AB 130: Housing



What Does Current Law Say? Current law requires that association fine schedules be “reasonable” such that they act as a deterrent against rule violations but are not punitive. This can vary from community to community, and depending on the type of violation, but as long as the fines are reasonable and properly adopted, they’ve been enforceable.

What Changed? Now, associations are prohibited from imposing a monetary penalty that exceeds $100.00 unless the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the community. Among other major changes, AB 130 also provides that owners must be given the opportunity to cure the violation prior to the hearing, and if the violation is cured, or the owner gives a “financial commitment” to cure, the Board cannot impose discipline.

What Should Associations Do? Associations should update their existing enforcement and fine policies to include clear language regarding “health or safety” violations, such that the board can continue to impose reasonable fine levels over $100.00, and ensure the enforceability of the community’s rules and regulations.

SB 410: Balcony Inspection Records

What Does Current Law Say? Current law requires associations to inspect common area balconies once every nine (9) years and generate an inspection report with the contractor’s findings and any repair recommendations.

What Changed? SB 410 requires that this report be provided by sellers to prospective buyers of their unit and that it’s included in the definition of “association records” which any current owner can request to inspect, for two (2) inspection cycles.

What Should Associations Do? Associations should be prepared to provide owners with copies of inspection reports related to their balcony inspections. While these were not previously considered “association records,” they are now. Organized recordkeeping is one of many keys to instilling trust and transparency and long-term success for the community.

AB 462: ADU Construction in Disaster and Coastal Zones

What Does Current Law Say? Many laws have been passed over the last several years to increase the housing supply and encourage construction of ADUs (accessory dwelling units or “granny flats”), including removing “red tape,” expediting local agencies’ review processes, and prohibiting HOAs from unreasonably restricting or denying ADU applications.

What Changed? AB 462 further expands on the State’s ADU initiatives by requiring a local agency to issue a certificate of occupancy for any ADU built in a disaster zone, as long as the primary residence was substantially damaged by the disaster event and permitting/inspection requirements have been met. AB 462 also requires the Coastal Commission to respond to ADU applications within sixty (60) days.

What Should Associations Do? While the laws are evolving towards minimizing barriers to construction, boards should continue to monitor the impact that these ADU projects have on the density and character of the community. To the extent possible, boards should work with legal counsel to adopt reasonable and enforceable ADU restrictions and construction policies that don’t conflict with the law, while preserving the safety and value of the community.

SB 547: Commercial Property Insurance Cancellation & Nonrenewal



What Does Current Law Say? Existing law imposes a one-year moratorium on insurers canceling or non-renewing residential property insurance policies following a state of emergency declaration, with limited exceptions. This applies to residential HOAs but has excluded commercial policies.

What Changed? SB 547 broadens the moratorium to commercial property insurance, prohibiting cancellations or non-renewals for one (1) year post-emergency, while retaining the same exceptions.

What Should Associations Do? SB 547 aims to stabilize coverage for commercial assets, including HOA-owned structures like condo buildings and facilities. Boards should audit commercial property policies, working with their brokers and legal counsel, and confirm whether moratoriums like these apply, to secure renewals and avoid losing coverage.

SB 625: Post-Disaster Reconstruction of Damaged Structures

What Does Current Law Say? Current law requires associations to provide fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedures for reviewing and approving proposed architectural modifications.

What Changed? SB 625 voids any CC&Rs or rules that would prohibit an owner from rebuilding their home with a substantially similar reconstruction after a natural disaster. Now, boards must follow new procedures when reviewing an owner’s rebuild application on the heels of a disaster or declared state of emergency, including completing the review and providing a preliminary response within thirty (30) days, and either approving or denying a complete application within forty-five (45) days.

What Should Associations Do? Disaster-affected associations, especially those affected by the tragic Palisades and Eaton fires, should be prepared to implement these expedited review and approval requirements for any reconstruction projects. The new Civil Code provisions also specify how boards and architectural committees must respond to incomplete applications, including a 60-day appeal response. SB 625 reinforces the importance of boards and/or architectural committees working with legal counsel to shore up and revise existing architectural guidelines, committee charters, and review procedures.

AB 752: Child Daycare Facilities



What Does Current Law Say? Current law requires associations to allow daycare facilities to be operated from a single family home, as long as they are licensed and meet certain Health and Safety and Building Code requirements.

What Changed? AB 752 expands the law to allow daycare centers to be operated in multifamily buildings, i.e., condominium projects with five (5) or more units. 

What Should Associations Do?  Condominium boards should strengthen the governing documents around noise, parking, and common area usage. AB 752 makes nuisance enforcement potentially more litigation-prone in communities where in-unit daycares increase congestion, noise, and foot traffic. Be proactive—communicate with homeowners, update the rules, and engage legal counsel early when navigating sensitive enforcement issues!

SB 770: Insuring EV Charging Stations (“EVCS”)

What Does Current Law Say? Current law requires owners who install EVCSs in their exclusive use parking space to obtain insurance coverage which also names the association as an additional insured under the policy.

What Changed? SB 770 removes the requirement that owners name the association as an additional insured. Now, owners are only required to hold liability coverage for the EVCS, but the board can no longer require the association to be covered under the owner’s policy.

