The growth of tourist accommodations (STR) presents a challenge for many municipalities: pressure on housing in urban centers, potential nuisances, infrastructure overload... but also significant economic benefits, territorial attractiveness, and diversification of municipal revenues. The goal is therefore not to prohibit, but to properly regulate, in order to ensure harmonious and sustainable development.
This article proposes a clear structure for creating a balanced municipal regulation, based on best practices observed in Canada.
Understanding the Diversity of Tourist Accommodations
Before considering any regulation, a municipality must first understand that there is not a single reality in terms of tourist accommodation. On one side, there are primary residences, occasionally rented by their occupants, often as supplementary income, and on the other, secondary residences or rental chalets operated as true local microenterprises, generating regular activity and contributing significantly to the regional economy.
Alongside these well-established forms of accommodation, there are also less regulated uses, whether it be home exchanges or rentals operated without adhering to the current rules. For a municipality, recognizing this diversity is essential in order to adapt regulatory measures. It is this distinction that helps avoid a uniform regulation that is too strict, which could penalize respectful owners and encourage some to evade the legal framework.
Zoning, the cornerstone of balanced regulation
In several municipalities, the issue of tourist residences primarily revolves around zoning. Tourist areas, rural environments, or the edges of bodies of water do not have the same realities as urban or densely populated residential zones. The challenge is therefore to determine where the use is compatible and where it needs to be more regulated.
Some municipalities choose to allow tourist residences in clearly identified zones, which helps define areas where tourist activity is deemed compatible with the living environment. Others go further and segment their territory by sectors, in order to precisely determine where tourist accommodation can be considered, where it should be limited, and where it is not desired.
A more nuanced approach involves integrating dilution mechanisms. For example, a municipality may limit the number of tourist residences, impose a minimum distance between two accommodations, or set a cap by sector. This helps avoid excessive concentration in the same neighborhood and preserves the balance between residents and tourist uses.
It is important to note that zoning and dilution are not opposing tools. They simply respond to different realities. In an already active tourist area, where residential accommodation represents a significant part of the living environment, dilution can prove more effective in avoiding excessive concentration and maintaining balanced cohabitation. Conversely, in a developing or still poorly structured area, it may be relevant to plan long-term by reserving certain sectors exclusively for tourist use. This approach allows for predictable land use planning and helps avoid potential future conflicts between residents and tourist activities.
By combining zoning, dilution, and measurable criteria, municipalities can structure a much more nuanced regulatory model, avoiding the often contested blanket prohibitions and promoting harmonious integration into the local fabric.
Conditional use, for its part, offers elected officials greater discretion. It allows for the analysis of each project according to specific and flexible criteria such as access, safety, seasonal traffic, or the configuration of the immediate neighborhood. However, this flexibility can create uncertainty for applicants, who may face rejection even in a permissive area. Some property owners may then be tempted to rephrase or circumvent their requests in another form, highlighting the importance of a clear, transparent, and predictable framework for a property owner considering a project.
Other municipalities set limits based on objective calculations: vacancy rates of long-term rental housing (particularly relevant in an urban area), maximum number of short-term rentals per sector, maximum percentage of buildings that can be dedicated to this use, minimum lot size, maximum capacity of tourist accommodations, or indicators related to pressure on infrastructure. This approach allows for adjusting the capacity for tourist accommodation to the actual context of the territory.
By combining zoning, dilution, and measurable criteria, municipalities can structure a much more nuanced regulatory model, avoiding the often contested blanket prohibitions and promoting harmonious integration into the local fabric.
Safety and quality: the foundations of responsible accommodation
Beyond zoning rules, municipalities have every interest in defining standards aimed at the safety and quality of tourist accommodations. These requirements are not intended to burden property owners, but rather to ensure that each residence welcomes travelers in a safe environment and respects the tranquility of neighboring residents.
We are talking about essential elements here: functional smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, clearly posted evacuation plans, unobstructed access for emergency services in all seasons, and septic capacity suited to the traffic. Several municipalities also require a welcome guide for visitors, which specifies local rules regarding noise, parking, and waste management. Simple to implement, these practices significantly contribute to reducing nuisances and promoting harmonious coexistence.
