Who Really Does What in Nevada’s HOA System- At Least On Paper

This post is meant to help homeowners understand Nevada’s HOA-related government system: who the key actors are, how they relate to one another, and what their duties are supposed to be. If Nevada’s HOA system is to be effective for owners, it is important first to understand the structure—at least on paper—within which that system operates. This is the short version, with links (blue underline) to other NVHOAReform posts and web pages for readers who want to go deeper.

There are a lot of actors in Nevada’s HOA system: association boards, community managers, the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), the Ombudsman’s Office, the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels (CICCH Commission), the Attorney General’s Office, civil courts, investigators, mediators, arbitrators, and, more recently, the Common-Interest Community Task Force (CIC Task Force). It is easy to confuse the names and functions. But if owners do not understand the structure, it becomes much easier for every part of the system to say, “That is not our job.”

The 2024 ACS Census Survey found that 51.7% of Nevada homeowners live in HOAs. That is the highest share in the country, and it is growing. Also growing—arguably faster—is the number of Nevada homeowners coming to believe that something in their community governance is broken, or at a minimum unfair. If you are fortunate enough to live in a community led by good people, you may not share that view. The problems may not yet be obvious. After all, decent people will often do the right thing even when the rules are vague and enforcement is weak. But rules, laws, and enforcement are not there for the majority who will act responsibly. They are there for the few who will not—those willing to abuse power, exploit ambiguity, or take advantage when the opportunity presents itself. Waiting until your luck runs out, or until leadership changes and the problem becomes yours, is often too late.

Homeowners Assume the System Is Working. Often, That Is the Problem.

Let’s be honest. Most HOA homeowners know far too little about the system and spend far too little time paying attention to what their association is doing, despite the fact that their home is likely their largest investment. That is in large part why this website exists. People have busy lives. They bought a home they liked, appreciated the amenities, maybe talked to neighbors before closing, and assumed that because Nevada has had HOAs for decades and regulates them, someone would be paying attention and step in when needed. Consumer protection, right?

Only when faced with a real dispute do many Nevada homeowners discover that those assumptions are wrong—and often too late.

The Legislature Writes the Law

It may surprise some readers to hear that, in my view, Nevada has the best HOA system in the country on paper. Not perfect, but on paper, strong. Homeowners associations do not fit neatly into traditional legal categories. They are not purely private contracts. They are not public governments. They are something in between. The problem is that Nevada’s system in practice is far from what lawmakers, led by Senator Mike Schneider more than two decades ago, appeared to envision when they built it.

Nevada legislators are part-time. They meet only once every two years, for a 120-day session, and during that short window they must address the full range of the state’s legislative needs. That makes the Legislature poorly suited to resolving the day-to-day operational problems that appear in HOA governance, or in most other complex systems lawmakers create.

That is why legislatures do not just write statutes. They also create agencies, commissions, and oversight systems to administer those laws in the real world. In Nevada’s HOA system, that means NRED, the Ombudsman’s Office, and the CICCH Commission.

NRED Administers the System

The Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) is the state agency responsible for administering Nevada’s common-interest community laws under NRS Chapter 116. The Division is led by Administrator Sharath Chandra and sits within the Department of Business and Industry, which is led by Director Dr. Kristopher Sanchez.

Nevada’s HOA oversight structure differs from many regulatory systems in two important respects. First, NRED does not itself adjudicate alleged violations of Chapter 116 (Nevada’s HOA law). Second, NRED does not unilaterally make regulations. The Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels is the body authorized to adopt regulations governing the system the body with authority to take action in formal violation matters. NRED and the Ombudsman process administer, screen, and investigate. The Commission decides the cases that are actually brought before it.

Nevada relies on two parallel tracks to resolve CIC disputes:

1. Administrative enforcement for alleged statutory violations of NRS 116; and

2. Civil litigation, following what was intended to be mandatory, alternate dispute resolution (ADR) under NRS 38.300–.360 for disagreements involving governing documents.

Both tracks were designed to keep disputes out of court while still producing meaningful, neutral outcomes. Both currently fall short of that objective.That distinction matters. It is no small thing. Governing documents in common-interest communities typically provide that in litigation between an owner and the association, the loser pays the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees. In practice, that means owners may be forced to risk paying both sides’ legal fees, while the board defends itself with association funds.

