework (A.R.S. §§ 12-1111 through 12-1129). These laws specify who may take property, under what circumstances, and what procedures must be followed.

Under the Arizona Constitution (Article II, § 17), property may be taken only for a public use and only if the owner is paid just compensation. Importantly, the Constitution makes clear that it is the courts—not lawmakers or agencies—that decide whether a use truly qualifies as “public.” This means property owners have the right to challenge not only the amount of compensation, but also the very legitimacy of the taking itself.

Arizona law also provides additional protection through the Private Property Rights Protection Act (Proposition 207, codified at A.R.S. § 12-1134). This statute requires compensation if new land-use regulations reduce a property’s fair market value, unless narrow exceptions apply. It also prevents condemnations that primarily benefit private parties.

The Process for Eminent Domain in Arizona

Arizona statutes require condemning authorities to follow a strict, step-by-step process. Any misstep can delay or even invalidate the taking:

  1. Resolution of Necessity – The government agency (or, in limited cases, a utility or special district) must adopt a formal resolution declaring the need for the property.
  2. Notice and Offer – The owner receives formal notice, along with a written offer based on an appraisal of fair market value.
  3. Negotiation – The parties may attempt to settle voluntarily.
  4. Court Filing – If no agreement is reached, the condemning authority files a complaint in superior court and deposits its estimate of just compensation.
  5. Early Possession – Once the deposit is made, the authority may take possession of the property before final judgment.
  6. Trial and Valuation – If unresolved, a jury (unless waived) determines just compensation, including damages for partial takings.
  7. Two-Year Bar on Refiling – If the case is dismissed before payment, the condemning authority cannot bring a new action for two years.

These safeguards ensure that property owners have multiple opportunities to contest both procedure and valuation.

What Counts as “Public Use” in Arizona?

Arizona’s definition of public use rests on three pillars:

  1. Arizona Constitution (Art. II, § 17): Prohibits takings for private use and requires judicial review of whether a claimed public purpose is valid.
  2. Proposition 207 (A.R.S. § 12-1134): Bars condemnations that primarily benefit private entities and provides compensation for certain regulatory takings.
  3. Arizona Eminent Domain Statutes (A.R.S. §§ 12-1111 et seq.): Establish procedures and reinforce that property may be taken only for authorized public uses.

An important case on this issue is Bailey v. Myers, 206 Ariz. 224, 76 P.3d 898 (App. 2003). There, the Arizona Court of Appeals struck down a proposed condemnation for a private retail redevelopment, holding that public benefits and characteristics must substantially predominate over private interests for a taking to qualify as public use under the Arizona Constitution.

Constitutional Foundation: Article II § 17

    • “No Private Use” Rule
      • Arizona’s Constitution provides some of the strongest property protections in the country. Article II, § 17 flatly prohibits taking private property for private use, except in narrow cases such as private ways of necessity or mining ditches. It also requires just compensation in money before a taking is effective. For corporate condemnors (other than municipal corporations), compensation must be paid in full, without offsets for “benefits” from the project.
  • Judicial Review Requirement
  • The final sentence of Article II, § 17 makes Arizona unique:  “Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.”
  • This means courts, not legislatures or agencies, decide whether a use is truly public. Judicial review is independent and cannot be bypassed by legislative declarations. This principle was central in Bailey v. Myers, where the Arizona Court of Appeals invalidated a retail redevelopment taking because public benefits did not “substantially predominate” over private interests.
  • Historical Context
  • Arizona adopted this provision at statehood in 1912, reflecting deep mistrust of unchecked eminent domain power. Early cases such as Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. New Keystone Copper Co., 16 Ariz. 257, 144 P. 277 (1914), confirmed that Article II, § 17 must be read strictly to protect landowners, limiting private takings to the narrow exceptions expressly listed in the Constitution.

Statutory Safeguards

These constitutional limits are reinforced in Arizona’s eminent domain statutes (A.R.S. §§ 12-1111 to 12-1129). The statutes:

  • Define the permissible categories of public use;
  • Require a resolution of necessity before filing;
  • Allow early possession upon deposit of estimated compensation; and
  • Impose a two-year bar on refiling if a case is dismissed before compensation is paid.

