Students searching for an off-campus house or apartment make decisions based on factors such as location and rent, but rarely do they check the law books.
An illegal occupancy situation forced eight Tufts students living at 167 College Ave. to leave their house just over a month ago, however. The Somerville Inspectional Services visited the house and found it in violation of a city ordinance forbidding more than four unrelated people to reside in a single dwelling.
A ninth student was also supposed to move out, but has delayed the move until the end of the semester.
The students, who were living in a nine-bedroom apartment owned by Camillo Fodera, were forced to split into two groups and relocate to separate addresses.
In Medford, the maximum amount of unrelated tenants allowed per dwelling is three.
"I would have been more angry, but our landlord had [another] open five-person apartment" in which the displaced students were relocated, former 167 resident Ashton Lazarus said. "The city gave him an ultimatum, so we didn't officially get evicted."
Because of the misunderstanding, Fodera kept each of the nine tenants' rent the same.
Landlords often circumvent these local ordinances by creating multiple apartments within one house or by having only four tenants sign the lease. There were two apartments at 167 College Ave., one of which was occupied by Lazarus and his eight cohabitants. There were a total of 17 residents living in the house.
Ignorance of city and state housing laws is commonplace among both landlords and student tenants around Tufts. One widely-believed myth across campus is the "brothel rule," under which the state supposedly bans houses containing more than six women to prevent them from functioning as brothels.
While the "brothel rule" was repealed in 1984, the law forbidding more than four unrelated people to live together at the same address is still on the books and is enforced by Somerville's Office of Inspectional Services.
"I didn't see the inspectors, but apparently they didn't need warrants," Lazarus said. "The trouble was that we never got to meet with the city."
In the end, the relocation actually benefited Lazarus and his apartment-mates. "We ended up getting more square footage and rent is the same," he said. "I'm just happy to have a place to live in."
Donna Rodriguez, off-campus housing coordinator for the Office of Residential Life and Learning, said Somerville's rule is archaic and infrequently enforced. She said inspectors check houses for more than four unrelated people only in extreme cases, and said the 17-resident house at 167 College Ave was an example of such a case.
Lazarus said that he felt the city simply used the ordinance as an excuse to break up the house. "In the case of regular apartments, the city turns a blind eye," he said. "But last year, this house was a problem house," which Lazarus said led the inspectors to determine that "the occupancy was too high."
While the risks of being caught may not be high, "one must be aware of the zoning laws," Rodriguez said.
She warned students against landlords who request a single monthly rent check and a single signature on the lease.
"It's important that everyone sign the lease," Rodriguez said. "It's to your benefit." With all tenants on the lease, the landlord will be held accountable for occupancy violations. But if only one person signs the lease, all others tenants can be evicted, she said.
Massachusetts is not the only state to have such housing restrictions - students across the country have run into the similar problems.
In Boulder, University of Colorado (CU) students must comply with a law prohibiting more than three unrelated persons from living together. CU sophomore and Housing Department employee Jeff Lovshin said that often, only three students sign leases for Boulder houses, even when more than three plan to live at the address.
"One problem is that if people are evicted, the three remaining people are stuck with the lease," Lovshin said. Further, if someone not on the lease is hurt or killed by an in-house event such as a fire, the landlord is not held accountable.
