The occupancy period ends and the lender condition that mattered was never disclosed at origination
Take a conventional owner-occupant loan at 5 percent down on a 350k house. The note says principal residence. The borrower lives there 12 months, plans to convert, and then finds out the lender included a condition buried in the commitment letter: written notice required before any rental conversion, plus confirmation the loan is not in a pool with an investor-heavy concentration restriction. Some servicers pass that loan to a secondary buyer who has exactly that restriction. The original lender is gone, and the new servicer is holding a condition the borrower never knew applied. The conversion is not illegal, but the file now has a problem that has to be cured before the next application goes in, because the next lender will ask for a letter of explanation and 12 months of rental income to count it, and that letter is going to surface the undisclosed condition. The assumption doing the most damage here is that the note and the commitment letter are the same document. They are not. The commitment letter can carry lender-specific conditions that survive the closing and travel with the servicing rights. What did your commitment letter actually say about conversion notice, and did you read it before or after you moved out?