Together, the Constitution and statutes create one of the most property-owner-protective eminent domain frameworks in the country.

Proposition 207: The Private Property Rights Protection Act (2006)

In 2006, Arizona voters approved Proposition 207 in response to Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Codified at A.R.S. § 12-1134, it provides that:

  • Takings for economic development are not public use. The statute expressly excludes general economic benefits such as higher tax revenue or jobs from qualifying as “public use.”
  • Regulatory takings are compensable. Landowners are entitled to just compensation if a new land use law reduces their property’s fair market value, unless the government issues a waiver or the regulation falls within limited exceptions (e.g., public health, safety, nuisance abatement).

This reform made Arizona’s eminent domain protections among the strongest in the nation.

Federal Precedents and Arizona’s Response

In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a city may use eminent domain for a comprehensive economic-development plan, treating “public use” as a broad public-purpose inquiry with strong deference to legislative judgments. Arizona voters reacted swiftly: Proposition 207 (2006)—codified at A.R.S. §§ 12-1131–1138—explicitly excludes ‘public benefits of economic development’ from qualifying (see A.R.S. § 12-1136(5)).

For regulatory takings, Arizona courts primarily apply Ariz. Const. art. II, § 17 and A.R.S. § 12-1134, while federal precedents remain informative.

Practical Takeaways for Property Owners and Developers

  • For Property Owners: If a proposed taking primarily benefits a private developer, you may challenge it under Article II, § 17 and A.R.S. § 12-1134(A)(4). Early legal review of the condemnor’s “resolution of necessity” and appraisals can expose weaknesses in the public-use rationale.
  • For Developers and Municipalities: Ensure any project tied to condemnation has a clear public-use component (road, park, safety improvement). Where possible, rely on voluntary acquisitions (contracts, options) to avoid litigation risk.
  • For Land-Use Planning: Developers should evaluate potential Prop 207 regulatory-takings risks before launch. Municipalities can mitigate liability by offering waivers or variances rather than imposing regulations that reduce property values.

Valuation: What Counts as “Just Compensation”?

In Arizona, just compensation means the fair market value of your property on the date of the taking:

  • Fair Market Value: What a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an open market.
  • Highest and Best Use: Compensation must reflect the most profitable legal use of the property, even if you’re not currently using it that way.
  • Project Influence Rule: The value cannot be inflated (or reduced) by the very project causing the taking.
  • Partial Takings: If only part of your land is taken, you may also recover severance damages—the loss in value to the remainder of your property.

Government appraisals often come in low. Property owners have the right to present their own expert valuations, and juries—not agencies—decide the final number if the case goes to trial.

Defenses Against Eminent Domain in Arizona

Landowners are not powerless. Arizona law gives you multiple avenues to fight back:

  • Challenge Public Use: Under Article II, § 17 and A.R.S. § 12-1134, courts—not agencies—decide whether a taking is truly for public use.
  • Question Necessity: You can argue the project could be built elsewhere or that the scope of land being taken is excessive.
  • Contest Valuation: You may reject the government’s deposit and demand a jury trial on just compensation.
  • Enforce Procedure: If the condemnor skips a statutory step—like notice, deposit, or a resolution of necessity—you may move to dismiss the action.

Strong procedural safeguards mean missteps by condemning authorities can delay or derail the taking entirely.

Examples of Eminent Domain in Arizona

Eminent domain shows up in many contexts:

  • Transportation: ADOT’s I-17 and Loop 202 expansions have required taking residential and commercial parcels.
  • Utilities: Water, electric, and gas corridors often affect rural and suburban landowners.
  • Flood Control: Maricopa County has condemned land for retention basins, levees, and emergency access.

These takings affect not only land, but also business operations, farming, and access rights, which can significantly increase compensation claims.

Why This Matters

By understanding valuation rules and defenses, landowners can avoid leaving money on the table and ensure condemnors meet every legal obligation.

