Summary- The “quasi-governmental” nature of homeowner associations (HOAs) is one of the most important and controversial aspects surrounding HOAs. They are allegedly private entities—but they act like mini-governments, with many powers similar to city or municipal governments, without the same oversight, transparency, or constitutional protections. This dualism means:
owners must comply with rules they did not negotiate, under a fiction of consent.
owners are governed by boards with regulatory power, but have fewer procedural protections than citizens under municipal government.
remedies are mostly civil litigation, not public enforcement—shifting the burden and cost to individual owners.
A formal recognition of the nature of HOAs is needed. Courts prefer to leave policy shifts to legislatures, not legal precedent. This is why legislative action is needed.
The private HOA or "Quasi-Governmental" argument.
They Have Government-Like Powers: HOAs can:
• Enact rules and regulations (like ordinances) through CC&Rs and bylaws.
• Levy assessments (dues) and special fees—similar to taxes.
• Enforce rules via fines, restrictions, or litigation.
• Lien and foreclose on properties for non-payment—just like a local government can for unpaid taxes.
• Local governments offload services to HOAs—roads, drainage, sewers, water lines, street lights, parks—shifting public responsibilities to private boards.
• Home buyers don’t really “choose” an HOA—you can’t opt out, and properties can’t be sold without accepting the HOA’s terms.
But They Lack Democratic Safeguards: Unlike cities or counties:
• HOAs are typically formed as non-profit corporations- which is the case n Nevada
• Homeowners choose (in theory) to buy into HOA communities, agreeing to follow covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) as part of a private contract.
• HOA boards are not subject to open meetings laws in many states (to include Nevada).
• They don’t follow the same due process standards as public agencies.
• There’s no requirement for transparency beyond what’s written in the governing documents and statutes.
• Elections may not be fair or inclusive, and board turnover can be slow.
• Disputes often go to private litigations not public channels.
• Residents don’t realize that HOA can affect them like a local government would.
HOAs exist in a legal limbo—not bound by the Constitution in the same way governments are, yet they regulate behavior in deeply personal ways.
What are the implications?
• Courts have historically treated HOAs as private associations governed by contract law, not public law. CC&Rs are typically enforced as if they were freely negotiated, binding contracts. This is changing, but slowing.
• The Supreme Court has not clearly ruled on whether constitutional rights (like the First Amendment) apply to HOAs, because they’re technically private entities—even though they govern public-like spaces.
• Due process may not fully apply in HOA-governed spaces, unless state laws impose such protections.
• Voter turnout for HOA elections is low, power gets concentrated in small groups, and homeowner apathy can allow abuses or mismanagement.
• It can be hard for homeowners to challenge unfair rules or actions, especially without legal resources.
Courts are reluctant to start calling HOAs quasi-governmental- it opens the door to Constitutional lawsuits against all sorts of private associations (e.g., churches, country clubs, co-ops). It could create massive legal uncertainty about where public rights apply.
Understandably, Courts prefer to leave that kind of policy shift to legislatures, not legal precedent.
This is why legislative action is needed.
