Political Signs in an HOA?
It is more than just about signs.
When even the seemingly simplest questions about HOA governance—such as when you may display a political sign in or around your own home—require legal consultation to answer, that is a pretty clear indication something is broken.
This should not be complicated. Nevada has a statute specifically addressing political signs in HOAs: NRS 116.325. It tells homeowners they have certain rights. The Nevada Real Estate Divsion (NRED) even published guidance apparently intended to explain those rights. But after reading both carefully, I still had questions.
So I asked the HOA Ombudsman what seemed like a simple one:
Can an HOA prohibit an otherwise permissible political sign simply because the owner puts it up “too early”—30 days, 60 days or six months before an election?
I did not ask the Ombudsman to decide a dispute between an owner and an association. I did not provide some complicated set of facts requiring an investigation. I asked what the statute allows.
Here is how a representative of NRED’s answered:
“Whether any particular timing or placement rule is permissible depends on the precise rule language, the governing documents, applicable ordinances, and the facts of its application.”
In other words: it depends. Which is correct—and exactly the problem.
NRED’s evasive response helps explain why this question has remained unresolved for so long. It also reflects why, in my assessment, NRED is of so little value to owners and too often appears captured by the industry it regulates. Below is why I thought the question deserved to be asked, answered and presented here.
What the Statute Says
NRS 116.325 begins with fairly direct language. An HOA executive board “shall not” and the governing documents “must not prohibit” an owner or occupant from displaying political signs within the portion of the community that person has the right to occupy and use exclusively.
That has been in place since 2005- more than twenty years. The statute was amended four years later, adding a few additional limitations around those signs, including the number permitted and tenant permission where appropriate. It said the section also claims to establishe the “minimum rights” of owners and occupants. It still does today.
At first glance, that sounds like meaningful protection. Until you read the rest closely.
HOAs May Regulate the “Timing”
NRS 116.325 does not say when an owner’s right to display a political sign begins. NRED’s Fall 2024 Community Insights tells Nevada owners:
“Associations may set reasonable rules regarding the size, placement, and timing of political signs.”
So the statute says political signs “must not” be prohibited, while NRED says an HOA may regulate when they may be displayed. That leaves a rather important question unanswered:
How far may the association go before regulating the right becomes prohibiting it? For example, can an HOA limit signs to Election Day? An owner’s supposed “minimum right” amounts to sign size and display period—both effectively association TBD. At some point, regulation of a right becomes regulation out of existence. Nevada lawmakers enacted a statute titled “Right of units’ owners to exhibit political signs” while acknowledging the right but leaving surprisingly important parts of it undefined. I do not see much of an owner right in that.
A real Nevada example helps illustrate the problem. My master-planned community’s declaration expressly allows its Rules and Regulations to regulate the “time, place, manner, and duration” of political signs, to the maximum extent permitted by law. Its actual Rules and Regulations, however, do not establish a pre-election display period. They allow political signs without Board approval, limit the number and maximum size, and require removal 15 days after the election. The declaration supplied timing authority, but neither my master nor sub-association chose to impose a pre-election window. But what if either—or both—had?
The Legislative History: Implications Hard to Ignore
What I have described does not sound like much protection. Importantly, why lawmakers have repeatedly declined to adopt a minimum timing protection or done more, is hard to know. “Politics” may explain it, but the legislative record does not tell us enough to say why.
What can be uncovered is during consideration of SB 325 in 2005 first establishing the statute, lawmakers were presented with language that would have allowed an association to limit political signs to a period beginning 15 days before voting and ending seven days after the election. That timing restriction did not make it into the law ultimately enacted. Then, in 2009, during consideration of SB 182, lawmakers were again presented with proposed timing language—this time expressly providing that an association could adopt reasonable timing rules but could not reduce the display period below 30 days before and seven days after an election. That language was not enacted either.
Lawmakers confronted the timing issue more than once. First, they considered a specific display period but enacted the initial political-sign protection without it. Then in a second bite, they were presented with another proposal that would have expressly authorized reasonable timing rules while guaranteeing owners a minimum display period. They again declined to enact one.
This was not an issue lawmakers simply failed to notice. They considered it and left the boundary unresolved.
Nevada Courts Have Not Answered the Question
I have not found a published Nevada appellate decision deciding whether NRS 116.325 allows an HOA to create its own 20-, 30- or 60-day political-sign window. There appears to be no Nevada Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decision we can point to and say: Here is the answer.
There are, however, Nevada cases that help frame the issue. In Moretto v. Elk Point Country Club HOA, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed an association’s authority to impose restrictions on individually owned property. The case did not involve political signs and should not be stretched into one. But the Court made clear that the inquiry into association authority begins with the governing source of that authority and that such authority is not unlimited.
NRS 116.325 goes a step further than merely regulating board conduct. It expressly says the governing documents themselves “must not prohibit” the protected display of political signs. That reaches behind the board and directly limits the private governing documents.
But it does not tell us where regulation ends and prohibition begins.
Another Court Has Faced Almost This Exact Question
Nevada courts may not have answered it, but a Washington appellate court confronted a remarkably similar dispute. In Landesberg v. Fairway Village Homeowners Association, homeowners displayed a political sign more than 60 days before an election. Their HOA declaration prohibited political signs more than 60 days before an election.
Washington law provided that HOA governing documents “may not prohibit” political yard signs before an election while allowing reasonable rules concerning their placement and manner of display. The HOA argued that its 60-day restriction was simply a reasonable regulation. The Washington Court of Appeals disagreed. It distinguished timing from placement and manner and concluded that the statute did not authorize the HOA’s 60-day prohibition.
The legislative history was also significant. Washington lawmakers had considered a specific 90-day period during development of the legislation but removed that limitation before enactment. The HOA argued that deleting the 90-day provision left associations free to impose their own reasonable timing restrictions. The court did not accept that interpretation.
The parallels to Nevada are difficult to ignore. Nevada lawmakers also considered express timing language and did not enact it. NRS 116.325 also tells executive boards they “shall not” prohibit the protected display and says the governing documents “must not prohibit” it. And Nevada’s statute expressly addresses several aspects of the right while saying nothing about a general pre-election display period.
Landesberg does not decide Nevada law. But it demonstrates why simply calling a timing restriction “reasonable” does not resolve whether the restriction crosses the line from regulation into prohibition.
The Bigger Problem
Earlier, I repeatedly emphasized the word expressly when referring to what lawmakers were doing. This is the part owners should understand: the issue here is larger than signs. In Nevada, the developer-written declaration is a primary source of broad HOA authority. Lawmakers put that structure in place when Nevada adopted the Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Act in 1991. Nevada law allows declarations to contain “any other matters the declarant considers appropriate,” while associations may exercise powers conferred by the declaration.
But lawmakers did not pair that broad authority with meaningful outer boundaries on what a developer may place into the declaration and thereby make part of the governing “law” of the association. That leaves owners and lawmakers playing a game of HOA Whack-a-Mole.
Why should a developer-written declaration be able to supply broad association authority first, with lawmakers left to return later and expressly prohibit particular uses of that authority? And should that continue to be the law?
That is no longer just a question about political signs. It is the larger reform problem discussed in two related posts:
HOA Whack-a-Mole: Why Nevada keeps restricting HOA powers one at a time instead of defining where those powers should end.
Nevada’s HOAs Need Limits: Why disclosure alone is not enough—and why meaningful outer boundaries on developer-written declarations matter.
This post discusses Nevada HOA law, legislative history and public regulatory guidance for educational and policy purposes. It is not legal advice.
