Nevada Legislature 83rd session (2025)- Enrolled HOA legislation
(note to users)

How the lawmakers voted here
Note on the Governor's vetoes here

​​AB10
Title/Summary-Authorizes local authorities to improve/repair water or sewer systems that are owned by an HOA.   Oppose
​
The bill seeks to amend NRS 271.147 "neighborhood improvement project" to include water or sewer system owned by a common-interest community (CIC).  It provides a method for municipalities to step in when HOAs face issues. I would like to see the bill add  clarity making it applicable only for HOAs post-declarant control. I also question why exemptions/special treatment for CIC water and sewer projects is being proposed as set out in Section 3, 4, 5, & 6.  I have talked to the bill's lead about my concerns. He was receptive but I've received no response.

I previously supported AB 10. I continue to believe municipalities need an ability to step in when any sewer and/or water have issues. However, I have changed my position on the bill. I see it as just another example of lawmakers taking a path of least resistance- financially and politically that has negative impacts on HOA owners. Read more on my position in my letter to lawmakers. It is a "favor" to the current elected officials, and more the developer community that supports them, seeking to distance themselves (politicians and developers) from past flawed policies while the HOA owners, who relied on the judgment of their elected officials and administrators, are now being victimized.  Nevadans, who make the largest investment of their lives, do not intentionally neglect their properties or abandon their responsibilities, as some lawmakers seemed to suggest in hearing.
 ​​
ENROLLED (Asm vote- 37 yea, 5 nay- all R, Sen vote- 20 ea, 1 nay- R)
Approved by Governor
 
AB 185- vetoed by Governor
Title/Summary- Related to childcare.       Oppose
 
The bill precludes an HOA from prohibiting the operation of a licensed child care facility. Fundamentally, it is inappropriate (unfair) for the legislature to change the rules owners relied upon when purchasing. Over 50 restricted HOAs are exempt. Notably, the bill singles out owners of residential units in HOAs (both single family residential and condo) while not doing the same for owners of apartment buildings. The bill follows a nationwide trend of states passing laws to require HOAs to allow licensed childcare facilities in their communities, as "a matter of public interest". 

There is uniequivable value in proper child care and increasing affordable access.  But the bills sponsor, Asm Anderson acknowledges the issue of child care is huge in Nevada and this bill is only a "very small bite of the elephant". As such, is SB 185 an appropriate application of the policy? Does the discriminatory application of AB 185, exempting apartments with existing lease prohibitions, and the costs (health, safety , and liabilities) justify the value added? Nevada should look to Washington RCW 64.90.570 for a better crafted child care statute.
​
Many people desire and purchase in HOAs on the expectation they prohibit the operation of a business from one's home to maintain the residential character of the community, prevent potential conflicts with other residents, reduce the burdens placed on common area services, and more. There is an increased liability exposure to the HOA associated to AB 185 further increasing costs passed on to owners. 

There are huge insurance issues to consider that must be addressed.
Other & better policy options exist. For example, incetiving developers provide child care facilities in HOAs (much like club houses, tennis courts, etc.). 
​
There are also the issues, few are talking about. First, AB 185 and similar HOA related bills disrupt pre-existing HOA's agreements. Secondly, I see it  overstepping the authority lawmakers should exert over an HOA and its owners. These concerns extend to the Nevada Constitution, Article I, 15, regarding interference with existing contracts, and the Contract Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2), which prohibits states from enacting laws that impair the obligation of contracts. Importantly, are the changes reasonable and appropriate in furthering a "significant and legitimate public interest?"  What if reducing the cost of auto repairs became trendy. Should lawmakers be permitted to advance  legislation barring HOAs from allow an auto repair business from a unit 's garage? I see the law undermining the contractual bargain, interfering with party’s reasonable expectations, and preventing owners from safeguarding their right.  
​
The bill is one of five bills (AB 185, AB 152, AB 322, AB 396 & SB 201) where Legislators seek to inject themselves into private contracts mandating provisions. Is the public interests alleged advanced  sufficient justification and/or the appropriate policy options for the impairment of these contracts? I do not think so and OPPOSE.
​
Read more here. Find here a Nevada Current story on the bill.
 
The bill was passed out of Asm Govt Affairs with an amendment removing overrides of local jurisdiction to oversee zoning. Yet, it retained overrides to HOAs doing the same. It passes out of the Assembly 32 Yeas, and  10 Nays. 

Preventing its passage altogether I see is unlikely. I recommend members write to lawmakers requesting the Section 1 be amended deleting the word “…and the governing documents must not.” If removed, the resulting statute would allow HOAs to enforce existing CC&Rs that prohibit business operations from homes (including child care), while prohibiting HOAs that specifically do not bar child care operations in the CC&Rs from doing so.
​
Enrolled (Asm- 32 yea, 10- nay, all R; Sen - 16 yea, 4- nay, all R)
Vetoed by Governor. Gov writes "Since AB 185 would erode the integrity of HOA governance and result in fundamental unfairness to owners who relied on HOA rules when purchasing their homes, I cannot support it." Read the full veto message here.
​
AB 396
Title/Summary- Rental units                 Support (with reservations as noted)
 
Directs large municipalities to create an ordinance authorizing owners to add an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) to residential property, add a second ADU, permit rental of ADUs, and established regulations. 
 