When a homeowner has a problem and files a complaint, the matter first moves through the administrative side of the system. The complaint is screened to determine whether it alleges a violation of Nevada law or instead involves a dispute centered on the association’s governing documents. If the matter is deemed a possible statutory violation, it is investigated and evaluated to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to move forward. If the case advances, it is presented in the name of the State of Nevada—through counsel associated with the Attorney General’s office—to the Commission for hearing and decision. If it does not advance, the complaint is closed, often with little meaningful explanation.

In practical terms, that gives the administrative side of the system enormous gatekeeping power. The Commission’s adjudicatory role depends heavily on what NRED chooses to bring before it. Much like a prosecutor’s screening function, the Division has substantial discretion in determining which matters advance and which do not. That has proven deeply frustrating to many homeowners who file complaints expecting action—or at least a neutral determination—and instead receive closure with little information about why the case went no further. Much of that frustration stems from the Division’s broad interpretation of confidentiality, which is routinely invoked in a manner that leaves complainants with little meaningful explanation of what was reviewed, how the matter was evaluated, or why the case was closed.

If the dispute is deemed to involve the association’s governing documents rather than a statutory violation, the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute. Instead, Nevada’s system mandates alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before the parties proceed into civil litigation, defaulting to mediation unless both sides agree to an alternative. In theory, that process is supposed to help resolve disputes short of court. In practice, mediation often fails to provide what owners actually need: a neutral determination—binding or even nonbinding—before they are forced to decide whether to abandon the matter or take on the cost and risk of formal litigation.

That criticism is not mine alone. It reflects the experience of many owners who have used the process and, notably, the concern expressed by NRED itself in recent testimony before the CIC Task Force while seeking changes to NRS 38. Nevada’s current ADR structure too often fails to provide any meaningful neutral determination early enough to help parties avoid the expense and pressure of full civil litigation. The full referenced NVHOAReform policy paper on ADR reform can be found here.

This is one of the most important structural features Nevada homeowners need to understand. NRED administers the system. It investigates. It screens. It decides what to advance. But the Commission adjudicates only the matters NRED actually brings forward, while governing-document disputes are funneled into an ADR process that often yields no real determination at all leaving only civil litigation. For many owners, that means the promise of oversight exists more clearly on paper than in practice. Read more: Fixing a Dispute Resolution System That Fails Homeowners and Putting Owners First: A New Framework for HOA Dispute Resolution.

The ADR process is presented as “mandatory”, but even that premise has been destabilized by how the courts have treated NRS 38.310.

The Ombudsman’s Duty: Help Owners Navigate the Process

The Ombudsman’s Office exists within NRED. Its role is to help homeowners, board members, and others understand Nevada HOA law, governing documents, and the complaint process. It was intended to serve as the state’s safeguard against HOA overreach—the first point of contact for owners seeking clarity before conflicts escalate into litigation. In practice, however, many owners would question whether the office has fulfilled that role.

People often treat “the Ombudsman” and “NRED” as though they were the same thing. They are not. The Ombudsman’s Office is only one component of the broader administrative system. That matters because owners often approach the Ombudsman expecting it to act as a decision-maker or enforcer, when its role is far more limited.

The Ombudsman is not the homeowner’s personal lawyer. The Ombudsman does not issue binding legal rulings for individual owners. And the Ombudsman does not decide whether someone violated NRS Chapter 116. The office can assist, should explain, and may help move certain complaints through the process. But assistance is not the same thing as enforcement.

Owners need to understand that when they are dealing with the Ombudsman, NRED’s authority extends only to disputes involving Nevada statutes. It has no authority to prosecute governing-document disputes. Those limits are not accidental. They are the product of policy choices. Efforts to create a process that would give parties an early neutral determination before they are forced toward full civil litigation have long run into the argument that the State should not be drawn into what industry advocates characterize as “private contract” disputes—an argument that ignores the reality that HOAs are creatures of state law, vested with state-enabled powers, and governed by an extensive statutory scheme. In 2013, lawmakers created the framework for a low-cost neutral dispute process known as the Referee Program within Nevada’s ADR system. But access to that program was restricted by requiring mutual consent, much like the more expensive and more formal arbitration option. And now, rather than making the Referee Program the default, efforts are underway to obtain the CIC Task Force’s endorsement of changes to NRS 38 that would delete the Referee Program and make arbitration the default.

