Ambiguity
Would you buy a car or sign a mortgage without ever seeing the other party face to face? Most would say no. And yet, many HOA boards today are governing entire communities behind screens—conducting all association business virtually, even when directors gather together in the same room.
During the COVID-19 emergency, Nevada’s Executive Branch issued Emergency Directive 006 to temporarily suspend physical meeting requirements for public bodies. Though HOAs were never formally included in the directive, and are not deemed public bodies, many HOA adopted-arguably appropriate at the time- similar virtual-only practices. But the directive expired in May 2021, and yet virtual-only HOA board meetings persist—with unclear legal basis and often without homeowner input.
This growing trend is more than a procedural shortcut. It reflects an erosion of homeowner rights, undermines board accountability, and creates an access barrier for residents—especially those who are less tech-savvy, lack broadband, or want to observe governance in person. But more critically, restricting physical access to meetings chills dissent and isolates concerned homeowners. When owners are unable to gather together in the same room, they lose opportunities to compare notes, spot inconsistencies, or publicly support one another. Opposition becomes fragmented and silent—and boards are left to operate in a vacuum, insulated from scrutiny and emboldened by the absence of visible resistance. This isn’t modernization—it’s a quiet centralization of power, cloaked in the language of convenience.
A Good Tool -With Opportunity and Risk
What began as a health necessity has become, for some boards, a permanent feature. With no explicit requirement that directors meet in person or allow physical attendance by homeowners, virtual-only meetings now persist—even after the return of normal public life. What’s often overlooked is that the advent of accessible virtual tools presents both opportunity and risk. On the one hand, remote participation can broaden access for owners unable to attend in person. On the other, when misused, these tools can be weaponized to exclude dissent, avoid scrutiny, and consolidate power. This is precisely why most public bodies in Nevada—while embracing virtual participation—continue to provide in-person access as a baseline. They recognize that physical presence fosters accountability, community, and trust in ways digital-only forums cannot. Without similar safeguards, HOA governance risks becoming less open, less fair, and less democratic.
What the Law Says-or Doesn't
Nevada courts have found HOAs are quasi-governmental entities. Public bodies are required to make meetings accessible, and physical options are often retained to prevent digital disenfranchisement and promote public accountability. To be clear, HOAs are not deemed to have the same status as "public bodies"- albeit arguably they should. (Read more on this topic at NVHOAReform blog HOAs as quasi-goernmental?)
HOAs in Nevada are subject to NRS Chapter 116, which governs common-interest communities. Importantly, NRS 116.31083(5) requires that board meeting notices state the “time and place” of the meeting. Pre-pandemic interpretations—mirroring the more explicitly defined language in Nevada’s Open Meeting Law (OML- NRS Chapter 241)—understood "place" to mean a physical location accessible to members. Legislation in 2023 made changes to Nevada's OML laws. A short educational presentation by the Nevada Attorney's Generals Office on OML laws post-2023 can be found here.
Ambiguity Can Enable Abuses
When Directive 006 expired on May 31, 2021, the temporary suspension ended—but no formal clarification was issued to reset expectations. This left a legal vacuum for public bodies until the 2023 legislation. But the legal foundation for Nevada HOA virtual-only meetings remains shaky at best.
NRS 116 requires HOA board meeting notices to include the “time and place”—a term historically interpreted to mean a physical location accessible to members, consistent with Nevada’s pre-2023 OMLs. Nothing in Chapter 116 authorizes exclusive virtual meetings when directors themselves are meeting in person.
The statute was not amended to replace “place” with “access point” or “platform.”
No defintion of "meeting" which under OML = Quarum + "Deliberation" or "Action"
Deliberation is not defined in NRS 116- but means collectively to examine, weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against an action in OML.
Action is not defined in NRS 116- but means a majority vote of all the members (for elected bodies) in OML.
No formal NRED advisory opinion or legislative history has clarified whether “place” now includes a purely virtual environment.
So while NRS 82.271(3) allows directors to participate virtually and count as "present," does it eliminate the board’s separate obligation under NRS 116.31083(1) to provide owners with a specific “place” to attend—still presumed to be a physical location unless and until amended? For now the answer should be no (legally the safest). Best practice would provide both a physical location and a virtual link.
In the vacuum left by the expired emergency directive and lack of staute clarity, some HOA boards have reinterpreted “place” to exclude physical access—cutting off owners from face-to-face engagement and shielding directors from in-room scrutiny. This has created an uneven playing field, where boards interact in person and homeowners are relegated to Zoom rooms or excluded altogether.
Why In-Person Access Still Matters
HOAs are not just private clubs—they are quasi-governments. They levy assessments, enforce rules, manage infrastructure, and affect property rights. Nevada courts have affirmed their quasi-public function, and the legislature imposed a fiduciary duty under NRS 116.3103 for directors to act in the best interests of the association.