Some municipalities choose to go further in regulating tourist accommodations by imposing safety standards that are similar to those required for commercial buildings open to the public. This approach aims to ensure a higher level of protection for both visitors and neighboring residents.
These additional requirements may include:
clearly identified emergency exits
more comprehensive fire alarm systems
mandatory electrical inspections
materials or layouts that meet enhanced fire resistance standards
additional security devices for access and common areas
In these cities, tourist accommodations often have to undergo official inspections conducted by the planning department or the fire department. These checks confirm that the buildings meet higher standards than those generally required in a typical residential context.
This approach increases overall safety, but it also entails greater responsibilities for owners. It shows that effective regulation must always find a balance between prevention, feasibility, and adaptation to local realities.
Beyond the inspections carried out by their own services, some municipalities may also choose to delegate the assessment of safety and quality to specialized companies. Organizations like Lodixa can conduct visits, technical checks, and structured evaluations to provide an objective and professional overview of each accommodation. This approach would allow cities to obtain comprehensive reports while reducing the operational burden on their internal teams.
The establishment of certificates or quality labels could also become a powerful lever for continuous improvement. By rewarding the best-maintained and safest accommodations, these labels would help promote good practices and encourage other owners to raise their standards. This type of recognition not only fosters healthy competition but also enhances the overall tourist experience of the area.
Preventing nuisances: a cohabitation issue
Most tensions between permanent residents and owners of tourist residences stem from a common problem: nuisances. Late noise, overflowing parking on the street, excessive accommodation capacity... these exceptional situations fuel frustration and lead to calls for bans.
To address this, several municipalities establish strict quiet hours and require that rules of conduct be clearly communicated to travelers upon booking. Parking must be entirely on the property, without disrupting traffic or neighborhood life. As for accommodation capacity, it is generally set according to measurable criteria such as living space or the capacity of septic systems.
A complaint management system complements this framework: direct line, municipal portal, defined processing times. Graduated sanctions: warning, fine, mandatory follow-up. This allows for proportional intervention before considering a suspension of the permit.
Even though a property owner does not have total control over the behavior of their tenants and can never be completely shielded from a problematic visitor, there are effective strategies to reduce risks. A higher rental price generally eliminates party or student groups. Additionally, highlighting security features in the listing, such as outdoor cameras, alarms, or noise detectors, has a significant deterrent effect. At-risk travelers then prefer to turn to accommodations perceived as more permissive. Owners who clearly state in their listing that parties, gatherings, or events are not allowed also reduce the risk of attracting problematic groups. These simple practices contribute to significantly reducing potential nuisances and promoting more harmonious coexistence.
The permit: a tool of rigor and predictability
The municipal permit is a key element in regulating tourist residences. When well-designed, it protects the population, ensures compliance of accommodations, provides stability for owners, and maintains an economic balance for both the municipality and the local industry.
More and more municipalities are choosing to tie the permit to the property rather than to the operator themselves. This prevents the activity from automatically ceasing upon a sale and ensures a smoother transition between owners. The periodic renewal, often annual, then becomes an opportunity to check insurance, the validity of provincial registrations if applicable, or compliance with safety standards.
The rules surrounding suspension or revocation must also be clearly defined. The goal is not to introduce a permanent threat, but to ensure a predictable framework where repeated nuisances, non-compliance with zoning, or false declarations lead to proportionate and fair consequences.
Difference between primary residence and secondary residence in Quebec
In Quebec, the regulations distinguish two main categories of tourist residences, each associated with different obligations and issues for municipalities.
The primary residence, as defined by provincial law, is the place where a person usually resides and which constitutes their official address. According to Article 23 of the Loi sur l'hébergement touristique, a municipal regulation cannot prohibit a person from renting their primary residence to tourists.
The secondary residence, on the contrary, functions as a dedicated tourist accommodation. It is not permanently inhabited by its owner and can be operated full-time. These accommodations can have a different impact on the territory, in terms of traffic, waste management, parking, and pressure on infrastructure. However, they represent an important part of the tourist offering and contribute significantly to the local economy.
