On the assumption that you are zoned residential that means your shareholder tenants should not be using their spaces commercially. In my coop we have House Rules that allow home offices for the shareholder and his family and quite frankly we are a little loosey goosey about what would constitute foot traffic and so we don't really address it. If the foot traffic were for piano lesson students and these lessons disrupted the piano teacher's neighbors, we would prohibit it.

So I don't think it's nonsense. And I doubt your lease explicitly addresses any use of your space other than as residential.

There is a building security issue when there are a lot of non-shareholders going in and out of the building. This is not so much that the people who are let in by the shareholder are a concern, but "tailgating" behind the invited guests is a major way un-invited "guest" gain entrance. Especially if your building does not have a doorperson.

Other factors to consider: Wear and tear on the lobby, elevator, and other common elements, and the liability issue if a music student slips and falls in a common area on her/his way to a lesson.

steve - sounds like you need to love in to a building that does not allow relatives or any visitores at all. wait - even better - one that does not allow inhabitants ! That way there is no "wear and tear." anyhow you miss the point- the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says. of course, not excessive traffic - but you may have some.

Very odd postings from you. I am not clear why you are so confused
OK let me explain again: 1) Refer to the 'Use of Premises" section of your lease. Most lease allow for home occupations permitted by local zoning laws.
2) Then check your local zoning laws.
Got it?

Lee - Here's another odd one for 'ya. After going on and on about inalienable rights bestowed by some magical section in your ("and most") proprietary leases, you have now twice tried to pivot this discussion around to what is in *my* proprietary lease. Clearly you won't (or can't) stand behind your blustering, which is a shame. I was really hoping to learn something new, instead of dealing with specious claims and an unsolicited tutorial in creative lease reading and comprehension. I'd still like to see the part of your lease where it permits what you say it does.

Did your board shut down you down and that's why you're upset? What kind of business are you trying to run?

New Rule Affects Home Businesses
Real Estate Q & A
Submit your real estate questions to realestateqa@nytimes.com.
Go to Real Estate Q & A

Connect With Us on Twitter
For news and features on real estate, follow @nytrealestate.
Q. Our co-op has a new house rule barring shareholders who have home-based businesses from having clients or customers come to their apartments. This is in direct conflict with the lease, which states that we may have any home occupation permissible under local zoning laws. How can we persuade the co-op board to rescind this rule? And if we can’t, what can the board do if we violate it?

A. If a new rule materially alters a shareholder’s rights and obligations, it may not be enforceable, because, it can be argued, it is an impermissible change to the terms of the contract between the co-op and the resident, according to Matthew J. Zangwill, a Manhattan real estate lawyer.

A co-op’s proprietary lease is the principal document that sets forth the dos and don’ts of daily living in a co-op, and the house rules are usually part of the proprietary lease. The lease, which is a contract between the co-op and the tenant/shareholder, usually gives the board of directors the power to adopt new house rules without the consent of the shareholders, Mr. Zangwill said. But a new rule would not be enforceable if it changed the terms of the contract.

KLee, all the NYTimes Q&A is saying is that the board cannot pass and enforce a new house rule if it conflicts with the lease. That's been a settled point for ages and is not news. Changes to the lease require approval by a super-majority of shareholders.

The interesting part is the question-asker's claim that their lease explicitly allows home occupations. That would be quite an unusual provision, if actually present. I see above that you believe your own lease also has such a provision - could you please post the language from your lease that states this?

Our own lease is based on the same template as many co-op conversions from the early 1980s. There is no mention of home occupations or zoning, and the language in Paragraph 14 ("Use of Premises") explicitly rules out any use except as a private dwelling: "The Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than as a private dwelling ..."

FYI - here's what out PL says in paragraph 14. Use of Premises

"The Lessee shall not, without the written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than (i) any home occupation use permitted under, and subject to compliance with, applicable zoning law, building code or other rules and regulations of governmental authorities having jurisdiction and (ii) as a private dwelling for the Lessee and Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and domestic employees, and in no event shall more than one married couple occupy the apartment without the written consent of the Lessor."

Hope this helps.

Thanks for posting Paragraph 14 from your lease. It's quite different from the "Use of Premises" paragraph in our own lease, which was based on a common template from the early 1980s (possibly the same one used by Steve Rosenstein's co-op, to judge from the discussion above). You should check with an attorney to be sure, but it certainly appears that your board could not prohibit home occupations via a house rule with that language in your lease.

For comparison, here is our Paragraph 14 in its entirety:

"14. Use of Premises: The Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than as a private dwelling of the Lessee and Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and domestic employees, and in no event shall more than one married couple occupy the apartment without the prior written consent of the Lessor. In addition to the foregoing, the apartment may be occupied from time to time by guests of the Lessee for a period of time not exceeding one month, unless a longer period is approved prior thereto in writing by the Lessor, but no guests may occupy the apartment unless one or more of the permitted adult residents are then in occupancy or unless consented to in writing prior thereto by the Lessor."

steve - sounds like you need to love in to a building that does not allow relatives or any visitores at all. wait - even better - one that does not allow inhabitants ! That way there is no "wear and tear." anyhow you miss the point- the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says. of course, not excessive traffic - but you may have some.

K Lee - Could I ask you to please cut-and-paste the sections from your proprietary lease which gives you the right to have an occupation in your unit that allows foot traffic? Thanks!

Steve - Actually, can you check your lease. What does it say in this clause? Can you tell us please?Naturally, it does not use the term "foot traffic" but it does tell you what occupations you may have -it will probably mention 'zoning' - You may not make disturbing noise or odors or use an area over 25% of the footage. Obviously, you cannot have tons of traffic. But you are certinaly allowed some. You can even have an employee. If your lease cites zoning laws - then there is no grey area. and what of nannies, housekeepers and dog -walkers - they are not 'foot traffic'?

I did check my PL, and I couldn't find anything near what you described. This is why I asked to see what it said in your's.

can you tell us what yrs does say?

Like I said, I could not find anything resembling what you described in your previous post regarding "Most co-op leases allow you to have occupations alowed by zoning. In NYC, this includes professional offices (shrink, artist studios, etc) as well as conducting music lessons for a single pupil at a time." Nor could I find anything that says, "the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says." My PL must be deficient on both counts because I found nothing I can copy into this thread.

So please, K Lee, share with us the wording in *your* lease regarding occupations with foot traffic, or regarding anything having to do with allowable occupations, excepting, of course, provisions for "domestic employees", which most PL's *do* allow.

The point is to do your own research. Most co-op leases allow you to have occupations alowed by zoning. In NYC, this includes professional offices (shrink, artist studios, etc) as well as conducting music lessons for a single pupil at a time. Thanks god for this - it allows musicians and teachers and artists etc. to exist. It is a great thing - you can do home office deductions, etc. If it disrupt the neighbors, you can always take sound-proofing measures . Anyhow if your board tells you otherwise - check the lease.

We had to take legal action against a Shareholder using his apt as an office -- the Coop won.
For years he had worked out of his home, with a part time assistant and no traffic -- but he expanded to three employees, clients and constant deliveries/messengers -- all overwhelming the staff AND, the ONE - staff operated elevator.
The floor landing was used as their Telephone booth -- strangers were hanging around on the landing and the lobby became a meeting room.

Safety and Insurance became issues. We began to have other request for client based businesses.

The bottom line is that we do not have the staff or extra elevator to handle all the traffic. The employees came to work when the owner was away. Insurance and Safety became serious concerns.
The Safety, legal exposure and quality of life -- came first.
VP