Co-living is not sober living.

Independent adults who choose shared housing — working professionals, students, people relocating for work, older adults who prefer company and lower costs, and adults who simply want a private room in a well-run shared house. Residents generally live independently and do not require personal care, supervision or clinical services.

Rents in most markets have outrun single-occupancy affordability. Co-living solves an affordability problem for the resident — a private room in a well-maintained shared house at a materially lower cost than a one-bedroom apartment — and it solves an occupancy problem for the operator, who earns a margin on every room rather than on the whole unit.

• Direct demand — listings, referrals from existing residents, and local housing need
• Employers relocating or onboarding staff who need interim housing
• Universities, colleges and training programmes
• Relocation and staffing agencies
• Older-adult and downsizing services, where the resident wants company and lower overhead

Co-living is the one model on this site where the resident usually refers themselves. There is no gatekeeper, which is simultaneously the model's greatest advantage and its greatest risk: nothing stands between you and occupancy except the quality and price of what you are offering. That means the referrer is your existing resident, and the marketing is your reputation.

Primarily the resident, from employment income or savings, paid monthly. Some placements are supported by an employer as part of a relocation or onboarding package. Because co-living residents generally do not receive housing benefits tied to a specific programme, this model is more exposed to general market conditions and to local rent levels than the needs-based models — and less exposed to the funding cycles that affect them.

Housing and ordinary property management: a maintained, furnished or unfurnished private room, shared kitchen, living and bathroom facilities, utilities, and clear house rules. Co-living does not provide personal care, supervision, treatment or recovery accountability. If an operator begins providing those things, the model has changed — regardless of what it is still being called.

• Whether the intended use is permitted at that address — some jurisdictions regulate the number of unrelated adults who may share a dwelling, and local definitions matter
• Maximum occupancy and bedroom configuration under building, fire and local codes
• Whether your insurer will write a shared house, and whether any restriction applies to room-by-room occupancy
• Whether the lease or mortgage permits the intended use, and whether subletting each room is allowed
• Whether your state or local rules affect security deposits taken on a per-room basis
• Fair-housing obligations, which apply fully to co-living and to how you screen and advertise

• Bedrooms that let you reach a viable room count without converting space that should not be converted
• Enough bathrooms that the ratio does not become the complaint that drives turnover
• Shared kitchen and living space sized for the resident count, not the nominal one
• Parking and transport access, which materially affect what residents will pay
• Sound separation and a layout that lets strangers live together without friction

• Revenue per room, which is set by the local market rather than by a funding rate
• Occupancy and turnover — the two variables that decide profitability, and both are driven by the house itself
• Utilities, which are usually included and therefore fully the operator's cost
• Furnishing and replacement, an ongoing cost that is easy to underestimate
• Housing cost relative to achievable room revenue, which is the constraint most cash-flow problems trace back to