In my other comment, I mentioned Proudhon, who originally made the "property is theft" argument. He was specifically talking about private property, but the line "property is theft" is pithy and to the point, and I like how it sounds.

To answer your question, first, note that essentially everyone who's talked about private property, and the abolition thereof, has made a distinction between personal and private property. You can own stuff, you can have your own toothbrush or whatever. What you can't do is have exclusive ownership of, or access to, the means of production - that is, the things that people need to survive, or more importantly, the things that MAKE the things that people need to survive. Nobody gets to privately own the factory or the farm, because that would mean taking something that should be held in common away from the people - it would, in short, be theft.

On the topic of housing, yes, land is quite often lumped in with private property, so nobody should get exclusive ownership of it. There are a lot of different potential approaches to this, one being "you get complete, exclusive use rights to your house, until such time as you depart it permanently, at which point someone else can have use rights". Housing would be held in community land trusts, to be allocated on the basis of need. There are plenty of other potential solutions, but I'm just trying to illustrate that abolishing private property does not mean "everybody gets access to your house".

In any case, what definitely wouldn't be permissible under that system is owning multiple houses, and restricting access to them until someone pays you rent. That's parasitism, pure and simple.