Equal Rights for Condo Owners: Why Washington Must Redefine “Single-Family” Residences

In Washington state, the concept of “single-family residence” carries significant legal weight—especially when it comes to landlord-tenant relationships. Under RCW 59.18.650, owners of single-family homes are granted the right to terminate a tenancy upon its lease expiration date based on their intent to sell the property, or with adequate notice in a month-to-month tenancy. This provision, part of the state’s “just cause” eviction framework, was designed to balance tenant protections with the rights of individual homeowners.

However, a glaring inconsistency in the law has left one group of homeowners out in the cold: condominium unit owners. Despite owning their homes outright, condo owners are not afforded the same rights as single-family homeowners under the current legal definition. This discrepancy stems from how “single-family residence” is defined—not by ownership structure or use, but by whether the property has no shared walls or direct street access. As a result, individually owned condominium units, which do have distinct parcel numbers, are excluded from rights granted to single-family homeowners. It’s a technicality with real-world consequences—and it’s time for Washington to fix it.

The Legal Landscape: RCW 59.18.650 Explained

Among the 18 permissible “just cause” reasons to end a tenancy, one presents a particular thorn in the side of condominium unit owners: the intent to sell a single-family residence. Relying upon the definition found in RCW 59.18.030, this clause was crafted to prevent mass displacement in apartment communities when entire buildings are sold. It allows individual homeowners to reclaim their property for sale without navigating burdensome legal hurdles. But the law’s definition of “single-family residence” excludes condominium units—even though they are privately owned, individually taxed, and functionally equivalent to detached homes in many respects.

Condo Owners: Homeowners Without Equal Rights

Condominium owners in Washington are increasingly finding themselves trapped by this legal oversight. Imagine owning a condo unit, deciding to sell, and discovering that you cannot end a tenancy based on your intent to sell—while your neighbor in a detached home can. This unequal treatment undermines the very notion of homeownership.

The issue is not theoretical. In cities like Seattle, where condominiums make up a significant portion of the housing stock, many owners rely on rental income to offset costs. When they decide to sell, they face delays, legal ambiguity, and potential financial loss—all because their homes don’t meet an outdated, and perhaps unintentional, definition.

The Parcel Number Solution

The most straightforward fix? Redefine “single-family residence” to include any housing unit with its own unique tax identification parcel number. This change would align the law with modern housing realities and ensure that all individual homeowners—whether they own a detached house or a condo—are treated equally.

• Parcel numbers are already used by county assessors to distinguish properties for taxation and ownership purposes.
• They are objective, verifiable, and universally applied.
• By using parcel numbers as the defining criterion, the law would reflect the true nature of ownership rather than architectural form.

Equity, Not Exclusion

At its core, this issue is about equity. The current law inadvertently discriminates against a class of homeowners based on the structure of their property. It assumes that all multi-unit buildings are rental apartments owned by a single entity, ignoring the reality of individually owned condos.

This exclusion not only harms condo owners—it also creates confusion for tenants, property managers, and legal professionals. A clear, inclusive definition would simplify enforcement, reduce litigation, and promote fairness across the board.

Urban Implications, Missed Opportunities

Washington’s urban centers are evolving. High-density housing, including condominiums, is essential to meeting the state’s growing population and sustainability goals. By failing to recognize condo units as single-family residences, the law discourages investment in this vital housing sector.

Moreover, the current framework may be preventing opportunities for homeownership. The current law may serve to disincentivize condo unit owners from offering their homes as rentals at all, for fear of being stuck with a “forever tenant” and thus removing a housing opportunity from the rental pool. The law may also serve as a barrier to homeownership in that condo units are a very common “starter home” option, and such units are being withheld from the pool of homes to purchase because would-be sellers are, again, stuck with “forever tenants” and cannot vacate them in order to put the unit up for sale.

If lawmakers in Washington are serious about utilizing homeownership as a means for building wealth, particularly in minority communities, they should be duly motivated to reform this law. (Anecdotally, I am of the understanding that the law in its current form was not meant to preclude condo units from the same rights afforded to houses, but there has been “little appetite” on behalf of lawmakers to fix the problem.)

Legislative Path Forward

Instead of referring to the global definition for a single-family residence in the RLTA, as it does now, RCW 59.18.650(2)(e) should include a unique definition describing a parcel that is primarily marketed and sold to individuals as their primary residence.

It will be important to include preemption so that this definition supersedes several local laws that have their own problematic definitions for properties that can be vacated before selling. The amendment could include safeguards to prevent misuse, such as requiring documentation of ownership and intent to sell.

Such a bill SHOULD garner bipartisan support, as it addresses a technical inconsistency without altering the broader goals of tenant protection. It’s a win-win for homeowners, renters, and housing advocates alike.

Conclusion: A Call for Common Sense

Washington prides itself on progressive housing policy. But progress means recognizing when laws need updating. By redefining the type of property that can be vacated before selling, the state can ensure equal rights for all homeowners, promote housing stability, and uphold the principles of fairness and equity.

It’s a small change with a big impact—and it’s time to make it happen. If you feel the same way, I encourage you to contact your local representatives and continue the push for this important legal reform.

Formal legal advice and review is recommended prior to selection and use of this information. RHAWA does not represent your selection or execution of this information as appropriate for your specific circumstance. The material contained and represented herein, although obtained from reliable sources, is not considered legal advice or to be used as a substitution for legal counsel.