Nevada Legislature 83rd session (2025)- HOA related legislation
Nevada Legislator's 83nd (2025) session (120 days) formally began February 3, 2025. As bills impacting HOAs are submitted and hearings on those bills are scheduled this page will be updated. Readers can click on the blue underlined text for more information. Clicking on a bill number will take you directly to bill's home page on NELIS- The Nevada Legislature official website.
This page is intended to help inform HOA owners. My personal support or opposition for each bill is noted. It is subject to change as bills are amended. Comments from the users of this page are requested. Please use the form on the HOME page.
Fifteen (15) HOA related bills were introduced in the 83rd session. Seven (7) continue to move forward.
To become law, bills must pass multiple stages; clear the first legislative committee by April 11th, first house by April 22nd, second house committee passage by May 16th, second house passage by May 23rd, and exempt bills from committee May 28th (find the full 2025 120-Day calendar here).
I find very troubling several bills introduced this session seek to allow for private regulatory enforcement of Nevada law. I see this as wrong leading to a "chilling effect" deterring protected speech or the proper actions of our elected directors due to fear of perceived illegality and/or personal negative consequences. Public enforcers - in this case NRED with the assistance of the CIC Commission, despite having a poor track record, are best vested with the authority to implement the law- not HOA boards, industry players, and/or their vested legal counsel.
Getting lawmakers to sponsor owner friendly bills is difficult. They struggle with the dilemma of how to appease homeowners constituents without alienating developers and the trade group who see HOAs as rain makers. Owner interests often clash with those of the trade groups. Nevada's largest HOA trade group lobby, CAI is opposing all but three HOA bills. Read Nevada Independent's article finds developers giving a record $1.8M to Nevada legislators. Read my op ed entitled HOA Nevada's Third Rail of Politics (click here).
Click here to find HOA bills that did not survive phase one.
Here you will find a few of what I see as gross injustices in current Nevada HOA law not addressed in the bills currently proposed. I have provided proposed statute changes for most. I am working to find legislative sponsorship.
Bad HOA legislation gets passed (or good bills die) because homeowners don't know about it or don't realize how important it is to CONTACT THEIR STATE LAWMAKERS. It takes as little a 5-10 emails on a subject to get a lawmaker's attention. Lobbyists are helping to fund our representative’s election or re-election campaigns. As long as they’re willing to pay (which will be as long it works) and the public is looking the other way, it is likely- and unfortunate- your representatives may pass or block legislation when "on the fence" in favorable of their financial supporters. For too long community management companies and community developers have taken ruthless advantage of owner apathy, lack of an organized pro-owner lobby, and/or the ambiguities in the language of NRS 116. Using highly paid attorneys, the industry has suppressed resident voting, denied resident's right of representation, and interpreted sections of NRS 116 so as to severely limit accountability and homeowner rights. Find here more on this topic.
It is IMPORTANT owners share their views of each bill with legislators. Click here to find how easy this can be accomplished. You can also watch a good 5 min video by the ACLU on how to use NELIS (Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System) by clicking here.
last update 04/5/25
NV HOA OWNER CALL TO ACTION
Nothing at this time. Please standby.
last update 4/18/25
AB10
Title/Summary-Authorizes local authorities to improve/repair water or sewer systems that are owned by an HOA. Support
The bill seeks to amend NRS 271.147 "neighborhood improvement project" to include water or sewer system owned by a common-interest community (CIC). It provides a method for municipalities to step in when HOAs face issues. I would like to see the bill add clarity making it applicable only for HOAs post-declarant control. I also question why exemptions/special treatment for CIC water and sewer projects is being proposed as set out in Section 3, 4, 5, & 6. I have talked to the bill's lead about my concerns. He was receptive but I've received no response.
First hearing held Tues. 2/18/25 @ 8:00, Assembly Comm on Government Affairs. Click here to view.
Working session was held 4/8/25 @ 9:00 am. Click here. It passed unanimously.
