By: Kenneth Baar*
Abstract
Roughly three million households in the United States own mobile homes that are on rented spaces in mobile home parks. Investments in mobile home parks are highly profitable. However, in recent decades, as urban areas densify and alternate land uses, such as condominium projects, commercial centers, or high end subdivisions, become more profitable, mobile home park closures have become widespread and are now becoming a national concern. When a mobile home park closes, it usually wipes out the owner’s entire investment in the mobile home and displaces the mobile home owner. Park closures are a large problem, as appellate courts have noted for decades, because of the “captive” nature of mobile home park tenancies and the role of public regulations in severely limiting the possible locations of mobile homes. As a practical matter, after they are moved from the factory and installed on a plot of land, “mobile” homes cannot be relocated. Generally, they are only sold in place, an unavailable option when a park closes.
Concerns about the dire consequences of closures have led many states and localities to adopt legislation with one or more of the following requirements: 1) extended notice periods for evictions in order to close a mobile home park, 2) financial mitigation for displaced home owners, 3) bars on closures of parks, and 4) mobile home park only zoning applicable to land with existing parks. In some states, the protections and required mitigations are substantial, while in most they are only nominal. Now that there is substantial public interest in adopting new protections and augmenting existing protections, appellate courts in six states have reached conflicting conclusions about the constitutionality of such laws, which square up park owners’ rights against public rights to provide mobile home owners with security of tenure. In light of the high economic stakes associated with conversions, increasing mitigation requirements for closures or restrictions on closures, and the fact that validity of new tenant protections has always been subject to legal challenges, it is virtually certain that there will be more challenges to closure laws. This Article discusses the circumstances leading to the demands for closure legislation, the types of legislation that have been adopted, and the constitutional issues that have been raised.
* Attorney and Urban Planner. The Author’s articles on housing law have been frequently cited in state supreme court and appellate court decisions. The Author greatly appreciates the thoughtful feedback of the Penn State Law Review editors during the preparation of this Article.