The Slice Of Life Debunked

Quick Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board has been widely misapplied by homeowners associations to prohibit short-term rentals. Slice of Life interpreted a specific zoning ordinance — not private community covenants — and Pennsylvania law treats zoning and private property restrictions as separate. This article explains what Slice of Life actually held, why it does not apply to association restrictions, and the narrow circumstances in which its reasoning could reach a private covenant. Contact Eric B. Smith at Timoney Knox to review a Slice of Life-based restriction on your STR.

No case has caused more turmoil for Short-Term Rentals (“STRs”) than the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 207 A.3d 886 (Pa. 2019), nor is there a case that is more misunderstood as it relates to STRs. In summary, Slice of Life has zero application to STRs as it relates to planned communities and associations. Rather, Slice of Life is a zoning case, interpreting a specific zoning law, and advancing a long developed rule of law regarding the incompatibility of transient uses within certain — but not all — residential districts.

Why Slice of Life Does Not Apply to Homeowners Associations

Slice of Life is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court zoning decision interpreting a specific municipal ordinance’s definitions of “family” and “single housekeeping unit.” It does not address private community covenants, deed restrictions, or association law. Zoning law and private property restrictions are governed by separate bodies of Pennsylvania law with different interpretive standards, and an HOA cannot rely on Slice of Life to prohibit short-term rentals in a planned community absent express restriction in the community’s covenants.

First, Slice of Life involved a very limited question. The case arose out of the operation of an STR, and the Court answered the limited question of “whether a zoning ordinance that defines ‘family’ as requiring ‘a single housekeeping unit’ permits the purely transient use of a property located in a residential zoning district.”

Second, Slice of Life contains a limited holding. The Court held that “the purely transient use of a house is not a permitted use in a residential zoning district limiting use to single-family homes by ‘a single housekeeping unit.'”

Third, Slice of Life by its own language does not apply to a purely transient use in a residential zoning district that contains uses other than single-family homes by a “single housekeeping unit.” Note: Courts and litigants thus far have taken a more expansive application of Slice of Life than the narrow holding given by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Fourth, Slice of Life does not address private real estate restrictions; rather, it addresses only zoning by municipalities under the concept of police power. There is not a single mention of planned communities, private real estate restrictions, or association law in the Court’s opinion. Association counsel who recite Slice of Life as a basis to ban or restrict STRs within a planned community under the terms of the community’s private restrictions are, as of the time of writing this article, flatly wrong.

Fifth, Slice of Life turned on definitions applicable only in the context of zoning. The ordinance permitted “single family detached dwellings.” A “dwelling” is the structure. “Family” is defined in the ordinance as, in part, “a single housekeeping unit and using cooking facilities and certain rooms in common.” By case law applicable only to zoning cases, “single housekeeping unit” requires that “a group of individuals in a single household must not only function as a family within that household, but, in addition the composition of the group must be sufficiently stable and permanent so as not to be fairly characterized as purely transient.” Whether a group functions as a family requires examination of whether or not they lived and cooked together, had common areas shared by everyone, all members have access to the entire house, including a single kitchen, meals are eaten together, and other indicators.

Finally, Slice of Life turned on the zoning definitions of “family” and “single housekeeping unit.” Those terms were developed over decades relative to transient uses in residential zoning districts. Those terms did not develop in the context of association or planned community law. Likewise, private restrictions have a different interpretive standard, so, unless an association’s deed restrictions, covenants, or declaration are express and clearly prohibit (1) transient uses or (2) short-term renting, no such restriction could be inferred. However, the analysis could change if “single housekeeping unit” were used.

What to Do If Your Association Cites Slice of Life

If your community or association is prohibiting or restricting STRs based on Slice of Life, the case is unlikely to support that position. The first step is to have counsel review both the association’s specific governing documents and the language of the restriction being enforced. Where the covenants themselves do not expressly prohibit short-term or transient rental use, and do not incorporate the zoning-law “single housekeeping unit” phrasing, Slice of Life generally provides no basis for enforcement.

Should your community or association prohibit or restrict STRs on the basis of Slice of Life, you have good reason to be doubtful. Contact an attorney to review the prohibition or restriction and the community’s or association’s governing documents. Be sure you understand your rights after Slice of Life.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Slice of Life apply to all short-term rentals in Pennsylvania?
No. Slice of Life is a zoning case that interpreted a specific municipal ordinance. It applies only to zoning disputes involving similar ordinance language, a residential zoning district defining “family” as a “single housekeeping unit.” It does not create a general statewide prohibition on short-term rentals.

What if my zoning district contains uses other than single-family homes?
Then Slice of Life may not apply. The Court’s holding was limited to residential zoning districts limiting use to single-family homes by a “single housekeeping unit.” Zoning districts that permit other uses fall outside the holding.

What if my association’s covenants use the phrase “single housekeeping unit”?
The analysis could change. Because “single housekeeping unit” is the specific zoning-law language the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted in Slice of Life, its inclusion in a private covenant could bring the case’s reasoning into play. Absent that language, the case does not apply to private restrictions.

Why do so many homeowners associations still cite Slice of Life against STR operators?
Because the decision has been applied by courts and litigants more broadly than the narrow question the Pennsylvania Supreme Court actually answered. Association counsel often cite Slice of Life as authority for prohibiting STRs in private communities even though the opinion never addresses private restrictions or association law.

What Pennsylvania law actually governs association restrictions on short-term rentals?

Association restrictions are governed by the interpretation of private covenants, deed restrictions, and declarations under Pennsylvania real property law. These are strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce the restriction and require express, written language to prohibit rental use. Our related article, Do Your Association’s Covenants Actually Restrict Short-Term Rentals, walks through how Pennsylvania courts read this language — including the distinction between building restrictions and use restrictions. 

If you are facing a dispute involving short-term rental rights, association restrictions, municipal regulations, or rental fees, Eric B. Smith can help evaluate your legal options. As Chair of the Litigation Group at Timoney Knox LLP in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, Eric focuses on real estate, municipal, and commercial litigation matters throughout Pennsylvania. To discuss your situation, contact Eric directly at esmith@timoneyknox.com or 215.540.2653.