Passed the Assembly to Senate 4/15/25
AB 185
Title/Summary- Related to childcare. Oppose
The bill precludes an HOA from prohibiting the operation of a licensed child care facility. Over 50 restricted HOAs are exempt. Notably, the bill singles out owners of residential units in HOAs (both single family residential and condo) while not doing the same for owners apartment buildings. The bill follows a nationwide trend of states passing laws to require HOAs allow licensed childcare facilities in their communities, as "a matter of public interest". There is value in increased access to child care. But does the discriminatory application and the costs/cons of AB 185 justify the value added?
Many people desire and purchase in HOAs on expectations they prohibit the operation of a business from one's home to maintain the residential character of the community, prevent potential conflicts with other residents, reduce the burdens placed on common area services, and more. There is an increased liability exposure to the HOA associated to AB 185 further increasing costs passed on to owners.
There is also the issues, few are talking about. First, does AB 185 and similar HOA related bills disrupt pre-existing HOA's agreements. It clear does. Secondly, does it overstep the authority lawmakers should exert over an HOA and its owners? Importantly, is the law a reasonable and appropriate means of furthering a "significant and legitimate public interest." (i.e. does the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party’s reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his right- (see Sveen v Merlin, 584 U.S. 2018)).
HOAs are founded on a governmental promise unit owners will able to control and regulate unit's owners- within limits. I see regulating businesses in HOAs within those limits. HOA's are communities governed by a contract (CC&Rs that effectively serve as the community's constitution). Democratic principles apply (a community’s power of the vote) ut ignored in AB 185. The bill is one of five bills (AB 185, AB 152, AB 322, AB 396 & SB 201) where Legislators seek to inject themselves into private contracts mandating provisions. Is the public interests alleged protected sufficient justification for the impairment of these contracts? I do not think so and OPPOSE.
This bill addresses a symptom of HOAs- not the underlying problem created when declarations can be attached to homes by developers, intruding into personal lives, with effectively little regulatory oversight. Then lawmakers invoke "public interest" to legitimize trendy special interests intervention. Read more here. Find here a Nevada Current story on the bill.
The bill was passed out of Asm Govt Affairs with an amendment removing overrides of local jurisdiction to oversee zoning. Yet, it retained overrides to HOAs doing the same.
Assembly Government Affairs hearing held March 10, with no action.
Working session Ass Govt Affairs conducted March 31st. It passed out.
Passed In Senate 4/18/25
AB 396
Title/Summary- Rental units Support (with reservations as noted)
Directs large municipalities to create an ordinance authorizing owners to add an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) to residential property, add a second ADU, permit rental of ADUs, and established regulations.
For HOA unit owners, under current law (NRS 116.335) unless an HOAs declaration prohibits/restricts rental/easing of units, the HOA could not adopt a rule/restrictions prohibiting this ability. If an HOA's declaration authorizes prohibitions/restrictions/limits on owner renting or leasing a unit, section 9 of the bill allows amendments and/or adoption of restrictive rules and regulations to the extent (I read as only if, or limited to those) reasonably related to "meet lender or insurance underwriting requirements" and end the grandfather provision typically available to current units owners (see NRS 116.2117(6)). Transient lodging (read AirBnB type units) will be held to the above criteria. I recommend the following article on HOA rentals by HOPB (Homeowners Protection Bureau, LLC), a private organization.
The bill make owner friendly changes to termination of an HOA (NRS 116.2117), requires the HOA's provide proof of insurance in resale package, and increases the max administrative fine to $5,000.
As with several HOA bills this session, I find the interventional approach of lawmakers into the collective rights of HOA owners problematic. I believe a better approach to achieving the policy objectives of this bill exists. I have reached out to the bill sponsors Asm Backus. She committed to reach out but has not to this point.