The CICCH Commission: Regulator, Adjudicator, and More

The Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels is a seven-member body appointed by the Governor. By law, it includes different stakeholder categories, including unit owners, a developer representative, a community-manager representative, a CPA, and an attorney. NRED’s own description of the Commission is that it advises the Division, adopts regulations, and conducts disciplinary hearings. They meet quartley.

For owners, the important point is that the Commission has three distinct roles.

First, it is a regulatory body. It adopts regulations through Nevada’s administrative rulemaking process. That matters because statutes cannot address every operational detail. In a healthy system, regulations help close recurring gaps, clarify ambiguous duties, and give owners and associations clearer rules before disputes spiral.

This is also one of the few places where homeowners can make a difference before a regulation is locked in. Owners can email comments in advance, attend meetings virtually or in person, express concern or support on the record, and work with NVHOAReform to learn when meetings are coming and what proposals deserve attention. But few owners ever do, and that absence matters. It leaves the field largely to insiders, managers, attorneys, and industry participants who are far more likely to track the process, frame the issues, and shape the outcome. Rulemaking is not supposed to be just for insiders. In practice, however, it too often becomes exactly that.

Second, the Commission acts like an administrative court in enforcement matters. If the Administrator files a formal complaint, the Commission or a hearing panel hears the matter and decides it. That last point matters: if the Administrator files a formal complaint. Like a court, the Commission generally rules on what is brought before it. If NRED does not investigate, does not develop the issue, or does not file a formal complaint, the Commission may never reach the merits of the owner’s concern.

That creates a potentially serious accountability gap, especially if the Commission does little more than accept the narrow universe of issues NRED chooses to present. Read more: The Secrecy Wall: Regulator’s “Confidentiality” Undermines HOA Accountability and Trust.

Third, the Commission’s duty is broader than simply deciding cases. Under NRS 116.615, it may do all things necessary and convenient to carry out Chapter 116, including prescribing forms and adopting procedures. That means the Commission is not supposed to function as a purely passive tribunal. When repeated complaints, public comments, agenda items, advisory opinions, or owner testimony reveal recurring statutory confusion, the Commission should be asking whether the law needs regulatory clarification. It should be looking not only at the individual violation NRED brings forward, but also at the larger patterns revealed by what comes before it.

That is where the system has too often failed owners.

For years, the Commission and NRED have had opportunities to address recurring questions such as: What does confidentiality actually prevent from being disclosed? Are workshops from which owners are excluded appropriate? What counts as an HOA board “meeting”? Are virtual-only meetings proper where governing documents require a place on or near the properties? When do email deliberations or email voting violate open-meeting principles? How should agenda protections work when associations add substantive items at the last minute? What standards should apply when boards approve major contracts without meaningful competitive bidding?

These are not obscure issues. They affect owners every day. They are a large part of what NVHOAReform members identify as the recurring problems in their communities. A healthy regulatory system would not wait decades for lawmakers to fix each one individually. The regulator and the Commission would identify the pattern and clarify the law through enforcement, advisory guidance, or formal rulemaking.

Why Rulemaking Matters to Everyday Owners

Many HOA problems are not caused by the complete absence of law. They are caused by unresolved grey areas.

That is where rulemaking matters.

The Commission approves HOA regulations through Nevada’s administrative rulemaking process. But rulemaking has been rare. That matters because unresolved grey areas do not stay neutral for long. If NRED and the Commission do not clarify the law, industry practice fills the vacuum.

Grey areas are not supposed to become licenses to ignore the law. At a minimum, they should trigger clarification by the regulator and Commission. When that does not happen, ambiguity tends to benefit those with more institutional knowledge, more access, and more resources.

For owners, this is not an abstract problem. It affects whether meetings are open, whether agendas are meaningful, whether large contracts are properly vetted, whether confidentiality is being stretched too far, and whether boards can levy fines of up to $10,000 against an owner per incident, govern through workshops, email, or virtual-only formats without meaningful owner participation.

That is why owners should pay attention to rulemaking, even if they do not think of themselves as policy people. Regulatory clarity often determines how much protection their rights actually receive in practice.

The Attorney General Represents the Agency, Not Homeowners

This is another point many owners misunderstand.

The Attorney General’s Office often serves as legal counsel to state agencies, including NRED and the Commission in their official roles. That does not mean the Attorney General represents homeowners in HOA disputes.

When the Attorney General advises NRED, the client is the agency. The AG is not acting as private counsel for the complaining owner, and owners should not assume the office will take their side simply because they believe NRED is failing to enforce the law.

