Nevada’s HOA Health-and-Safety Fine Proposal Has Changed — But the Blank Check Problem Remains

In June 2026, I wrote about Nevada’s effort to finally adopt regulations governing HOA health, safety and welfare (HSW) violations and the enhanced fines that can accompany them.

The concern was straightforward: Nevada law normally limits HOA fines, but those ordinary limits do not apply when a board determines that a violation “poses an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect” on the health, safety or welfare of owners or residents.

The Legislature therefore directed the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels to establish the criteria for making that determination, the severity of such violations, and limitations on the amounts of the fines. The earlier proposal did not do that adequately. You can read the full NVHOAReform post here: HSW Is Not a Blank Check for HOA Fine Authority.

NRED has now issued a Second Revised Proposed Regulation, dated July 1, 2026 and release to the public only recently. The new draft changes Section 2, but the most important problems remain.

NRED Tried to Narrow the HSW Standard

The earlier proposal relied heavily on broad categories of conduct—such as negligence, property damage and code violations—that could effectively become gateways to enhanced HSW fines. The new draft attempts to address criticism. It now provides that the listed conduct must occur: “in a manner that directly, immediately or actually endangers” an owner, resident or invitee. That is an improvement in concept.

But there is an important problem with the wording. The regulation says “directly, immediately OR actually.” That makes those three concepts alternatives. A board could therefore contend that conduct qualifies because it “actually” endangers someone even if the danger is not immediate, or because it “directly” endangers someone even if it is not imminent.

But the statute does not merely require some form of danger. It requires an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect. If immediacy is what gives meaning to “imminent,” it cannot simply be one optional route among several. At minimum, the regulation should require that the violation directly and immediately create the qualifying danger.

“Substantial” Is Still Missing

There is a second problem. Even if the regulation adequately defined what makes a threat imminent, it still does not explain what makes the threatened adverse effect substantial.

Those are different concepts. A condition can present some immediate risk without presenting a sufficiently serious risk to justify removing Nevada’s ordinary HOA fine limitations.

For example, an object temporarily left in a walkway might create an immediate trip risk, or a low tree branch might create an immediate possibility of someone striking it. Those conditions may warrant correction, but they are not necessarily comparable to an exposed electrical hazard, blocked emergency access, serious sanitation condition, or structural danger. Immediacy addresses when the harm may occur; substantiality addresses how serious the threatened harm is. The regulation needs standards for both.

The regulation should therefore define substantial harm using objective criteria—such as a material risk of serious bodily injury, significant impairment of health, substantial fire or structural danger, loss of habitability, obstruction of emergency access, serious sanitation hazards, or comparable threats.

Otherwise, each HOA board gets to decide for itself what “substantial” means.

The Legislature Required Severity Standards- Still Not There.

NRS 116.31031 does not merely direct the Commission to identify HSW violations. It also requires the Commission to establish the severity of such violations.

The current proposal still does not do that. Instead, Section 2 says a board may consider such things as the “nature, context, severity, scope, frequency or duration” of the violation and may consult an appropriate professional.

But telling a board that it may consider “severity” does not establish a severity standard. There are still no defined levels of seriousness, no objective distinctions between different levels of HSW violations, and no clear relationship between severity and the amount of a fine.

The Legislature directed the Commission to establish that framework—not to leave it to hundreds of individual HOA boards.

Most Importantly: There Is Still No Fine Limit

This remains the clearest defect. The Legislative Counsel’s Digest itself acknowledges that Nevada law requires regulations establishing “limitations on the amounts of the fines.”

Yet Section 2 contains no maximum HSW fine. None.

Instead, the proposal tells boards what they may consider when determining a fine and even permits consideration of “any other factor relevant to the determination of the executive board.”

That is not a limitation. It is a blank check.

If lawmakers intended HOA boards to have open-ended HSW fine authority, they would not have expressly directed the Commission to establish limitations on those fines.

A Past Dangerous Act Is Not Necessarily a Present HSW Condition

There is another important issue that remains unresolved. The statute says the violation “poses” an imminent threat. That present-tense word matters.

A completed act may have been dangerous, negligent or wrongful when it occurred. But that does not necessarily mean it continues to pose an imminent threat today. That distinction was part of my earlier workshop comments to the Commission. The HSW exception should distinguish an existing or ongoing dangerous condition from completed misconduct that no longer presents the statutory threat.

If there really is an imminent health or safety danger, the first objective should be to correct or abate the danger. HSW should not become merely a special punishment category that allows a board to impose dramatically larger fines after the danger has already ended.