For HOA unit owners, under current law (NRS 116.335) unless an HOAs declaration prohibits/restricts rental/easing of units, the HOA could not adopt a rule/restrictions prohibiting this ability. If an HOA's declaration authorizes prohibitions/restrictions/limits on owner renting or leasing a unit, section 9 of the bill allows amendments and/or adoption of restrictive rules and regulations to the extent (I read as only if, or limited to those) reasonably related to "meet lender or insurance underwriting requirements" and end the grandfather provision typically available to current units owners (see NRS 116.2117(6)). Transient lodging (read AirBnB type units) will be held to the above criteria. I recommend the following article on HOA rentals by HOPB (Homeowners Protection Bureau, LLC), a private organization.
 
The bill seeks owner friendly changes to termination of an HOA (NRS 116.2117), requires the HOA's provide proof of insurance in resale package, and increases the max administrative fine to $5,000. 
 
As with several HOA bills this session, I find the interventional approach of lawmakers into the collective rights of HOA owners problematic.  I believe a better approach to achieving the policy objectives of this bill exists. I have reached out to the bill sponsors Asm Backus. She committed to reach out but has not to this point. ​
 
I also asked Asm Backus allow a friendly amended making a minor word change to NRS 116.2117(2).  Specifically, "No action to challenge the validity of [an amendment] the adopt[ed]ion of an amendment by the association pursuant to this section may be brought more than 1 year after the amendment is recorded." The proposed change clarifies the legislative intent of the repose barring a challenge to an amendment. As I believe intended the repose applied to a challenge of the adoption of an amendments by owners. As interpreted by the courts it is applicable to any amendment- which includes unilateral declarant amendments where an adoption is not needed or performed. The latter is problematic. 

The bill's sponsor dropped a 13-page multi-color conceptual amendment as the May 14 hearing started. It will take me awhile to sort out what is being proposed since I was not on the "inner circle" of coordination. I still anticipate the bill will pass and support the ADU policy objective. Potential other issues impacting HOA owners is TBD. What this bill and hearing demonstrates - again- is lawmaking in a rush, where lawmakers try to get too much done in too little -is damagers. HOA owners need to be vigilant. 
​
Enrolled- (Asm 27 yea, 15 nay, all R and 1 D, Rep Goulding; Sen 14 yea, 7 nay, all R)

AB 478
Title/Summary- Related to construction.       Support
 
This is presented as a construction worker protection effort seeking balance between safety, noise, and efficiency. Existing law provides if Clark County restricts the hours in which construction work may begin, a declarant controlled common-interest community (defined in  NRS 244.3679 CICs in which the original developer controls a majority of the units) must not restrict the hours that construction work. Work must be greater than 300' from residential property. The issue was subject legislation in 2021 (SB 249) and amended in 2023. 
​
Enrolled (Asm 42 yea, 0 nay, Sen 21 yea, 0 nay)
​
​​​SB 121​​​- passed but vetoed
Title/Summary- Related to an HOA dictating landscaping, collection, damages, and notice of management agreements.   Support    
 
This bill was prefilled. It does several good things for owners. It revises NRS 116.310313 to prohibit imposing late fees on past-due obligations until 30 days after the due date. It updates NRS 116.350 to prevent HOAs from prohibiting commercial vehicles under 10,000 pounds from parking in designated visitor or common-area parking spaces.  It amends NRS 116A.620 to require HOAs in communities with 100 or more units post notices of pending management company termination at least 40 days in advance and send electronic notice.  It amends NRS 116.3115 to ensure homeowners are not fined or held responsible for oil stains not located on their driveways.  
​​
However, this bill goes too far with section 1- prohibiting HOA from requiring landscaping in backyard for 36 months for the initial purchase of the unit (allowing a requirement to install a "thin layer of rock not sooner than 18 months).  Given the limited applicable of section 1- just new construction- on balance I support SB 121.

As a general thought (seeking your opinion) I like Florida's approach to backyards. HOA cannot restrict a "parcel owners or tenants from displaying, installing, or storing any items on a parcel that are not visible from either the parcel’s frontage or an adjacent parcel, to also include from an adjacent common area or a community golf course." (House bill 1203) HB 1203 also expanded the list of permissible items to include vegetable gardens and clotheslines, in addition to the previously listed artificial turf, boats, flags, and recreational vehicles.

As with several HOA bills this session, I find the interventional approach of lawmakers into the collective rights of HOA owners problematic.  
 I have reached out to the sponsor and received no response. Read more on this in my email to the bill's sponsor Sen Neal. Read here my open letter to Nevada Legislators. Read hear the Nevada Current article on SB 121.