What Developers and Investors Should Know

Eminent domain can sometimes play a role in making large-scale development possible—for example, when a city needs to build new roads, utilities, or drainage improvements tied to a project. But the law requires that the primary benefit remain with the public, not private investors. Developers should:

  • Structure carefully: Ensure the government—not the private project—is the direct beneficiary of any condemnation.
  • Avoid private-benefit takings: Lobbying for condemnations that primarily benefit a private project risks invalidation under the Arizona Constitution and the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
  • Plan for costs and delays: Appraisal disputes, court deposits, and potential challenges can affect project timelines.
  • Evaluate land-use risk: New overlays, rezonings, or infrastructure funding measures may trigger regulatory-takings claims under Proposition 207.

Early legal guidance can help developers reduce these risks and keep projects compliant.

Regulatory Takings: The Private Property Rights Protection Act

Eminent domain is not the only way property rights are impacted. Arizona’s Private Property Rights Protection Act (Proposition 207, 2006; A.R.S. § 12-1134) also protects owners from certain land-use regulations:

  • Compensation Right: If a newly enacted regulation reduces the property’s fair market value, the owner may demand compensation.
  • Waiver Alternative: Instead of paying, the government can grant a waiver, allowing the property to be used under prior rules.
  • 90-Day Response: After a property owner submits a written demand for compensation, the government has 90 days to either pay, repeal/amend the law, or issue a waiver. If the regulation still applies after 90 days, the owner may file suit

Limits: Some regulations are exempt, such as those addressing public health, safety, or nuisances, and owners must file within 90 days of the law’s enactment or application.

How Gottlieb Law Supports Clients

Whether defending against condemnation or structuring a complex development, Gottlieb Law’s attorneys can provide targeted counsel across Arizona real estate law.

  • For Property Owners: Guidance from early strategy through trial and appeal, ensuring just compensation and strict enforcement of procedural protections.
  • For Developers and Investors: Advice on public-private partnerships, land-use compliance, condemnation risks, and Proposition 207 assessments to keep projects on track.

The firm also handles zoning and leasing legal issues and offers comprehensive support for Arizona real estate clients.

Protect Your Arizona Property: Why You Need Skilled Eminent Domain Attorneys

Eminent domain and regulatory takings aren’t abstract legal issues—they affect homes, investments, and development projects across Arizona. The state’s Constitution and statutes give landowners unusually strong protections, but those protections only matter if you know how to assert them. From contesting whether a taking is truly for public use to challenging undervalued appraisals, every detail counts.

At Gottlieb Law, our attorneys focus on Arizona real estate and property law. We guide clients through Arizona real estate issues, which can include condemnation threats, valuation disputes, and regulatory takings claims, combining deep knowledge of Arizona’s real estate landscape with hands-on courtroom experience. Whether you’re facing a government demand or planning a project that could trigger land-use disputes, we help you protect your rights and move forward confidently.

Call Gottlieb Law today at 602-899-8188 or use our Contact Us page here to schedule your initial consultation.

This article is provided by Gottlieb Law, PLC for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney–client relationship. You should not rely on the information contained herein without first consulting qualified legal counsel regarding your specific situation. Laws change over time, and the application of law varies based on individual facts. For advice tailored to your circumstances, please seek guidance from a licensed attorney.

Arizona Rental Tax Ban 2025 - What Landlords and Tenants Need to Know - Gottlieb Law - Arizona Real Estate Lawyers
  • Gottlieb Law
  • No Comments

Arizona Rental Tax Ban: What Landlords and Tenants Need to Know for 2025
Arizona Rental Tax Ban: What Landlords and Tenants Need to Know for 2025 1045 697 Gottlieb Law

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for informational purposes only. Nothing herein creates an attorney–client relationship. Reading this article is not a substitute for seeking advice tailored to your situation. Laws change over time, and you should consult qualified legal counsel regarding any specific questions.


Understanding Arizona’s Rental Tax Ban and What It Means for 2025

Starting January 1, 2025, Arizona will eliminate the residential rental transaction privilege tax (TPT). For years, many cities and towns required landlords to collect this local tax—often 2–4%—on rent payments.

The new statewide ban applies only to residential rentals of 30 days or more (not commercial leases). It overrides local city and town authority, meaning landlords across Arizona can no longer collect or remit residential rental tax, even if their municipality previously required it.