Written Findings Should Be Required

If an HOA is going to invoke an exception that removes the normal statutory fine limits, the board should have to explain why. Before imposing an enhanced HSW fine, the board should be required to make written findings identifying:

1. the specific violation;

2. the actual health, safety or welfare danger;

3. why the threat is imminent;

4. why the threatened adverse effect is substantial;

5. the severity of the violation;

6. whether the dangerous condition remains ongoing or has been cured; and

7. how the fine relates to the severity of the violation and the applicable regulatory maximum.

That would provide both the homeowner and any later reviewer with an actual record of why extraordinary HSW treatment was invoked.

There Is Another Consequence: Foreclosure

The importance of getting the HSW definition right extends beyond the amount of the fine.

Nevada law generally recognizes that HOA fines and penalties should not support nonjudicial foreclosure. But NRS 116.31162(6) contains an exception involving health, safety and welfare violations.

That means an HOA board's decision to classify a violation as HSW can potentially have consequences far more serious than whether the fine is $100, $1,000 or several thousand dollars. It can affect whether that fine becomes part of a debt capable of supporting foreclosure.

That makes the lack of objective regulatory standards especially troubling. If the law is going to attach such an extraordinary consequence to an HSW designation, the threshold cannot be elastic. An HOA board should not be able to transform an ordinary covenant dispute into an HSW matter through a broad finding of “failure to exercise reasonable care” or by concluding that conduct “directly” or “actually” endangered someone without also establishing that the threat was **imminent and the threatened adverse effect substantial**.

The logic is also difficult to reconcile with the supposed purpose of the HSW exception. If a condition truly presents an imminent threat of substantial harm, the answer is to fix the danger. Foreclosure does not repair exposed wiring, clear a blocked emergency exit, remove a sanitation hazard, correct a dangerous structure or restore habitability. It is a debt-collection process that can ultimately result in the loss of a home.

A fine may sometimes be used to encourage compliance. But a fine is not the same thing as the cost of actually correcting or abating a dangerous condition. I have previously argued that Nevada should repeal the HSW fine-foreclosure exception entirely (Repeal the HSW Fine-Foreclosure Exception).

Until that happens- if ever, the Commission has an even greater responsibility to ensure that the regulatory definition of an HSW violation is narrow, objective and subject to meaningful safeguards. When an HSW designation can potentially affect not only the size of a fine but also a homeowner's exposure to foreclosure, criteria, severity standards, fine limits and written findings are not technical details. They are essential protections.

Some Progress — But the Core Problem Remains

The July revision shows that public comments matter. The new draft does attempt to narrow the earlier proposal, and an earlier provision that raised separate concerns about expanded enforcement remedies is no longer present.

But the core statutory protections remain unfinished. The current proposal:

• does not make immediacy an indispensable part of the HSW threshold;

• does not define what makes an adverse effect substantial;

• does not establish objective severity standards;

• does not establish any maximum HSW fine;

• does not adequately distinguish an ongoing danger from completed misconduct; and

• does not require written findings before the ordinary fine protections disappear.

That is too much discretion to place in the hands of private residential boards.

Now Is the Time to Comment

The Commission’s next scheduled meeting is September 8–10, 2026. Before that meeting, Nevada homeowners should tell the Commission that Section 2 should not be adopted unless the regulation actually provides the safeguards the Legislature required.

I have submitted detailed written comments explaining these remaining problems and recommended revisions.

You do not need to write a lengthy legal analysis to participate. A useful homeowner comment can be as simple as:

I support clear rules allowing associations to respond to genuine health and safety dangers, but Section 2 of R091-25 still gives HOA boards too much discretion. Please require an actual imminent and substantial danger, establish objective severity standards, place clear limits on HSW fines, and require written findings before the ordinary statutory fine limits are removed.

The Commission needs to hear from homeowners before the September meeting and at the meeting. The meeting is virtual. Attend from home and make your voice heard. You will find instruction as to how to attend virtually here.

Send Your Comments to NRED

Public comments may be emailed to: PublicComments@red.nv.gov

You may also review the proposed regulation and related materials on the Nevada Real Estate Division website.

The Division’s workshop notice also identifies the following contact for proposed-regulation materials:

Shareece Bates

Nevada Real Estate Division

3300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 350

Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

(702) 486-4036

When submitting comments, identify the proposal as: LCB File No. R091-25 — Section 2, Health, Safety and Welfare Criteria

The issue is not whether associations should be able to address genuine dangerous conditions. They should.

The issue is whether an HOA board should be able to decide for itself that an ordinary violation has become an HSW violation—and then decide for itself how large the resulting fine should be—without the objective standards and limits Nevada law says the Commission must establish.

HSW is still not a blank check for HOA fine authority.