Call to Action

Nevada lawmakers directed regulators to establish criteria, severity standards and limits governing extraordinary HOA health, safety and welfare fines. After years of delay, the CIC Commission approved R091-25. The result gives HOA boards substantial discretion—and removes protections owners had every reason to expect.

NRED’s expanding use of confidentiality may be doing more than protecting investigations. It may be allowing substantive interpretations of Nevada HOA law to develop outside meaningful public and Commission oversight.

Nevada already has detailed HOA laws, an administrative agency and an appointed Commission. But the intended institutional tension between NRED and the Commission appears to have weakened, allowing recurring problems to be investigated, discussed or closed without producing clear public answers.

Nevada’s revised HOA HSW fine proposal still gives HOA boards too much discretion.

Section 4 of proposed regulation R091-25 would formalize confidential complaint resolutions that can allow NRED’s interpretations of Nevada HOA law to become operative in practice without public Commission review.

NRED rejected a petition seeking timely access to HOA records tied to board agenda items, leaving Nevada owners with a critical records-access gap.

A Nevada HOA law may be unnecessary while putting owners at risk of foreclosure. NRS 116.31031 limits ordinary HOA fines, but creates an exception when a violation is labeled as posing an imminent threat to health, safety, or welfare. This post argues that the HSW exception, if retained, must be narrowly defined, limited, and reconsidered because private HOA boards should not use an undefined label to remove ordinary fine protections.

Meaningful HOA reform cannot stop at minor procedural fixes.

Nevada already recognizes that ordinary HOA fines should not generally support foreclosure. But the HSW exception undermines that principle. If a condition truly threatens health, safety, or welfare, the law should require direct cure, abatement, injunction, or code enforcement — not foreclosure over a fine.

Nevada law gives developers extraordinary power to decide what a common-interest community will become before homeowners have any meaningful voice. That may be workable for ordinary common-area maintenance. But when amenities depend on outside users, projected revenue, specialized staffing, regulatory compliance, or future market conditions, the issue changes. The developer is no longer merely adding a neighborhood feature. The developer is embedding a business assumption int

Nevada homeowners often assume the state’s HOA system works like other regulated industries. It does not. This post explains who does what in Nevada’s HOA structure and why understanding that structure matters before a dispute becomes your own.

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.

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

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

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.

Nevada’s HOA dispute system is broken. This blog explains why ADR reform is urgent and why the Legislature must act to protect homeowners.