For tenants, this means monthly rent bills should drop by the amount of the former rental tax. For landlords, it simplifies compliance and reduces reporting obligations, but it also requires careful adjustments. Lease agreements that currently say “plus applicable rental tax” must be updated, and landlords should stop charging the tax immediately as of January 1. Landlords will also need to file their final December 2024 TPT return and close out their rental TPT license if it applied only to residential properties.

Legislative Background: The Foundation of the Rental Tax Ban

Amendment to A.R.S. § 42-6004(H)

Recently, the Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. § 42-6004 to add subsection (H). The statute provides that “from and after December 31, 2024, a city, town, or other taxing jurisdiction may not levy a transaction privilege, sales, gross receipts, use, franchise or other similar tax or fee on the business of renting or leasing real property for residential purposes.”

In practical terms, this means that starting with January 2025 rent, municipalities can no longer collect residential rental TPT. The prohibition applies statewide.

What the Amendment Means for Cities and Towns

This statutory change eliminates more than $230 million in annual municipal revenue once generated by taxing residential rentals. Cities and towns will need to adjust their budgets accordingly. For tenants, the benefit is direct — rental bills should drop by the amount of the repealed tax.

For landlords, the law simplifies compliance but requires attention to lease language, billing systems, and tax filings during the transition.

Key Changes for Landlords to Implement

Automatic Cancellation of TPT Licenses

Effective December 31, 2024, the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) automatically canceled TPT licenses that were limited to business code 045 (Residential Rental, Leasing & Licensing for Use).

  • Landlords who only rented residential property no longer need a license.

  • Landlords who also lease commercial property must maintain their license for those activities.

Ceasing Collection of TPT Charges

From January 2025 forward, landlords must stop charging residential rental TPT. Continuing to bill tenants for the repealed tax violates state law and may lead to penalties or tenant disputes. Gottlieb Law recommends that landlords audit their billing systems immediately to ensure no residual tax charges appear on rent statements.

Updating Lease Agreements and Billing Systems

Residential leases signed before 2025 may include language such as “plus applicable rental tax.” Landlords should:

  • Amend leases to remove TPT references.

  • Update property management and accounting software to reflect the elimination.

  • Notify tenants so expectations are clear.

These updates are essential to maintain compliance and avoid over-collection.

Exemptions to Keep in Mind

The ban applies only to residential rentals of 30 days or more. The following remain taxable under Arizona’s TPT system:

  • Commercial leases
  • Short-term rentals under 30 days
  • Health care and long-term care facilities
  • Hotels, motels, and other transient lodging

What Tenants Should Know About the Rental Tax Ban

Expected Rent Savings Starting in 2025

With the elimination of the residential rental TPT, tenants statewide are projected to save more than $230 million annually. Rent payments that previously included a city tax should decrease beginning with January 2025 rent.

Tenants should carefully review rent statements to confirm that no TPT charges appear after December 31, 2024.

Reviewing Rent Statements and Lease Terms

Even though the tax ban is automatic, oversights can occur. If a tenant sees TPT still listed on a rent bill in 2025, the first step is to notify the landlord in writing and request correction.

If the charge continues, tenants may seek help from a qualified attorney or file a complaint with the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR). The law places the burden of proof on landlords to show that any additional charges are not improperly tied to repealed TPT.

Tenant Rights and How to Act

Arizona tenants have the right to pay rent without being charged a tax that no longer applies. Tenants who believe they are being billed unlawfully should:

  1. Document rent statements and lease provisions.

  2. Contact the landlord promptly for clarification.

  3. Seek legal counsel or assistance if the problem persists.

Gottlieb Law assists renters with understanding their options, enforcing compliance, and protecting tenant rights under Arizona’s new framework.

Compliance and Enforcement in 2025

Legal Risks of Non-Compliance

Landlords who continue to collect residential rental TPT after January 1, 2025 risk:

  • Enforcement actions from ADOR.

  • Audits and penalties for improper billing.

  • Potential tenant disputes or litigation if overcharges are not corrected.

