Nevada specifically prohibits harassment in homeowners associations. But the way the law is enforced creates a striking imbalance: owners may have little regulatory recourse, while boards can pursue alleged owner misconduct through increasingly powerful enforcement avenues.

Nevada’s HOA Commission has already voted to adopt R091-25. Yet when FOX5 asked NRED to explain the controversial HSW language, state officials declined, saying comment would be “premature.” That raises a larger question about accountability in Nevada’s HOA regulatory system.

Buying into an HOA means accepting a system of governance. It does not mean surrendering the right to question whether the board had authority, followed the governing documents, or stayed within Nevada law.

Nevada may have some of the nation’s strongest HOA laws. But knowing what the law says is only the beginning. Fine limits, hearings, NRED complaints, mediation and even “you can sue” come with realities owners need to understand.

Boards should seek legal advice. But advice of counsel does not create statutory authority—and it should not become a reason for Nevada’s HOA regulator to avoid deciding what Chapter 116 actually requires.

HOA boards should seek legal advice. But advice of counsel does not create statutory authority, and it should not become de facto Nevada HOA law simply because no regulator or court tests it.

Advice of counsel can help show that an HOA board acted on an informed basis. But it should not replace independent regulatory review. When NRED closes complaints without publicly resolving the underlying legal question, aggressive legal opinions can become de facto law without statutory or precedential support.

Nevada HOA boards can avoid competitive bidding by never soliciting bids at all. NRED has acknowledged the loophole, the Commission has authority to address the fiduciary gap, and neither has solved a problem known for years.

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 have a statutory right to remove an owner-elected HOA board member with or without cause. But recall is not accomplished by anger alone. It requires a proper petition, secret ballot, turnout, and careful attention to NRS 116.31036.

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.

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 laws promise accountability but deliver little enforcement. NVHOAReform explains how the Business Judgment Rule shields boards from scrutiny, leaving fiduciary duties unenforceable—and what reforms can fix it.

HOAs control property values, rules, and even foreclosures — yet buyers get almost no insight into how they are governed. It’s time for real transparency and governance data

Nevada law lets developers assign almost anything to HOAs as “common elements” — from pools to private sewer systems. With no oversight or limits, are volunteer boards being handed risks they can’t see?

Ten petitions have been filed thus far by HOA owners under NRS 233B.100 and NRS 116 seeking rulemaking by the CIC Commission on HOA elections, conflicts of interest, transparency, and more.

Homeowners fund HOA budgets but have no real say. See how Nevada can fix this with pre-adoption input and stronger oversight.

Explore the debate over HOA declaration amendment thresholds—balancing majority rule, minority rights, and governance stability. What should the law require?