The Asm hearing on SB 121 demonstrates the tremendous distain lawmakers have for HOA legislation. As I like to say, they would prefer a tooth canal to bring/hearing HOA bills (no offense to dentists).  This is why in 2019 Legislators passed SB 392 establishing the CIC Task Force. Recall, the Task Force met twice in 2020 and has since been dormant. Dr Sanchez had the Task Force on his chopping block with SB 78 (since removed). He has committed to "reconstituting" the Task Force- but how and when....? Industry players like their lobby advantage in reforming HOA bills and do not want the Task Force to be viable. I see demanding the CIC Task Force function as intended, with homeowner stakeholders at the, the best, arguably only course of action to get this monster (at least in the minds of lawmakers) which is HOAs under control. 
​
Enrolled (Asm 29 yea, 13 nay, all R; Sen 18 yea, 2 hay, I abs, all R)
Vetoed by the Governor- He wrote: "Since SB 121 undermines established, collectively agreed-upon HOA contracts by improperly overriding those agreements, I cannot support it." Find the Governor's full veto message here 


SB 201​​​
Title/Summary- Prohibition on imposing restrictions to the display of religious items.             Oppose                                               
 
The Fair House Act already guides HOAs on this subject. The bill mandates an HOA provide for religious items on the doorway. Here again, I see lawmakers injecting themselves unnecessarily into private contracts mandating provisions.

My primary opposition rests in section 4- selectively granting  prevailing party language for provisions of this bill. I see no reason, should the provisions of the bill pass, enforcement of this "rule" be treated differently from other violations. A "violation" of NRS 116 should first be raised with the regulator, NRED (see NRS 116.750). There is a low cost and expedient system in place to address alleged violations of NRS 116 that should not be exempted. NRS 116.4117 already addresses rights of action if actual damages are involved. The word "action" in Section 4 creates ambiguity.

As a general issue of sound public policy I see private right of action inappropriate for NRS 116 related violations outside actual damages. Attorney fees and costs can be weaponized and should be avoided at all cost when involving HOAs.  Read more here.  The special treatment afforded in Section 4 of this bill was ignored by the Sen Jud Committee in the workshop session. Find here my letter to the Asm Judiciary Committee.
 
​Enrolled (Asm 38 yea, 4 nay, all R, Sen 19 yae, 1 nay,  R0)
Approved by Governor
 
​
The following bills are (or were) of interest to HOA owners but do not specifically affect NRS 116 at this time.

SB 78 failed to get needed house passage
​Title/Summary- Revise provisions relating to boards (BDR 18-301)         
​
The bill was amended (narrowing its focus to only Title 54 licensees) at its first hearing. The provision that would have eliminated the Common Interest Community (CIC) Task Force was removed. It no longer has an impact on HOAs.
​
SB 78 sought to eliminate the Task Force. The Coalition advocated to have the provision removed. 
A February 11, 2025 letter by Dr Sanchez commits to "reconstituting the CIC Task Force." There appeared a disconnect. The CIC Task Force was saved. My focus will shift to efforts getting the Task Force out of hibernation- where it has been since 2020.
​
State lawmakers are continually besieged with lobbying efforts to adopt narrowly focused special interests statutes intended to "fix" HOA "problems". The fifteen (15) separate HOA bills this session is not a unique occurance. The CIC Task Force, established by lawmakers in 2019, I see a plea by lawmakers for a better approach and address Nevada's need for a truly independent owner advocate. Despite the deceptive name, the NRED Ombudsman’s office does not advocate for HOA reform nor advance the voice of HOA owners. Dr Sanchez, Director Nevada Department of Business and Industry, has never  participated in the Task Force- despite being the task force Chairperson. Two meetings were held in 2020 then the Task Force went dormant prior to Dr Sanchez's arrival (read more here). Without offering an alternative, Dr Sanchez now endorses killing the CIC Task Force. He does so knowing owners will be left with no advocate while NRED, Nevada's sole HOA regulator, is captured by the very industry players it is tasked to regulate.

Failed to get needed house passage.


AB 3
TitleSumary-Revises provision related to altern dispute resolution (ADR) NRS 38 

Note: NRS 38.300-38.360 is applicable to HOAs.

The bill raised fees and/or compensation to arbitrators. It provides civil action for damages that do not exceed $100,00 (now $50,000) per plaintiff be submitted to nonbinding arbitration. The use of a "short trial" is introduced.

I see STP a good tool for addressing civil litigation of NRS 116 and frankly in CC&R disputes. I have reach out to some lawmaker. Do not expect much at this late date in the session, but it never hurts. The video of the 5/25/25 AB 3 hearing is valuable in understand the STP process for those interested.

I expect the bill will pass, unamended. 

Enrolled (Asm 41 yea, I nay, R; Sen 20 yea, 1 nay, R)
Approved by Governor