How Nevada HOA Policy Is Made—Or Not
Updated: Sep 8
NVHOAReform readers often ask some version of the same question:
With all the institutions involved in regulating Nevada HOAs, why is it so difficult to get an identified problem considered—and resolved?
It is a fair question. Nevada has a Real Estate Division. It has a Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels. It has an Ombudsman. And now it has a Common-Interest Community Task Force specifically charged with identifying HOA problems and considering legislative or regulatory solutions.
There is no shortage of institutions. Yet a homeowner can identify a problem, document it, petition for a regulatory solution, be told that only the Legislature can fix it—and still find no apparent mechanism for carrying that problem forward.
That raises a larger question:
How is Nevada HOA policy actually made?
A recent NVHOAReform rulemaking petition provides a useful example.
NVHOAReform recently asked the Nevada Real Estate Division to address a practical gap in Nevada's HOA records law. Owners have a statutory right to inspect association records. They also have a right to speak at board meetings before the board takes action. But those rights do not necessarily work together.
A board may place on its agenda the approval of a contract, expenditure, reserve decision or other important matter. An owner may request records, even those in draft, needed to understand it once it is placed on the agenda. Yet the statutory production deadline may allow the association to provide those records only after the board has voted.
The owner eventually gets the records. The owner technically had an opportunity to speak. But the information needed to make that participation meaningful arrived too late.
NVHOAReform petitioned for a regulation addressing that gap. NRED denied the petition. We asked it to reconsider. The Division has now responded again:
“The legislature deliberately set specific deadlines in NRS 116.31175 rather than delegating deadline-setting to the Commission. According, even the narrowed proposals would require legislative action and exceed the agency's regulatory authority."
Perhaps NRED is right. But that answer raises another problem.
NRED Has Spoken. Where Is the Commission?
NRED administers Chapter 116. But NRED and the Commission are not the same institution. NRS 116.615 gives the Commission an important regulatory role. Yet the Commission has never publicly considered this petition. It has not debated whether the proposal actually conflicts with NRS 116.31175. It has not considered whether a narrower regulation might be permissible. It has not heard public testimony. It has not voted.
Instead, the Division has concluded that the Commission lacks authority to act. There is an important difference between:
“The Division recommends that the Commission reject this proposal because it exceeds statutory authority.” and “The Commission cannot act.” The first preserves the Commission's role. The second decides the question before the Commission ever sees it.
The Commission Was Supposed to Know How the System Is Working
The Commission was not created merely to hear disciplinary cases. NRS 116.665 requires it to collect information about how Chapter 116 and its regulations affect common-interest communities, including violations, dispute resolution, foreclosures, reserves and other issues of concern to homeowners, associations, managers and developers. In other words, the Commission is supposed to know how Nevada's HOA system is working.
That raises an obvious question: When the system is not working, what happens to what the Commission and Division learn?
Assume NRED is completely correct about our records petition. Assume the Commission cannot solve the problem through regulation and only the Legislature can act. Then what?
Does the issue simply end with a denial letter to the homeowner who identified it?
NRS 116.665 already requires the Commission to collect information about how Chapter 116 is operating—including its effects on common-interest communities, violations, dispute resolution, reserves and other issues of concern. But the statute does not require the Commission to report significant statutory problems identified through that process to lawmakers.
Nevada has therefore created an information-gathering system without clearly completing the feedback loop.
What Does the CIC Task Force Tell Us?
The Legislature has already recognized the value of connecting identified HOA problems to possible legislative or regulatory solutions. The CIC Task Force is expressly authorized to study issues affecting common-interest communities and, when appropriate, recommend legislation or regulations. Director Sanchez reconstituted it in 2025 part to identify policy objectives for the 2027 Legislature.
That is useful. But the Task Force is episodic. It meets when convened by the Director and is not a substitute for a permanent institutional feedback mechanism.
NRS 116.665 already gives the Commission the continuing responsibility to collect Information about how Chapter 116 is working. What it lacks is a corresponding responsibility to carry significant statutory issues forward.
The Legislature Can Close the Loop
A functioning regulatory system should have a reasonably clear path. The solution does not require turning the Commission into a lobbying organization or requiring it to propose legislation on every complaint. A much narrower reform would be enough.
NRS 116.665 could require the Commission to provide lawmakers with an annual report identifying significant statutory issues arising under Chapter 116 during the preceding year, together with the Commission's recommendation or disposition of each issue.
The report could include issues raised by homeowners, associations, managers, NRED, the Ombudsman or others. Importantly, reporting an issue would not mean the Commission endorses a proposed change. The Commission could recommend legislation, recommend no change, explain that regulation is sufficient, or report that it reached no consensus.
The point is not to guarantee a particular answer. It is to guarantee that significant problems identified by Nevada's own regulatory system do not simply disappear.
The Commission Does Not Have to Agree With Us
NVHOAReform has raised questions involving competitive bidding, reserve budgeting, owner participation, regulatory confidentiality, dispute resolution, declarant control, elections and other provisions of Nevada HOA law. Some may require better enforcement. Some may require regulation. Others may require legislation.
None of this means the Commission must accept every proposal. It may conclude that an issue does not warrant action, that regulation is sufficient, that legislation is needed, or that no consensus exists.
But significant statutory issues should not disappear simply because the Division disagrees with the proposed solution. The institutional responsibility should be to consider the issue publicly, reach whatever conclusion it believes appropriate, and preserve that conclusion for lawmakers.
The objective is not to guarantee reform. It is to make sure Nevada's regulatory experience informs the Legislature. The important point is that there should be a visible process for deciding which is which—and for carrying significant statutory issues forward when administrative action is not enough.
Policy Should Not Reach a Dead End
No Legislature can anticipate every problem that will emerge after a law is enacted. That is one reason regulatory agencies and commissions exist. They see how laws actually operate. They encounter unintended consequences. They see ambiguities repeatedly create disputes. They learn which protections work—and which exist mostly on paper.
That experience should flow back into regulation and, when necessary, legislation. Good regulation is not simply enforcing the law as written. It also requires recognizing when the law is not working and making sure the people who can fix it know why.
The CIC Task Force may help restore that feedback loop. If so, that is welcome. But its existence should also cause Nevada to examine the role of the Commission itself.
With a Division, Commission, Ombudsman and now a Task Force all involved in Nevada's HOA system, homeowners should not have to figure out on their own how to move an acknowledged policy problem from one institution to another. When NRED says a problem requires legislation, the next question should not be:
Who can the homeowner convince to introduce a bill?
It should be:
What does Nevada's HOA regulatory system do with what it has learned?
A modest amendment to NRS 116.665 could require the Commission to report annually to lawmakers the significant statutory issues identified through Nevada's HOA regulatory system, together with the Commission's recommendation or disposition.
The Commission would not decide what the Legislature must fix. It would make sure lawmakers know what Nevada's own regulatory system has learned.
Comments