Law Reform Needed

​​​

A) Rulemaking  

Under Nevada law (NRS 233B) and NRS 116.623 the CICCH Commission may adopt such regulations as are necessary to aid in carrying out the provisions of law related to common-interest commuities. The last time the Commission engaged in rukemaking was 2022.  Today, many issues for HOA owners remain and could be addressed by the Commission. Read more in the NVHOAReform blogs Nevada CICCH Commission- A Hard Reset Is Needed. 

 

 Petitons  have been submitted by NVHOAReform seeking formal rulemaking on the following topics:

1. Delete the confidentiality status of complaints, documents, and information filed with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) related to HOAs- e.g. make complaints and findings public with personal information redaction. (see NRS 116A.270(2) & failed SB 221(2025)). This is necessary to provide transparency, help inform owners, and hold NRED accountable for complaint investigation findings (or lack of). Read a request for an AG opinion here.  Read more on this topic in the NVHOAReform blog here. Read the petiton submitted.

2. Prohibit HOA boards from gathering in secret to discuss community business- using "workshops"- where owners are not noticed and not allowed to attend (see NRS 116.31083) Specific proposed statute changes are found here. Read the petiton submitted.

3. Limits on HOA virtual-only meetings. Require HOA boards regularly meet together in person where owners observe deliberations and can address their governance issues in person. Failure to do so impacts due process, effective communication. Read more on this topic in the NVHOAReform blog here. Read the petiton submitted.

4. Address director eligibility and conflicts of interest ambiguities under NRS 116.31034 and NRS 116.31084. The rulemaking seeks clarification on the duty of directors- especially those appointed in declarant controlled boards and adopt struturual safeguards. Sections of NRS 116 addressing board conflict of interests are conflicting and ambiguous. Directors encountering a potential conflict of interest should simply be required to recuse. This situation should not make the director ineligible to serve and/or he/she be removed from the HOA's governance (see NRS 116.31034(10)(a) and NRS 116.31084)? Read more here. Read the petiton submitted.

5. Address ambiguity related to NRS 116.31023, the period of declarant control, a declarant's ability to “exaggerate”/overstate the maximum number of units planned for a community and/or vaguely define that number such as to indefinitely retain control (see NRS 116.31032 & NRS 116.2105), and other regulatory loopholes. Read the petiton submitted.

6. Address competitve bidding under NRS 116.31086.  Read the petiton submitted.

7. Email board approvals of contracts and policy outside a formal meeting. Read more on this topic in the NVHOAReform blog here. Read the petiton submitted.

8. Prohibit an associations board from restricting a candidate's ability to provide campaign material to unit's owners (see NRS 116.31034). Read the petiton submitted.

9. Address enforcement standards under NAC 116.405 related to director fiduciary duty. Read more on this topic in the NVHOAReform blog here​. Read the petiton submitted.

10. Address board meeting agenda requirements. Read the petiton submitted.

11. Budget adoption process. Read more on this topic in the NVHOAReform blog here. Read the petiton submitted.

​

The following are additonal rule making petitons under consideration.

1. Adopt rules prohibiting boards or management company from hiring an affiliated contractor or immediate family member. Read more here.

2. Adopt rules clarifying a declarant (developer) may not unilaterally remove a director elected by owners during the period of declarant control. (see NRS 116.31032 & NRS 116.089).

3. Prohibit declarant controlled boards from contracting with the declarant's wholly owned management company leaving owners with no true fiduciary oversight of the community's governance. (see NRS 116.31086).

4. Adopt rules requiring HOAs provide a reasonable method for unit’s owners to communicate among themselves and the executive board on matters concerning the association. It is vital for a functioning democracy, enabling informed owners, holding power accountable, and facilitating public discourse and participation. (A proposed addition to NRS 116.3102).

5. Mandate boards provide owners with an approved list of expenditures from the reserve account for the upcoming year as part of the annual budget. Many HOAs get into financial trouble from using reserves as a piggy bank to fund current expenses failing to recognize the implications. (see NRS 116.31151).

6. Adopt rules requiring a declarant in control of an HOA provide owners, at least annually, and to all prospective buyers a good faith estimate when it's control of the association is anticipated to end.

7. Adopt rules limiting reserve special assessments a board can pass without an owner vote. Currently, none exists.

8. Adopt rules requiring board meeting of large HOAs (> 150 units) include copies or documents that will be discussed at the meeting or provided direct electronic access (i.e via website, etc.).

9. Adopt rules to make it easier for owners to know when a declarant adds acreage to an association - to enforce limits on adding acreage in excess of the 10% maximum allowed under the statute. A simple fix is provided. (see NRS 116.2105).

10. Adopt rules that require owners be informed of changes enacted to NRS that may diectly impact owners nor amend affected declaration. Currently governing documents that violate provsions of NRS are deemed to conform -by operation of law (see NRS 116.1206). Rules are needed requiring an HOA's governing documents reflect the law. Owners should be expected to know what provisions of their governing doucments are not longer applicable having been deemed to conform to NRS as a result of legislative action.

11. Adopt rules requirnig HOA elections be conducted and/or overseen by an "independent reviewer". No such requirement(s) exist today. As a default the community manager, who have been contracted by the incumbent board typically has the exclusive control of executive board elections. 

