Regardless, you are able to publish policies that prohibit certain people from being in your property.

If it meets that criteria, it would imply that there is a draw there and that the legal environment is conducive or at least non-prohibitive to that kind of business. 

Also many states prohibit marketing properties you do not own unless you are licensed.

I now live in Texas which seems like a prohibitive state from other comments here but soon will be relocating to Kansas.

I'm quite sure that planning does not require a 3.11/neighborhood notification (which is the main clusterf*ck you want to avoid in SF :)  Otherwise it's lots of little nudnicks from DBI, but bottom line, as long as you have decent ingress/egress, ceiling heights, etc I don't think the requirements are prohibitive.

Hi all,Most of the landlords in my area have blanket no pet policies, which are rarely negotiable. Clearly, they're aimed at dogs and cats. Some are ok with caged pets (birds, hamsters, goldfish, etc.) while others ar...

The problem with your particular case would be the marketability when trying to promote it as "great for your adult children" or "let your parents live in the in-law suite" - however you phrase your rental ads, this would violate Fair Housing rules that prohibit discrimination based on familial status.

If you plan to manage the property yourself, you've likely got a prohibited transaction that can ruin your IRA's preferential tax treatment. 

(Woodfin is one example just north of the city limits)The county (Buncombe) doesn't have a prohibition on this use currently, but HOAs may have a restriction too.So if you do start looking, make sure you team (agent, lawyer, property manager) understand your intent and advise you appropriately of any risks.

Either way probably cost prohibitive, I'd go with electric.