The right to observe, participate, and engage in person is fundamental to democratic governance. When directors meet in person, owners shuold be afforded that same access. Otherwise:
Trust breaks down: Owners feel excluded or deceived.
Oversight suffers: Directors are less accountable behind screens.
Procedural fairness erodes: Digital-only forums often limit participation, delay answers, and discourage dissent.
Community weakens: Informal interactions and shared presence foster a sense of civic engagement that virtual-only formats cannot replicate.
What Your Board or Industry Will Argue—and Why It Falls Short
Despite the statute’s plain structure, some boards, HOA attorneys, and management companies assert that virtual-only meetings are acceptable. Here's what they are likely to argue—and why those arguments fail.
1. “It’s More Efficient and Convenient”
Industry: Online meetings are easier for busy directors and vendors. No room rentals, no setup, no travel, less hassle.
But: Efficiency cannot override rights. HOAs are quasi-governmental bodies. Like school boards, county commissions, or city councils, they must remain accessible. Convenience is not a license to exclude.
2. “The Statute Doesn’t Say We Can’t”
Industry: Chapter 116 doesn’t explicitly prohibit virtual-only meetings. If owners object, they should amend the bylaws or elect new directors.
But: That’s an argument from silence. The law does define how meetings must be noticed and conducted. It requires a “place.” OML laws have been changed to accomdate virtual access but no legislative action was taken for HOAs. Virtual should be allowed- not in place of—physical attendance. The burden shouldn't fall on homeowners to restore rights that were never lawfully taken.
3. “Owners Can Still Participate Remotely”
Industry: Virtual access is good enough. It allows owners to watch, listen, and comment.
But: In practice, virtual formats often limit participation—muting owners, ignoring questions, or failing to confirm attendance. Many residents lack reliable tech, especially seniors. Democracy cannot thrive in one-way Zoom rooms.
4. “Hybrid Meetings Are Too Costly or Hard to Manage”
Industry: Smaller HOAs can’t afford or support hybrid setups. Virtual-only meetings are a practical necessity.
But: This ignores the requirement for physical access. Most associations already have community centers, clubhouses, or rooms for board meetings. Boards that meet in person should allow owners to do the same.
5. “No One Is Complaining”
Industry: If this were really a problem, owners would be protesting or suing.
But: Many owners don’t know their rights—or fear retaliation. Others give up after being told “this is just how it is now.” The lack of complaints reflects barriers to participation, not endorsement.
Petition for Regulatory Action
NVHOA Reform has submitted a formal petition under NRS 233B.100 urging the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) to issue regulatory clarification and pursue rulemaking to address this growing problem.
The petition asks that NRED:
Clarify that the “place” required by NRS 116.31083 means a physical location accessible to owners when directors meet in person. A seperate petition seeks a definition of "meeting".
Prohibit virtual-only meetings unless explicitly authorized by governing documents—and even then, only when directors are also remote.
Mandate hybrid access whenever feasible, ensuring inclusion for both digital and in-person attendees.
Define baseline standards for equitable virtual access, such as audio-only or dial-in options to accommodate all homeowners- much like OMLs.
This regulatory action would not impose unnecessary burdens—it would restore clarity, consistency, and public trust in HOA governance.
The Real Consequences of Inaction
Virtual-only HOA meetings may be efficient for board members and managers—but at what cost?
Transparency suffers when owners can’t see body language or side conversations.
Participation shrinks when homeowners are muted or ignored in digital queues.
Accountability erodes when decisions are made off-camera or without scrutiny.
Equity falters when less tech-savvy owners are effectively excluded.
These aren’t hypotheticals. Homeowners across Nevada are experiencing them now. The result is a system where some HOAs operate like closed-door governments—without checks, without access, and without consequences.
A Simple, Practical Solution: Hybrid Access
The solution isn’t to eliminate virtual tools—it’s to balance them with in-person access. Hybrid meetings offer the best of both worlds: digital convenience and real-world accountability. NRS 116 should be updated to reflect this modern reality, but NRED can act now by issuing guidance and initiating rulemaking under its existing authority.
What You Can Do
Support the Petition to the Real Estate Division by contacting NRED and the CICCH Commission.
Share your experience if your HOA has limited access or transparency.
Use Your Vote- refuse to vote for a director that supports virtual only meetings.
Advocate for hybrid-access standards in your own community.
Ask your board to adopt voluntary hybrid practices—even before the law changes.
Conclusion: HOA Governance Needs Sunlight, Not Screens
Nevada’s HOA laws were not written with Zoom in mind—but that doesn’t excuse secrecy or procedural shortcuts. As emergency orders fade into history, we must return to open meetings, fair processes, and equal access. Boards that govern in person must be visible to the people they serve.
Democracy doesn’t work behind a password. HOA owners deserve a seat in the room.
________________________
NVHOA Reform is a homeowner-led, nonpartisan initiative advocating for transparency, accountability, and fairness in Nevada's common-interest communities.