Government Oversight and Resources

The Arizona Department of Revenue is responsible for implementing the new rules and provides official guidance online. Both landlords and tenants can access compliance updates, FAQs, and support resources through AZTaxes.gov and the ADOR Residential Rental team.

Registering with County Assessors

Although the TPT requirement is eliminated, landlords must still register residential rental properties with their county assessor. This separate requirement remains in force, and penalties can apply for failing to register. Tenants may also check public assessor records to confirm that their rental property is properly registered.

Preparing for Arizona Rental Tax Changes: What You Need to Do Next

The elimination of residential rental TPT in Arizona reshapes how landlords, tenants, and property managers handle rental transactions. Here’s what to keep in mind moving forward:

  • Landlords should update lease agreements, remove TPT billing, and confirm that all property management and accounting systems reflect the new tax rules beginning January 2025.

  • Tenants should carefully review rent statements in 2025 and understand their rights if unlawful TPT charges appear.

  • Property managers should train staff and revise internal procedures to maintain compliance with Arizona’s updated requirements.

  • All parties must understand the statutory exemptions and remember that rental properties must still be registered with county assessors.

Stay Compliant with Legal Guidance

From and after December 31, 2024, cities and towns can no longer impose TPT on residential rentals under A.R.S. § 42-6004(H). While the change reduces costs for tenants and simplifies compliance for landlords, proper preparation is key to avoiding errors, penalties, or disputes.

Gottlieb Law’s real estate attorneys are available to guide landlords, tenants, and property management companies through these changes. Proper legal advice ensures you stay compliant, avoid penalties, and fully benefit from Arizona’s new rental tax ban.

If you want personalized support navigating these updates or need help updating lease agreements and billing systems, call our firm today at 602-899-8188 or schedule a consultation with Gottlieb Law to meet with our experienced real estate attorneys.


This article is provided by Gottlieb Law, PLC for general informational purposes only. It does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it should not be relied on as legal advice. Laws change, and every situation is different. You should consult qualified legal counsel about your specific circumstances.

Understanding Arizona delayed MLS listings and the NAR delayed marketing policy helps sellers protect their interests. Gottlieb Law guides you through real estate law for smooth transactions.
  • Gottlieb Law
  • No Comments

Delayed MLS Listings: What Arizona Home Sellers Need to Know
Delayed MLS Listings: What Arizona Home Sellers Need to Know 931 671 Gottlieb Law

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for information purposes only and nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship. You should not take any actions in reliance on any of the information contained herein without consulting with qualified legal counsel first and reading this article is not a proper substitute for seeking legal advice of your specific situation.  Laws change over time and you should seek counsel to discuss any specific legal questions.

Arizona’s real estate market is always evolving, and staying ahead means knowing how new policies impact your home sale. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) recently introduced a delayed marketing policy aimed at giving sellers more control over how and when their properties appear on public platforms.  For Arizona home sellers, understanding this policy alongside state-specific rules is critical. That’s where Gottlieb Law comes in. With deep roots in Arizona real estate law, they guide sellers, buyers, agents, and brokers through these shifting waters, helping you make informed decisions every step of the way.

What Is the NAR Delayed Marketing Policy?

NAR’s “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” offers sellers choices on how their listings appear publicly. Two key concepts stand out:

  • Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings: These are exempt listings where the seller directs the listing broker to delay public marketing through IDX and syndication for a period allowed by the local MLS.  Each MLS has discretion to determine the length of this delayed marketing period.  This approach allows sellers to keep their homes under wraps initially while still preparing for broader exposure and reflects the seller’s choice to postpone public advertising.
  • Office Exclusive Listings: In this scenario, listings remain private within a brokerage and never reach the broader MLS network.

Sellers must sign a certification acknowledging the benefits they are waiving or delaying, such as broad exposure through the MLS, and confirming their informed decision to opt for delayed marketing or office exclusivity.  Understanding these nuances can significantly affect your home’s exposure and sale timeline, which is why legal guidance is so valuable.

The Multiple Listing Options for Sellers policy is expected to roll out in phases, with each local MLS setting its own rules for implementation. Sellers should confirm with their real estate counsel and listing agent how these policies apply in their market.

