Owner-occupancy clauses are the part of ADU rules nobody prices in

Reading through three different ordinances in my metro and the thing that keeps changing the math isn't setbacks or size caps, it's the owner-occupancy condition. Two of the three require the owner to live in either the main house or the ADU as a primary residence, recorded as a covenant on title. One has no such requirement at all.

What that does to me: if I build a $180k detached unit at roughly $1,600 a month, the income covers a good chunk of the mortgage while I'm living there. Fine. But the exit changes shape. A buyer who wants both units as rentals can't legally do that under a recorded owner-occupancy covenant, so my buyer pool is owner-occupants plus people willing to move in. That's a narrower pool than the appraisal comps suggest, and I don't think appraisers are discounting for it.

The other wrinkle is that these covenants sometimes survive a zoning change. City liberalizes the rule later, but the covenant recorded against my parcel is still sitting there until someone files to release it, and the process for releasing it may not exist yet.

So my question for anyone who has read more of these than I have: do you treat an owner-occupancy covenant as a real haircut on the value the ADU adds, or as a paperwork item that clears at closing? I'm inclined to model it as a haircut and be pleasantly surprised. Also curious whether anyone has seen a lender flag one during underwriting, since I'd expect title to pick it up and the loan officer to shrug.