HOA Rulemaking/Regulation
Administrative rulemaking can have an enormous impact on how Nevada’s HOA laws actually work. The Legislature enacts statutes. But regulations—and the way those regulations are interpreted and enforced—can determine what those statutes mean to homeowners in practice.
That is why Nevada HOA owners need to pay attention to the rulemaking now underway before the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels and the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) under NRS Chapter 233B (Nevada Administrative Procedures Act).
This page is intended to help homeowners stay informed on proposed regulations and understand how they may impact Nevada communities. It supplements the Division’s official rulemaking notices and information available on its website under Workshops and Adoptions. Nevada HOA regulations are found in NAC 116A. The Workshop meetings are typcally held in conjunction with quaterly CICCH Commission meeting where agenda, support materials, and public comment can be found-unfortunately, only a couple days before the meeting. NRED had repeatedly ignored our suggestions for more advanced public notice.
THE COMMISSION APPROVED R091-25. OWNER OBJECTIONS WERE LEFT UNRESOLVED.
​
On September 9, the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels approved R091-25 after nearly a year of workshops and extensive public comment. Health, safety and welfare has received most of the attention- and now damage. NVHOAReform and other owners raised substantive objections to multiple parts of the regulation - see below. The Commission did not make meaningful changes addressing those concerns before approving the package. Read our post approval post: A Dangerous New HOA Weapon — and Owners Are the Target.
​
Workshop materails can be found here.
Just as troubling was how final approval occurred. The Commission conducted a workshop on September 8 but did not direct changes to the noticed text of R091-25 at that time. When it reconvened the next day for the adoption hearing, the previously noticed, unaltered text was again before the public—and, inexplicably, was read aloud in its entirety. Only after that unusual reading and the public-comment period had closed did the Commission begin considering material changes to several sections of the regulation. The public was not given an opportunity to comment on the changes the Commission was actually considering before those revisions were approved.
The Commission then revised and approved mutiple provisions without reopening public comment or even providing actual text of the changes it would approve. The Coaltion submitted a Point of Order (POO) challenging that adoption process. It was ignored by the Commission. We have filed a formal protest with the Legislative Counsel Bureau concerning what we see as a non-complaint process.
Update (10/6/26): The Coalition has submitted its procedural objections concerning R091-25 to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and to the Legislative Commission. As of this update, R091-25 has not yet been shown on the agenda or approved by the Legislative Commission. We will continue to follow the regulation through the legislative-review process and post any scheduled hearing, committee action, or other material development here.
LCB File No. R091-25 sections worthy of owner concern
The Commission held workshops on December 9, 2025, March 10, 2026, June 9, 2026, and September 8 , 2026. Five proposals were of particular attention to Coalition homeowners.
SECTION 2: HOW DOES A $100 HOA FINE BECOME $10,000, OR MORE, AND POTENTIAL FORECLOUSRE?
Nevada law ordinarily limits HOA fines. But the Legislature created an exception for violations that may adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of residents.
That exception matters because qualifying violations can expose an owner to dramatically greater fines—and may have consequences extending beyond the fine itself.
Section 2 attempts to define when that exception applies.
NVHOAReform believes the proposed regulation remains too broad and provides inadequate safeguards for homeowners. A condition can present some conceivable risk to health or safety without presenting a sufficiently serious, immediate and substantial danger to justify removing Nevada's ordinary protections on HOA fines. The regulation should clearly distinguish between an ordinary HOA violation and the exceptional circumstances that justify extraordinary punishment. A $100 violation should not become a $10,000 violation simply because an association can attach the words “health, safety or welfare” to it.
Read more at the posts: Nevada’s HOA Health-and-Safety Fine Proposal Has Changed — But the Blank Check Problem Remains, Workshop Update: Regulators Continue Considering $10,000 HOA Fine Rule Connected to HSW and HOA Fines Up to $10,000 — Expanding Private Enforcement
Read here my opposition letter to Section 2
​
SECTION 3: Fiduciary-Duty Affidavits
Section 3 needs clarification, particularly in light of how this provision has changed during the rulemaking process. If Section 3 instead requires the homeowner to identify a separate statute, regulation or order before a fiduciary-duty complaint may proceed, I oppose it. That would appear to narrow the independent duties the Legislature expressly imposed in NRS 116.3103.
​
Read here my comment letter to Section 3
SECTION 4: NRED SEEKS MORE SECRECY — NOT THE TRANSPARENCY OWNERS DEMAND
Section 4 raised a very different concern. The Division currently possesses the ability to investigate complaints and recommend corrective action to avoid filing a formal complaint. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. If an association made a mistake and voluntarily corrects it, an expensive enforcement proceeding may be unnecessary.
However, Section 4 propsoed and approved formally allows significant remedial decisions to occur through confidential Division processes the Commissioners and public have repeatedly been told they are excluded from—at least as the Division interprets confidentiality. The Commission cannot meaningfully monitor, guide, or correct - as the law directs-what it cannot see. That is not a minor procedural concern. It is a foundational issue of governance.
Read more at the posts: NRED Seeks More Secrecy — Not the Transparency HOA Owners Demand
Read here my opposition letter to Section 4
SECTION 5: PETITION/RULEMAKING CONSIDERATION
Section 5 should not merely require the Administrator to “consider” a petition submitted by owners within 30 days. That is already required by law. The regulation should reflect the statutory requirement: within 30 days, the petition must either be denied in writing with reasons or regulation-making proceedings must be initiated. If the Administrator does not deny the petition within that statutory period, the regulation should then establish a definite process for bringing the petition before the Commission. The subsequent process is at issue.
What should not be permitted --but approve September 9th, was the open-ended standard under which NRED determines indefinitely when Commission consideration becomes “feasible.” Once a petition has not been denied within the statutory period, it should be the Commission—not the Administrator—that determines the priority and timing of its consideration. NVHOAReform believes the current handling and refusal to consider for the past year its petitions, demonstrate why those safeguards are necessary (see Law Reform Needed, rulemaking update)
Read here my opposition letter to Section 5
SECTION 6: Reserve Funding
NVHOAREFORM supports in part. Section 6’s eliminates baseline funding. But the change also affects how the Commission should view the annual reserve budget. It raises a few important implementation questions that require answers. Each association should annually prepare and approve a clearly identifiable document titled Reserve Budget. (see HOA Reserve Funding — What Owners Will Actually Pay)
Read here my letter reference Section 6.
​
​