Living

Banning smoking in apartments, condos

What every association and owner should know

Published

13 years ago

April 4, 2013

WBadmin

(Washington Blade photo by Phil Reese)

By DAVID A. RAHNIS

Many urban dwellers are waking up to the concerns surrounding secondhand smoke in their apartment cooperatives and condo buildings. To date, approximately half of all states (including D.C.) have passed comprehensive smoke-free laws. However, these laws typically exempt a person’s home. There is no effort on the horizon to ban smoking in all multiple family dwellings in D.C. This situation could create a dilemma for non-smokers trying to coexist with smokers in a residential environment. Nationwide, the number of residential buildings becoming voluntarily smoke-free appears to be growing.

The secondhand smoke issue is usually raised when a resident complains about the smell of smoke entering his or her apartment from other apartments or areas within the building. Attempting to address those complaints, building management will often undertake an investigation or some corrective action to address the smoke odors. Often, these initial efforts may fall short and residents will contend that only a full building-wide smoking ban can resolve the problem.

The first step for any coop or condo when facing this issue is to review the building’s governing documents for any provisions pertaining to smoking. If a board determines a smoking ban to be in the best interest of the building, the most effective way to do so is through an amendment to the governing documents. For example, in the cooperative setting, an amendment to the Proprietary Lease and/or By-Laws is the most effective means of enforcing a ban. Residents should examine the procedures and voting requirements necessary to amend the governing documents. In the cooperative setting, the most appropriate venue for obtaining shareholder consent would be a special meeting of the shareholders, held in accordance with the by-laws. A court is more likely to uphold a smoking restriction adopted by a supermajority of apartment owners rather than by simple board action.

At this point, there is only one local case involving smoking in the cooperative environment. In David Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (a 2011 Prince George’s County, Md. Circuit Court case now on appeal), a non-smoking cooperative townhouse owner sued building management and his neighbor on the grounds that secondhand smoke from his neighbor violated the nuisance clause of his mutual ownership contract. The non-smoking owner claimed that he suffered from coughing, sneezing, congestion and watery eyes for years due to the secondhand smoke. In an attempt to alleviate the problem, the management company caulked around baseboards, plumbing and electrical outlets in both homes. Such efforts did not satisfy the non-smoking owner.

However, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the management company, noting that “not all nuisances are necessarily actionable” and that the matter was more appropriate for the state legislature. The court found that the level of smoke entering the non-smoker’s townhouse constituted merely an offensive odor and did not trigger an actionable nuisance. The court said that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate “real injury” such as an “unfavorable health condition”. In addition, the court found no bad faith in the management company’s handling of the non-smoker’s complaints.

While a significant body of legal analysis does not yet exist in the D.C. area, courts in other jurisdictions have already begun addressing and analyzing the issues surrounding community smoking bans. The underlying conclusion is that boards and managers need to be alert to secondhand smoke complaints because cooperatives and condos can be held legally accountable for failing to address smoking-related concerns.

A 2006 New York civil court case addressed the potential for landlord liability due to secondhand smoke. In Poyck v. Bryant, the court found that tenants who vacated a condominium apartment before the lease termination date due to secondhand smoke from an adjoining apartment could assert the “warranty of habitability” as a defense to their landlord’s nonpayment of rent proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had no control over the adjoining apartment. The court held that a sufficiently egregious secondhand smoke condition presents health hazards so as to invoke the warranty of habitability, and that the landlord had the power to act against the smoking neighbor.

In Christiansen v. Heritage Hills 1 Condominium Owners Association, a Colorado district court in 2006 upheld an amendment to a condominium declaration that banned smoking inside apartments. The court noted that the board had already tried, unsuccessfully, to address secondhand smoke through various remediation measures.

The New York County Supreme Court in Reinhard v. Connaught Tower Corporation ruled in 2011 that coop boards are required to act reasonably when residents complain that secondhand smoke is infiltrating their apartments from other parts of the building. In this case, the plaintiff-owner of a coop apartment sued the corporation because she detected a strong smell of cigarette smoke in her apartment. She was told by the managing agent and the superintendent to re-caulk the floor, molding and faceplates in her bedroom, which did not eliminate the odor. The board, however, refused to take any action and disclaimed any responsibility for the problem. Plaintiff then sued the corporation for breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive eviction among other causes of action. The court held that the secondhand smoke in plaintiff’s apartment breached the warranty of habitability and as a result constituted a constructive eviction. Furthermore, the court determined that the co-op breached plaintiff’s proprietary lease by failing and refusing to take any “reasonable steps” to alleviate the secondhand smoke problem.