For municipalities, this distinction is essential. It allows for the adaptation of rules, adjustment of permits, calibration of taxation, and better anticipation of service needs. Primary residences and secondary residences do not have the same purpose or usage patterns, but both must be regulated in a coherent and fair manner, according to their specific realities. The goal is not to treat one more harshly than the other, but to apply a framework suited to each type of use in order to ensure balanced management of the territory.
However, in some municipalities where the requirements related to secondary residences are stricter or difficult to comply with, some owners sometimes circumvent the rules by declaring their accommodation as a primary residence while operating it almost full-time. This drift poses a real risk for municipalities: a gradual migration towards a status that is more difficult to control, leading to a loss of oversight, regulatory coherence, and fairness among operators.
To avoid this slippage, municipalities must regulate without prohibiting primary residences used for tourist rentals. It is about ensuring fair competition and verifying that accommodations declared as primary residences are actually operated as such.
Limitation measures consistent with the spirit of the Tourist Accommodation Act can be implemented without being overly restrictive. For example:
set a maximum number of nights rented per year for a primary residence
impose a maximum number of nights displayed as available in the calendar (easier to monitor)
require reasonable proof of actual occupancy by the owner
These approaches help reduce the risks of diversion, maintain healthy competition, and preserve the alignment between the actual purpose of a dwelling and the regulatory framework that applies to it.
Taxing without stifling: an essential balance for the local economy
The taxation applied to tourist residences remains one of the most sensitive issues for municipalities. The effects of poorly calibrated taxation can be swift and sometimes irreversible: massive withdrawal of declared operators, increase in illegality, shift of supply towards less regulated models, or even closure of accommodations in favor of other municipalities or tourist hubs. In the long run, this leads to a sustainable slowdown in tourist activity. When the municipality fully realizes the situation, it is often too late: it can take several years to regain the trust of investors, whether they are accommodation operators or businesses dependent on tourist traffic.
Conversely, a reasonable and predictable contribution allows for the financing of municipal services while supporting a sector essential to local economic vitality.
The most successful municipalities rely on a simple principle: to ask for a proportional, predictable, and non-punitive contribution. An annual permit costing between $150 and $250, or a modest tourism fee, is generally sufficient to cover the specific costs associated with this use and the dedicated tourism infrastructure, without creating an undue burden on property owners.
It is equally important to avoid mechanisms that inadvertently encourage circumvention, such as higher seasonal taxes or variable fees based on rental periods. Some municipalities even adopt an incentive approach, offering tangible benefits to compliant operators: access to municipal digital tools, certification programs, or relief for accommodations that use local suppliers. Smart taxation does not pit property owners against the municipality: it creates a sustainable collaborative dynamic.
Municipalities should also avoid viewing tourist accommodation as a highly profitable sector. Contrary to popular belief, most operations do not generate profits during the first few years. Short-term rentals are subject to numerous and costly requirements: maintenance, regulatory compliance, insurance, fixed costs, administrative management, visitor services, cleaning, unforeseen events, and emergencies. In many cases, the first few years are unprofitable, and real profitability only appears after five years of operation. However, very few owners keep their property for that long: many discover that tourist rental is anything but passive income. After several years of involvement, continuous work, and personal investments to maintain their accommodation in good condition, many end up abandoning the activity. In this context, the imposition of high and poorly justified specific municipal taxes can quickly undermine owners' trust.
Additionally, the high amounts paid by visitors do not represent the owner's actual income. A large portion of these sums covers unavoidable costs:
platform fees (often between 14% and 18%)
management or concierge fees (around 20% when an external service is used)
taxes (between 5% and 20% depending on the region and government levels)
promotion or visibility fees
professional cleaning, which can range from $100 to $300 per booking
specific municipal taxes for short-term rentals, when applicable
It is not uncommon for an owner to actually receive only 20% to 30% of the total amount charged to the visitor, while having to bear their fixed costs, ongoing maintenance, and often their mortgage.
This economic reality strongly nuances the idea that short-term rentals would be a very lucrative activity and highlights the importance for municipalities to adopt a balanced and proportionate taxation.