That distinction becomes especially important when the complaint is not advanced. If the agency exercises its discretion not to proceed, the Attorney General is not there to independently vindicate the homeowner’s position. For many owners, that is a hard reality to understand at first because the enforcement case, if brought, is styled in the name of the State. But the State’s lawyer is representing the State’s agencies and processes, not serving as counsel for the owner.

That creates a real accountability problem when the agency itself is accused of inaction.

The CIC Task Force Is Not the Regulator

The Common-Interest Community Task Force is different. It was authorized in 2019 as a special body to study issues affecting common-interest communities and recommend legislation or regulations. That was not business as usual. It was an unusual acknowledgment by lawmakers that Nevada’s existing HOA machinery was not adequately addressing the state’s growing problems and that outside study and focused recommendations were needed.

But owners need to understand what the Task Force is not. It is not NRED or the CICCH Commission. It does not enforce the law. It does not decide owner complaints. It does not issue binding regulations.

Its role is advisory. It studies HOA issues and recommends possible legislative or regulatory changes. Those recommendations matter because they can shape what lawmakers consider next and, in practice, may become the framework for future legislation or rulemaking.

CIC Task Force Charade

But the Task Force’s actual composition raises an obvious concern. A body created to evaluate the need for reform has been staffed almost exclusively by the very agencies, insiders, and industry participants whose conduct, priorities, and performance reform is supposed to evaluate.

If the Task Force hears mostly from regulators, managers, attorneys, and industry voices, lawmakers may receive recommendations shaped mostly by those same voices. That does not guarantee the recommendations will be wrong. But it does mean owners should be cautious about treating the process as neutral or genuinely reform-minded when so many of those tied to the existing system are also positioned to define the problems and recommend the solutions.

That is why owner participation matters. Owners cannot assume the Task Force understands their experience unless owners show up and say it.

What Owners Should Take From This

Owners should not equate Nevada’s HOA system with the kind of regulatory oversight they may associate with industries like aviation or utilities. Nor should they assume they are stepping into a neutral process designed to determine whether the law was violated and provide a meaningful remedy if it was. They are not. They are entering a system in which NRED administers and arguably hinders access, the Commission decides only the matters formally brought before it, and key parts of the process are shaped by broad administrative discretion and limited transparency.

HOA system- owners more undedogs than consitutants

Owners should understand something else from the outset: under the system as it now operates, they are often the underdog. The regulatory structure is heavily influenced by industry knowledge, industry participation, and, in too many settings, industry priorities. Associations and the professionals who serve them generally know the process better, appear before it more often, and are better equipped to absorb delay and expense. When disputes spill into civil litigation, the imbalance usually becomes greater still. Owners often face institutions and law firms with deeper pockets, more experience, and a stronger ability to turn time and cost into leverage.

Owners should also understand that finding a good attorney willing to represent homeowners in HOA disputes is often difficult. The reason is not simply that these cases are hard. The economics of the field tend to favor siding with associations. Associations and the professionals around them are repeat sources of business. Community managers are often reluctant to recommend board counsel who has been strongly adverse to associations in the past, and attorneys know that. The incentive structure therefore runs in one direction: toward maintaining industry relationships, not toward taking owner-side cases.

Owners also need to understand the force of prevailing-party fee provisions. If a homeowner loses, the homeowner may end up paying not only his or her own attorney, but the association’s as well. That is a powerful deterrent to litigation. And it is not a symmetrical risk. The board is typically litigating with the owners’ money, not its own, while the homeowner is risking personal funds and personal assets. That imbalance alone can pressure owners to walk away from even legitimate claims.

That does not mean owners have no options. It does mean they should approach the system with clear eyes. Nevada’s HOA oversight structure does not operate as a level playing field, and homeowners should not assume that being right will be enough. Rights on paper matter. But in practice, vindicating those rights may depend on persistence, resources, public pressure, and whether the institutions charged with oversight are willing to do more than process complaints.

That is also why the Nevada HOA Reform Coalition exists. The Coalition helps owners understand how the system actually works, points them to the legal and structural issues most likely to affect their disputes, and advocates for reforms aimed at making the system more transparent, more accountable, and more workable for homeowners.

This post is meant to provide that starting point. From here, readers can go deeper into the specific parts of the system that most affect their disputes, including confidentiality, ADR, the CICCH Commission, the Task Force, open-meeting issues, agenda abuse, virtual-only meetings, and the widening gap between rights on paper and rights in practice.