I also asked Asm Backus allow a friendly amended making a minor word change to NRS 116.2117(2). Specifically, "No action to challenge the validity of [an amendment] the adopt[ed]ion of an amendment by the association pursuant to this section may be brought more than 1 year after the amendment is recorded." The proposed change clarifies the legislative intent of the repose barring a challenge to an amendment. As I believe intended the repose applied to a challenge of the adoption of an amendments by owners. As interpreted by the courts it is applicable to any amendment- which includes unilateral declarant amendments where an adoption is not needed or performed. The latter is problematic.
It was heard in the Committee on Commerce and Labor March 26th.
Working session was held April 9 @ 11:30. The passed as amended.
AB 478
Title/Summary- Related to construction. Support
This is presented as a construction worker protection effort seeking balance between safety, noise, and efficiency. Existing law provides if Clark County restricts the hours in which construction work may begin, a declarant controlled common-interest community (defined in NRS 244.3679 CICs in which the original developer controls a majority of the units) must not restrict the hours that construction work. Work must be greater than 300' from residential property. The issue was subject legislation in 2021 (SB 249) and amended in 2023.
During an Assembly Government Affairs hearing held March 19th, it was discussed as BDR
Hearing held 4/8/25. Bill was amended (with a complete rewrite). No action was taken.
A working session was scheduled 4/10/25. It was removed.
SB 121
Title/Summary- Related to an HOA dictating landscaping, collection, damages, and notice of management agreements. Oppose
This bill was prefilled. It revises NRS 116.310313 to prohibit imposing late fees on past-due obligations until 30 days after the due date. It also updates NRS 116.350 to prevent HOAs from prohibiting commercial vehicles under 10,000 pounds from parking in designated visitor or common-area parking spaces. Amends NRS 116A.620 to require HOAs in communities with 100 or more units post notices of pending management company termination at least 45 days in advance in a prominent location. Amends NRS 116.3115 to ensure homeowners are not fined or held responsible for oil stains not located on their driveways. I see all of the above good.
However, this bill goes too far. As with several HOA bills this session, I find the interventional approach of lawmakers into the collective rights of HOA owners problematic. I rarely find myself agreeing with CAI who strongly opposed this bill. But, I do in this rare case. I oppose all sections except 1) section 2 (reporting past due obligations to reporting agency) which I support, albeit already prohibited and 2) requiring notice of proposed management company changes.
I have reached out to the sponsor and received no response- as it appears similar to others in opposition.
A hearing is scheduled for April 9th @ 1:00 pm.
Working session was schedule for April 10 @ 12:30 pm. However, in a "questionable" rule move by the Chair, the working session was held immediately after the bill's hearing. It was passed on with only one vote in opposition- Asm Hansen.
SB 152
Title/Summary- Enacts provisions related to electric car charging. Support
I believe the bill oversteps the authority the Legislature should exert over an HOA and its owners. I personally concur with the idea a unit owner should be allowed to install a charging unit. HOA's are communities governed by a contract (CC&Rs that effectively serve as the community's constitution) and democratic principles (power of the vote). This bill ignores these concepts. Will this bill set a precedent for the Legislature's next special interest bill mandating for example, HOA's contract, maintain, and assume liability for amusement parks, green spaces/parks, recycle facilities, or solar yards?
Notwithstanding the above, if legislators decide allowing electrical charging stations without a vote of owners is worthy of special treatment, the project must not result in any cost to unit's owners and the association should comply with NRS 116.435(3)- approval of all owner within 500' of the project(s). An amendment was submitted during the March 31st working session addressing my concerns above. While not idea I find it a reasonable compromise.
Sen Judiciary hearing held with no action Mar 5, 2025, 1:00pm
Sen Judiciary workshop scheduled Mar 20, 2025 It was not heard. A rescheduled workshop was held March 31st. It was unanimously passed as amended.
SB 201
Title/Summary- Prohibition on imposing restrictions to the display of religious items. Oppose
The Fair House Act already guides HOAs on this subject. The bill mandates an HOA provide for religious items on the doorway.