Arizona’s Take on Delayed Marketing Policies

Arizona’s largest MLS, ARMLS, has adopted and enforces the Clear Cooperation Policy, which requires listings to be submitted to the MLS within one business day after any public marketing.  However, Arizona provides some flexibility through the “Coming Soon” status, which allows listings to remain in a pre-market phase for up to 30 days.

Not every Arizona MLS interprets NAR’s delayed marketing policy in the same way.  Some are still refining their rules, creating a patchwork landscape that can confuse both sellers and agents.  This complexity underscores the value of working with a seasoned real estate attorney who understands the intricacies of Arizona real estate law in 2025.

Legal Considerations for Arizona Home Sellers

Navigating Arizona real estate law in 2025 requires aligning with both state regulations and NAR’s evolving policies. The Arizona Department of Real Estate oversees how licensed professionals handle property marketing under active listing agreements.  Missteps could lead to disputes over how days on market are calculated or raise concerns about MLS data integrity.

Failing to comply with these regulations exposes sellers to legal risks that can delay,  or even derail, transactions.  Gottlieb Law’s extensive experience can help sellers focus on compliance and avoid costly missteps.

The Upsides and Downsides of Delayed MLS Listings

Choosing to delay MLS listings comes with both benefits and drawbacks.

On the upside, sellers who value privacy, such as public figures or those with tenant-occupied properties, often appreciate the additional control it provides.  Delaying can also give agents flexibility to gauge market interest, refine pricing, and build interest before going fully public.

On the downside, holding back a listing from full public exposure can shrink your buyer pool, potentially extending the time your home remains on the market and impacting sale price.  It may also distort MLS data, complicating property comparisons and influencing buyer perceptions.

Sellers should weigh these factors carefully, with guidance from experienced legal counsel to balance privacy with market reach.

How Gottlieb Law Supports Arizona Buyers, Sellers, Agents, and Brokers

Whether you are a home seller navigating delayed MLS listings or a buyer entering Arizona’s competitive market, Gottlieb Law provides tailored legal insight for real estate transactions.

The firm’s team can advise on everything from drafting airtight contracts to focusing on compliance with MLS rules and the Clear Cooperation Policy.  Real estate agents and brokers need to remain compliant in a fast-changing legal landscape.  From reviewing listing agreements to managing disclosures around office exclusive listings in Arizona, Gottlieb Law can serve as a trusted partner.

Tips for Arizona Sellers Considering Delayed MLS Listings

  • Engage a qualified real estate attorney early. Understanding how delayed marketing options apply to your situation helps prevent surprises.
  • Negotiate listing agreements carefully.  Ensure they clearly outline marketing timelines and privacy protections.
  • Confirm compliance.  Align with both NAR policies and Arizona real estate law 2025 to keep your sale on track.
  • Leverage the “Coming Soon” status.  Arizona’s MLS coming soon status may offer a strategic marketing advantage without violating rules.

Final Thoughts on Arizona Delayed MLS Listings

Arizona home sellers face a complex real estate environment with shifting policies around MLS listings and marketing.  Balancing privacy concerns with the need for broad buyer exposure isn’t always straightforward.  That’s why working with an accomplished real estate law firm like Gottlieb Law is valuable. Having attorneys with the knowledge and experience to guide sellers, buyers, agents, and brokers through these challenges helps position clients for successful transactions.

Ready to Navigate Arizona Real Estate with Confidence?

Selling or buying a home in Arizona comes with unique legal challenges, so don’t go it alone. Connect with Gottlieb Law to get advice and trusted representation that puts your interests first.

Whether you’re managing delayed MLS listings or handling more complex transactions, the team at Gottlieb Law is ready to help you move forward with clarity and confidence.

Call our firm today at 602-899-8188 or schedule a consultation online with Gottlieb Law to meet with our experienced real estate attorneys.

Gottlieb Law, PLC provides this article for information purposes only and nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship. You should not take any actions in reliance on any of the information contained herein without consulting with qualified legal counsel first and reading this article is not a proper substitute for seeking legal advice of your specific situation.  Laws change over time and you should seek counsel to discuss any specific legal questions.

Enter your
text here