Nevada created an HOA regulator to provide oversight and clarity. When that regulator stays silent, ambiguity hardens into policy—and homeowners pay the price.

Nevada’s Supreme Court will decide if HOAs can punish homeowners for speaking out and running for office. The case tests the First Amendment inside common-interest communities.

Nevada tells homeowners there is a process when HOA disputes arise. But when complaints are dismissed without explanation, mediation produces no real accountability, and even “mandatory” ADR can be waived, the system begins to look less like protection and more like procedural theater.

The CIC Commission is Nevada’s longstanding HOA regulatory body. The CIC Task Force came later as an unusual sign that lawmakers believed the existing system needed help. Understanding the difference is critical for homeowners who want real reform.

Nevada HOA owners may have rights on paper, but weak enforcement, secrecy, and regulatory capture often make those rights difficult to use in practice.

Nevada regulators are considering a rule that could allow confidential resolution of HOA violations without public hearings. Reform advocates warn the proposal may formalize existing enforcement practices and reduce transparency.

Nevada regulators are considering a rule allowing HOA fines up to $10,000 per violation. Learn what happened at the workshop, why it matters, and how homeowners can submit comments before the rule is finalized.

Nevada regulators are considering a rule that could allow HOA boards to impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations deemed to threaten “health, safety, or welfare.” The proposal raises questions about how such violations will be defined and who decides when large penalties apply.

Most HOA disputes are not about money damages, but about interpretation and compliance with governing documents—CC&Rs, bylaws, and rules that bind homeowners as servitudes on their property. Yet Nevada’s dispute-resolution framework forces these governance disputes into forums that cannot resolve them, ultimately destined for civil litigation so costly and risky that most owners rationally abandon their claims before a neutral ever examines the issue.

Nevada homeowners lack real ways to challenge HOA governance abuses. Here’s what the CIC Task Force should fix — and why it matters now.

Nevada HOA boards are eliminating physical meetings and going fully virtual. State law still requires a “place.” Regulators haven’t clearly authorized the change.

The recent rise in corporate ownership of residential homes—and the governance influence it carries within HOAs even at relatively small concentrations—places new strain on the assumptions underlying the HOA equity bargain. Common-interest community (CIC) laws rest on a foundational compromise: homeowners and the law tolerate extraordinary intrusions on traditional property rights only so long as governance remains aligned with resident interests rather than external profit m

Nevada must recognize HOAs as private governments. The Restatement of Property shows why governance with government-like powers needs government-like accountability

Nevada’s HOA dispute resolution system was built on a well-intentioned premise: most conflicts between homeowners and associations are ill-suited for civil litigation- but it fails to deliver.

Nevada’s HOA Task Force was meant to empower homeowners. Instead, political pressure and industry influence may be steering reform offstage before it even starts.