My primary opposition rests in section 4- permitting prevailing party language and the private enforcement of the law. I see no reason, should the provisions of the bill pass, enforcement of this "rule" should be treated differently from other violations. A "violation" of NRS 116 should first be raised with the regulator, NRED (see NRS 116.750). There is a low cost and expedient system in place to address alleged violations of NRS 116 that should not be exempted. NRS 116.4117 already addresses rights of action if actual damages are involved. The attorney fees and costs can be weaponized and should be avoided at all cost when involving HOAs. Click here to read my letter to the committee. The special treatment afforded in section 4 of this bill was ignored by the committee in the workshop session.
Sen Judiciary hearing held with no action Mar 6, 2025, 1:00pm
Sen Judiciary workshop was held Mar 20, 2025 1:00pm. The bill as amended passed with Sen Hansen casting sole no vote.
The following are (or were) of interest to HOA owners but do not specifically affect HOAs at this time.
SB 78
Title/Summary- Revise provisions relating to boards (BDR 18-301)
The bill was amended (narrowing its focus to only Title 54 licensees) at its first hearing. The provision that would have eliminated the Common Interest Community (CIC) Task Force was removed. It no longer has an impact on HOAs.
SB 78 sought to eliminate the Task Force. The Coalition advocated to have the provision removed.
A February 11, 2025 letter by Dr Sanchez commits to "reconstituting the CIC Task Force." There appeared a disconnect. The CIC Task Force was saved. My focus will shift to efforts getting the Task Force out of hibernation- where it has been since 2020.
State lawmakers are continually besieged with lobbying efforts to adopt narrowly focused special interests statutes intended to "fix" HOA "problems". The fifteen (15) separate HOA bills this session is not a unique occurance. The CIC Task Force, established by lawmakers in 2019, I see a plea by lawmakers for a better approach and address Nevada's need for a truly independent owner advocate. Despite the deceptive name, the NRED Ombudsman’s office does not advocate for HOA reform nor advance the voice of HOA owners. Dr Sanchez, Director Nevada Department of Business and Industry, has never participated in the Task Force- despite being the task force Chairperson. Two meetings were held in 2020 then the Task Force went dormant prior to Dr Sanchez's arrival (read more here). Without offering an alternative, Dr Sanchez now endorses killing the CIC Task Force. He does so knowing owners will be left with no advocate while NRED, Nevada's sole HOA regulator, is captured by the very industry players it is tasked to regulate.
Today (4/7/25) the bill was first scheduled and heard. The time of the hearing was TBD until approx 4pm. This is crazy. "Politics" at its finest. The bill was heard. No action was taken.
Passed out of a working session 4/11/24.
SB 391
Title/Summary- Limits total aggregate number of units of residential real property that can be purchased
This is not currently an HOA bill- but it could/should be. Nevada law does not limit the number of units an entity can purchase in an HOA. Corporate owners would have the effectively unlimited resources to hire lobbyist and influence legislators. Limits should be in place to prevent situations where a single entity could potentially exert undue influence over the HOA's decision-making or operations, potentially harming other residents. Limits could also prevent a developer from retaining ownership a large number of units long after the initial construction phase for control purposes. Read more in a Nevada Current article.
I have reached out to the sponsor.
Th bill mirrored SB 395(2023) except lower the limit of purchases from 1,000 to 100 units/yr. SB 395 was vetoed by Gov. Lambarod. The full extent of corporate ownership of single-family homes in Nevada is unknown. UNLV estimates 15%. The bill also ignores multi-family HOA units purchased by corporate entities. One reason- companies use multiple LLCs with nondescript names. A registry component of SB391 would provide more transparency on this element according to the bill's sponsor.
A hearing is scheduled for April 9th 1:00 pm
Working session was scheduled for April 10th @ 1:00 pm but Chair moved to conduct the session immediately following. The bill passed on conceptual amendment and motion.