If a cooperative apartment or condo community is experiencing an increasing number of secondhand smoke complaints and if remediation efforts have been unsuccessful, the Board should consider a building wide smoking ban. In addition to a “town hall” style meeting, the Board’s next step might be to conduct a formal survey of apartment owners in order to determine the most feasible course of action for the community. If the survey results reveal that a full and immediate smoking ban is not appropriate, the building can implement a modified form of smoking ban. For example, the ban could be delayed for a certain period of time (e.g., two or three years) in order to allow owners/residents time to comply with the new rules. Alternatively, current smokers could be “grandfathered” out of an immediate smoking ban. At the same time, the building could begin to reject any prospective purchasers who smoke. In this manner, through gradual attrition, the building would eventually become entirely smoke free. Owners and boards would be wise to consult management and legal advice when facing these issues to avoid expensive litigation or claims of discrimination down the road.

This is a part of a series of monthly articles by Jackson & Campbell, P.C. on legal issues of interest to the LGBT community. Jackson & Campbell, P.C. is a full service law firm based in Washington with offices in Maryland and Virginia. Those with questions regarding this article, please contact David Rahnis at 202-457-1673 or [email protected]. Those with questions regarding the firm should contact Don Uttrich, who chairs its Diversity Committee, at 202-457-4266 or [email protected].

Related Topics:apartments condo association condos smoking

Up Next

Travel: Gay summer getaways

Don't Miss

Going home

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Real Estate

D.C.’s housing reality: Cautious optimism meets landlord strain

Cost of living remains a major problem

Published

16 hours ago

June 7, 2026

Scott Bloom

(Photo by sparky2000/Bigstock)

Washington has long prided itself on stability. Anchored by the federal government and buoyed by a highly educated workforce, the District has historically weathered economic uncertainty better than most cities.

But beneath that stability, cracks have been showing since January 2025.

I was having a conversation with a prospective client the other day and offered him a candid assessment of the District’s economic outlook. Simply put, structural challenges have been shaping the city’s future, a new mayoral election, and more that blends cautious optimism with clear concern about the changes ahead.

For one, the long-term shift toward remote and hybrid work continues to reshape the city in ways many people still underestimate. There has been a change in the rhythm of downtown D.C., reduced daytime foot traffic for local businesses, and created uncertainty for commercial real estate owners and the neighborhoods that depended on those workers every day.

At the same time, the cost of living in the District continues to rise at a pace that many residents are struggling to absorb. Even residents with strong incomes are becoming more cautious about spending and relocation decisions.

Landlords are feeling those pressures as well. Many smaller housing providers are operating in an environment where expenses continue to rise faster than revenue while the regulatory environment has grown increasingly complex. For some rental owners, especially those with older buildings or only a few rental units, the math is making it harder to cover costs, much less generate passive income.

There is also growing concern about the District government’s own financial outlook. Significant budget pressures and spending cuts are being had in a more serious way than many Washingtonians are used to hearing. As uncertainty in federal employment affects local tax revenue and consumer confidence, how will the city fund services, infrastructure, housing programs, and public safety priorities in the years ahead?

At the same time, consumer confidence feels noticeably down than it did even a few years ago. People are taking longer to make decisions, whether that means signing a lease, purchasing a home, renovating a property, or expanding a business. That hesitation creates a slower-moving marketplace where caution often replaces momentum.

Despite all this, Washington has proven remarkably resilient over time. The city continues to attract talented professionals, international investment, universities, healthcare institutions, and industries tied to government, law, technology, and public policy. Neighborhoods continue to evolve, and demand for well-managed rental housing remains strong in the core areas of the city.

Unlike other major cities driven by private industry, federal employment and contracting are two of the main pillars of Washington’s economy. That reliance has long insulated the region from deep recessions. But it also creates vulnerability when federal activity slows.

D.C.’s economy is far more interconnected and interdependent than many people fully appreciate. Between significant federal layoffs, the District’s high unemployment rate, and broader economic uncertainty, there are a number of warning signs that property owners should be paying close attention to. When federal hiring slows or contracts tighten, the impact extends well beyond government workers themselves. It affects restaurants, retail, housing, and countless other sectors tied to the District’s economic activity.