Fair taxation should be based on objective and transparent parameters. Two approaches are generally considered reasonable.
The first is to align the taxation of tourist residences with the commercial taxation of the municipality, but only when it is not disproportionate compared to residential tax. In several regions, the gap between these two rates can be so significant that a complete alignment would become punitive rather than fair. When the gap is moderate, this method ensures consistency with the economic nature of the activity without imposing an excessive burden.
The second approach, often more balanced, is to base taxation on an annual fee intended to cover the costs directly associated with the issuance, administration, and monitoring of tourist residence permits. This includes file management, inspections, handling complaints, and updating municipal records. A fee calibrated to actual expenses allows the municipality to adequately fund the service while maintaining a reasonable and predictable financial burden for operators.
Finally, it is essential to emphasize that taxation should never be used as a deterrent tool to restrict permit applications or reduce the number of operations. Targeted overtaxation, aimed at making the activity less accessible, almost always leads to perverse effects: circumvention of rules, increased illegality, migration of operators to other municipalities, and loss of control for the municipal authority itself. Taxation should serve to fund a service, not to discourage a legal and regulated activity.
In the Quebec context, it is also essential that tourist residences operated as primary residences are taxed fairly and equitably. Even though the law protects their right to be rented, they still participate in the tourist market and must contribute proportionately to the municipal services they require. Consistent taxation for both categories of primary and secondary residences is fundamental to ensure healthy competition and to prevent certain operations from unduly benefiting from a more advantageous tax framework. Tax equity strengthens the credibility of regulations and encourages responsible participation from all stakeholders.
In conclusion, any annual tax exceeding $250 must be clearly explained and rigorously justified. Beyond this threshold, the contribution can easily be perceived as unreasonable by operators, especially in a sector where actual margins are often much lower than what the price displayed to the visitor suggests.
In the same way, when a municipality opts for a fee based on a percentage, it should remain measured and not exceed about 10% of the total municipal taxes already imposed on the owner (excluding specific services). This cap helps maintain fiscal balance, avoid coercive excesses, and preserve the trust of legitimate operators.
Transparent, proportionate, and justified taxation remains the best way to support local tourism activity while ensuring adequate funding for municipal services.
Implementation and monitoring: ensuring the consistency of rules
Even the best regulation loses its effectiveness if it is not applied consistently. Municipalities that manage to maintain harmonious coexistence rely on a balanced approach based on transparency and consistency.
In most cases, inspections are not systematic but targeted. They arise from complaints or observations on the ground. An annual random check also serves to remind that compliance is not optional, without imposing an excessive administrative burden.
Digital tools now play a central role in this management. Several municipalities rely on dashboards, automated registers, and real-time tracking systems to quickly identify non-compliant situations and intervene before problems escalate.
Specialized solutions like those offered by Lodixa even allow for the automation of some controls. By consolidating relevant data, permit status, online availability, location, available amenities, activity variations, these tools facilitate municipal monitoring and help effectively target inspections. This approach reduces administrative burden, improves the accuracy of interventions, and strengthens the municipality's ability to act proactively.
Sanctions, for their part, must remain clear and graduated. The goal is not to multiply fines, but to encourage compliance and correct problematic behaviors. A warning generally constitutes the first step, followed by a fine if the situation persists. The suspension of the permit, or even its revocation in the case of serious recidivism, remains a last resort. This graduated approach ensures fairness and strengthens the credibility of the regulation.
Conclusion
A successful municipal regulation for tourist residences does not rely on prohibition, but on balance: protecting the quality of life of residents while supporting a tourism industry that is essential for the local economy.
The recommended approach:
clear zoning,
strict safety standards,
reasonable nuisance management,
balanced taxation,
and modern permit tracking tools.
With well-structured regulation, municipalities can frame the activity, increase their revenues, reduce nuisances without harming tourist attractiveness or encouraging illegality.
Finally, specialized experts like Lodixa can assist municipalities in designing or revising their regulations. With their knowledge of the sector, market data, and best practices, they can help municipalities establish a coherent, effective framework that aligns with their local objectives.