​

B) Enforcement and adjudication 

The Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), through its Office of the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities, is tasked with educating homeowners and board members, resolving disputes, and enforcing provisions of NRS Chapter 116. In theory, NRED exists to protect the rights of unit owners and ensure fair, transparent, and lawful governance in homeowners associations. But in practice, the agency often falls short of this mission. NRED is positioned to be a watchdog for Nevada homeowners, yet it too often functions as a passive bystander. Read more in the NVHOAReform blog The Secrecy Wall: Regulator’s “Confidentiality” Undermines HOA Accountability and Trust and Nevada Current article HOA regulation in Nevada ineffectual, captured by industry, critics complain.

​

NRED supports the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels (CICCH) in regulatory oversight and disciplinary actions. But much like NRED the Commission falls short of its mission. Clarifying key standards through rulemaking—and ensuring consistent enforcement—would go a long way toward restoring public trust and rebalancing the HOA system in favor of those it was meant to protect. Read more in the NVHOAReform blogs Nevada CICCH Commission- A Hard Reset Is Needed and Unchecked and Unaccountable: Nevada’s HOA System Failing Those It Was Meant to Protect.

 

Find additonal reading and primer plus my June 12, 2025 letter to the CIC Commission seeking it obtain an AG opinion in light of the Department Business and Industry Feb 2025 Memorandum.

​

C) Reform HOA laws  

To address persistent governance issues and restore public confidence in Nevada’s HOA oversight framework, NVHOAReform supports the committment by the Director of Nevada Business and Industry to "reconstitute" the Common-Interest Communities (CIC) Task Force—an independent advisory body charged with evaluating systemic challenges and proposing targeted reforms for legislative action. Read more in the NVHOAReform blog Taming the beast that is HOAs- the CIC Task Force? 

​

The following are statutory reform considerations proposed by the NVHOAReform Coalition:

​

1. Codifying Nevada Supreme Court's rulings finding HOAs are "quasi-governmental" entities. HOAs are typically formed as nonprofit corporations while "legislation sponsored nonprofit organizations." As such, what are the implications in using these monikers? For example, First Amendment (anti-SLAPP) protects, "open meetings", elections rights, etc. NRS 116 should conform.  Read more here.

2. The Legislature must reassert its authority and correct a Nevada Supreme Court ruling on the jurisdictional intent of Nevada's alternate dispute resolution (ADR) statute, NRS 38.310. See the blog post Nevada Supreme Court Ignores the Law on HOA Disputes—Legislature Overruled.

3. Exclude associations from bringing litigation against owners to enforce Nevada statutes. Attorney fees weaponized by rouge boards and/or developers can be used to chill owners from seeking enforcement of association violations. (NRS 116.4117 & NRS 116.31088) Read more here.

4. Declarants should not be permitted to simply copy provisions of Nevada law into their declarations, to enable invoking prevailing party provisions in the declaration. Doing so chills owners from asserting allegations of statute violations by the HOA or declarant. (A proposed statute change is in construction) Read more here

5. Prohibit a board from approving contracts and/or payments exceeding an aggregate amount (TBD), except in an emergency, outside a scheduled meeting of the board. The intent is preclude decisions by the board outside a regular meeting, often authorized in the CC&RS, to ensure all owners are aware having an opportunity to have their voice heard prior to a decision. Read more here. 

6. Prohibit local governments from requiring the creation of an HOA — or requiring common property that would necessitate an HOA — as a condition for approving a development, getting a building permit, and/or getting services. Developers could still voluntarily create an HOA. 

7. Limit the collective unit ownership of an entity in HOAs to address corporate takeovers of nonprofits- suggesting 25%. Limits are needed to curtail a single entity from exerting undue influence over the HOA's decision-making or operations, potentially harming other owners. See SB 239(2025) for a similar, albeit failed, effort to address corporate ownership of housing in Nevada.

8. Probibit a declarant from recording an amendment to the declaration changing material provision without a vote of owners. This requires addressing the Nevada Appeals Court ruling. See NRS 116.2117 and  for more insight read the NVHOAReform blog "Buyer beware" - Nevada’s Attorney General’s office argues the earth is flat, at least when it involves HOA laws. Why bother with CC&Rs?*.

9. Prohibit associations from imposing new use restrictions, obligations, or liabilities on a unit owner beyond those initially identified in the declaration at the time of purchase (see NRS 116.2117). This should not be permitted without the consent of owners adversely affected. Doing so infringes on property owners’ expectations at purchase. Entirely new/different provisions untethered to an original covenant should be precluded.

10. Preclude declarant’s/developers’ ability to reserve for themselves rights within the declaration that extend far beyond their declarant control period. See some of those right reserved in my HOA's "Declarant's Rights Period". With these extended rights a declarant can veto owner approved amendments to the declaration, rules & regulations, changes to the ARC, etc., beyond the termination of the period of declarant's control (see NRS 116.211 & NRS 116.089).

11. Changes to Nevada law should not automatically causes a provision of an HOA's governing documents to be ineffective.  Statutes and governing documents grant homeowners the power to amend their recorded covenants, and further protect lot owners from having new and affirmative restrictions placed on their lot without their written consent. The terms of declarations, unless deemed unconscionable or unconstitutional should not be altered (except as provided under state emergency powers). Thus, statutory changes that impact HOA declarations should require a specific action/acknowledgment of a legislative intent to do so.

12. Prohibit a declarant from appointing an employee or affiliate as director after reaching a 25% buildout. See this post