Brookings Institution has documented how job losses in higher-income sectors can disproportionately impact urban economies—precisely because those workers drive local spending.

Research from the Urban Institute supports this view, noting that federal workforce disruptions can quickly ripple through the region’s economy. For landlords and renters alike, those ripples are already being felt. Renters see many more properties on the market which gives them leverage on negotiating discounts in rent or special incentives. Housing providers, already squeezed by the reality of a weak economy and strong regulations face lowering rents and income.

For years, affordability has been one of D.C.’s most persistent challenges. Much of that pressure has been driven by strong job growth and sustained demand for housing at a pace that new housing inventory has struggled to match. That imbalance has steadily pushed rents and home prices higher, leaving many residents financially stretched.

Recent multifamily housing data suggests the market is already beginning to adjust. Developers delivered more than 15,000 apartment units across the Washington metropolitan area over the past year, and several industry reports have noted that elevated supply levels, combined with slower demand growth, have contributed to softer occupancy levels and downward pressure on rents in portions of the region. CoStar, CBRE, and Northmarq have all reported rising vacancy rates across segments of the D.C. multifamily market as newly delivered Class A inventory continues entering the pipeline at a time when hiring growth has moderated and federal workforce uncertainty has increased.

At the same time, several economists and housing analysts have cautioned that the District’s affordability challenges are deeply structural and unlikely to disappear quickly. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University has repeatedly identified Washington among the nation’s more cost-burdened metropolitan areas, particularly for renters, while Zillow data continues to show housing costs consuming a substantial percentage of household income for many residents.

From my own perspective as a property manager working directly in the market every day, I believe we are beginning to see the early stages of a market recalibration rather than a collapse. Anecdotally, there appears to be more competition among larger apartment buildings than there was several years ago, particularly in neighborhoods where substantial new inventory has recently delivered. That does not necessarily mean dramatic rent declines are coming, but it does suggest that the imbalance between supply and demand may be moderating somewhat after years of sustained upward pressure on pricing.

Even if prices soften, affordability will remain a long-term challenge.

Regulation and the Realities of Tenant Turnover

The same rental owner I spoke with pointed to regulatory hurdles as a major source of hesitation to continue renting out his property, given past bad experiences with tenants and excessive costs to prepare the rental for a new tenant.

For many small property owners, the cumulative weight of regulation, maintenance costs, and market uncertainty is becoming harder to bear. Clients of mine have described feeling overwhelmed, not just financially, but emotionally. What was once a source of pride has, in some cases, become a source of stress.

We’re seeing more small landlords sell their rental homes, questioning whether it’s worth staying in the market. That’s a significant shift from even five or ten years ago. The National Multifamily Housing Council has noted that regulatory complexity often disproportionately impacts smaller landlords, who lack the resources of larger firms.

Some are choosing to sell. Others are simply trying to hold on. The result is the same – less rental housing for DC residents.

A Shift From Pride to Disillusionment

Perhaps the most striking theme is the emotional shift described by the property owner. For some, owning property in D.C., once a milestone achievement, has become a source of disillusionment. They cited financial losses, regulatory frustration, and a growing sense of political alienation.

There are also broader concerns about:

The decline of small multifamily ownership
Rising foreclosures in certain segments
Increased consolidation by larger institutional landlords

If small landlords continue to exit the market, it changes the entire housing ecosystem. You lose diversity in housing options, and that can have long-term consequences for affordability. It also robs families of having homes large enough to live in.

Politics and Policy: A System at a Standstill?

The political environment has obviously been a key factor shaping the city’s housing future. Following the 2026 elections, a lack of significant leadership change may result in continued policy stagnation.

Without meaningful policy shifts, we’re likely to see more of the same: continued and increasing pressure on landlords and not enough study and focus on policies to increase housing supply by first stopping those property owners fleeing the District’s extreme tenant friendliness. The D.C. City Council remains central to these decisions, with advocacy groups continuing to push for expanded tenant protections. The importance of balance cannot be understated: ensuring protections for renters while maintaining a viable environment for housing providers.

Taken together, these dynamics point to a housing system at a crossroads.

D.C. must find a way to balance:

Tenant protections
Housing affordability
Landlord sustainability
Long-term investment in housing supply

What’s Next?

D.C. isn’t going anywhere. The question is how it adapts. If we can find the right balance, there’s a path forward, but it’s going to take time and thoughtful policy decisions. For landlords, that path will require adaptability and engagement. For renters, it may mean gradual rather than immediate relief. For policymakers, it presents a clear challenge: create a system that works for everyone.

Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management. Contact him via ColumbiaPM.com.

Real Estate

Introducing Next-Generation Assisted Living & Memory Support.

Now Available in Tysons: Kokua at The Mather

Published

2 weeks ago

May 28, 2026

Autos

A magical Mercedes

S-Class continues to define what luxury really means

Published

2 weeks ago

May 23, 2026

Joe Phillips

Mercedes S-Class

At my stage of life — “somewhere between 40 and death,” as the iconic line goes in the musical “Mame” — I want some pampering. A lot of pampering.

Luckily, for anyone who constantly craves a soothing spa, steam room or sauna, there’s the completely updated Mercedes S-Class. This flagship sedan is now so full of glitz, glamour, and gee-whiz gadgetry, it gives new meaning to the term “auto erotica.”

Does this make the S-Class a “gay” ride? For me, any vehicle that pushes my buttons like this one is a Kinsey 6.

MERCEDES S-CLASS

$122,000 (est.)

MPG: 21 city/31 highway

0 to 60 mph: 4.3 seconds

Trunk space: 19 cu. ft.

PROS: Exceptional comfort. Ultra-quiet cabin. Cutting-edge safety.

CONS: Price climbs fast. Tech learning curve. Sportier competitors.

The S-Class continues to define what luxury really means, with a bolder silhouette, larger grille, and striking, next-gen LED headlights. There’s also an optional illuminated Mercedes star on the hood. Overall, nearly 2,700 parts are new or improved, so more than 50 percent of this vehicle has been updated. An extreme makeover, to be sure.

At the same time, this latest S-Class leans harder into intelligence and electrification than ever before. Under the hood, a range of turbocharged inline-six and V8 engines — paired with mild-hybrid systems — deliver power in a way that seems almost edited for smoothness. Braking is solid and strong, too, but never abrupt. All the engineering is fine-tuned and intentional.

Yes, the top-of-the line S580 version is more expensive, almost $140,000. But it’s also blisteringly fast, zipping from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.9 seconds. That’s as lickety-split swift as a Lamborghini Revuelto supercar, which has a starting MSRP of $610,000 and can easily exceed — yowza! — $800,000.

Colors? There are 150 to choose from for the exterior and 400 for the interior. You can even customize the illuminated door sills, interior stitching and wheel accents.

And the ride quality? Sublime. Adaptive air suspension reads the road constantly, leveling out imperfections before they even register. Rear-axle steering enhances maneuverability, making this full-sized sedan feel surprisingly nimble in tight spaces. On the highway, the S-Class simply glides like a private yacht on the calmest of seas — extremely quiet, composed and completely unbothered.

Whenever you slide inside, the cabin immediately sets the tone. A massive OLED digital display — the same high-def technology used for cinematic viewing and gaming monitors — anchors the dashboard, running the latest MBUX infotainment interface. Highly customizable, this software allows for advanced voice commands that feel natural, not forced. And an augmented-reality navigation system takes your route and overlays it onto live camera feeds. It’s intuitive — mostly, as there is a learning curve for all this cutting-edge gear. Overall, though, such amenities make older setups feel like dial-up internet.

A Burmester surround-sound stereo is available in 3D or 4D, with up to 31 speakers, 1,690 watts and tactile transducers in the seats that vibrate and pulse with the music. Those seats are, of course, extremely comfortable. And the seatbelts? These are now heated.

Let’s not forget the latest cabin air-filtration system, which can remove ultra-fine particles to deliver air quality that rivals medical environments. Clean air, yes, but even this seems like a special treat. It’s like being swaddled in couture, not ready-to-wear.

And lastly, there’s the rear-seat area, which — to be honest — is where the S-Class really shines. Executive packages offer multi-contour reclining seats with rapid heating and ventilating, heated armrests and massage functions. You can opt for a footrest, which ups the glam factor to give you a calf massage. Dual 13.1-inch display screens come with their own remote controls. There’s also a video-conferencing feature, to help transform the rear cabin into a fully connected mobile office. For me, it feels less “back seat” and more “private lounge.”

Even in fiction, high-tech luxury carries weight. Tony Stark helped cement the idea that state-of-the art vehicles can be aspirational, not just practical. The magical S-Class fits right into that narrative — minus the flying suit (for now).