What Should Associations Do? Associations should update their existing EVCS policies to remove any “additional insured” requirements. The board can continue to enforce “reasonable restrictions” regarding the use and installation of EVCSs, including verifying the owner’s liability coverage on an annual basis. Boards should also work with the association’s insurance broker to assess how EVCS installations may impact coverage, in light of SB 770.

AB 1154: Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”) & Owner Occupancy

What Does Current Law Say? Currently, the law requires the owner of the primary residence to reside in the home before local authorities will permit a JADU (i.e., a garage conversion) for occupancy.

What Changed? Now, the owner-occupancy requirement only applies if the JADU shares sanitation facilities with the existing structure. AB 1154 also imposes a 30-day minimum lease term for JADU rentals.

What Should Associations Do? Associations should update ADU policies to make sure junior ADUs are covered, and appropriate rental and owner-occupancy restrictions are in place, aligning with local and state law. As the state continues to expand ADU laws to increase the housing supply, boards should continue to review and update rental restrictions and strategize with legal counsel on best practices to protect the value and safety of the properties.

SB 546: Accounting

What Does Current Law Say? Boards must review association finances on a monthly basis. Current law also allows a subcommittee of the board, consisting of the treasurer and at least one other board member, to review the financials, as long as the review is ratified at the following open meeting.

What May Change? SB 546 would disallow a subcommittee to perform this financial review and require boards to complete it at each monthly board meeting. 

What Should Associations Do? Boards and managers should continue to stay up to date with financial review requirements to ensure compliance. Communities who struggle to get volunteers for the board should always be thinking ahead and working to ramp up participation. It takes a team effort when laws like SB 546—which make legal compliance more difficult—are passed.

AB 739: Managing Agents: Real Estate Broker License

What Does Current Law Say? Current law does not require that community managers hold a real estate broker license.

What May Change? AB 739 would require managers to hold a state-issued real estate broker license.

What Should Associations Do? A change in licensing requirements in the future could significantly impact associations through increased costs due to hiring and retention, as well as recruitment of qualified, “licensed” community managers. Community managers should also continue to monitor this bill to ensure any new licensing requirements aren’t overlooked. Whether AB 739 is ever signed into law, remember that having a license or degree doesn’t necessarily equate to successful community management. Regular education and upkeep with industry developments (such as reading this Legal Update) are keys to success!

Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Breaking Ground, LP - PUBLISHED

Facts: After owners defaulted on their assessments, the Association recorded a lien against their property and ultimately conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure. During the initial bidding period Bird Rock Home Mortgage (“Bird Rock”) had the highest bid. The Association kept bidding open pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924m, which resulted in a higher bid from Breaking Ground, LP (“Breaking Ground”) and the Association providing Breaking Ground with the deed. Bird Rock sued Breaking Ground and the Association’s collections firm, arguing that the extended bidding period was improper because Civil Code Section 2924m only applies to mortgages and not HOA assessment liens.

Court Decision: The Court determined that the extending bidding period does apply to trustees’ sales to enforce liens for unpaid HOA assessments because the lien on the property qualifies as a “mortgage” for all intents and purposes, under the statute.

Takeaway: Associations should rely on legal counsel when navigating collections and foreclosures and ensure that all statutory requirements are complied with, ensuring the best possible chance at recovery.

11640 Woodbridge HOA v. Farmers Ins. Exchange – PUBLISHED

Facts: In 2021 the 11640 Woodbridge HOA (“Association”) hired a contractor replace the Association’s roof. During the reroofing project, two rainstorms caused extensive damage to the building and the condominium units. The Association then filed an insurance claim with Farmers under its “all-risks” policy, to cover the water damage. Farmers denied coverage, attributing the damage to the roofer’s faulty workmanship and water damage, which they claimed were not covered losses under the policy.

Court Decision: The Court held that the policy was an “all-risks” policy covering all physical damage and even if the roofer’s work caused or contributed to it, this wasn’t specifically excluded under the policy. The Court also stated that because Farmers couldn’t prove the roofer caused the water damage claim, they couldn’t deny coverage on that basis.

Takeaway: “All risks” policies place the burden on the insurer to prove that a policy exclusion applies. The Court’s decision supports HOAs during construction or remodeling periods, confirming that structures under active repair are still covered, unless the insurer can prove an exclusion was triggered. In today’s difficult insurance market, it is critical to work with legal counsel and the HOA’s insurance broker each year, but especially prior to initiating construction projects, to ensure adequate coverage is in place.

Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission - PUBLISHED 

Facts: In 2018 Casa Mira Homeowners Association (“Casa Mira”) applied to the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) for a coastal development permit to construct a 257-foot seawall that would protect several structures, including the Casa Mira condominium building, a sewer line, an adjacent apartment complex, and a coastal trail. The Commission determined that the apartment complex was entitled to the seawall protections, but it would not issue a permit for the Casa Mira building, because Casa Mira was built after the Coastal Act—which permits shoreline construction to protect “existing” structures—was officially enacted, Casa Mira challenged this decision.

Court Decision: The Court stated that, under the Coastal Act, “existing” structures are structures that existed prior to the Coastal Act’s effective date on January 1, 1977. With this holding, the Court determined that the apartment complex was entitled to shoreline fortifications vis-à-vis the seawall construction permit, but Casa Mira was not, due to it being constructed in 1984.

Takeaway: Associations that were constructed in a Coastal Zone after 1977 are required to seek a coastal development permit from the Commission for most new construction or modifications to existing structures; however, coastal development permits may also be required for other actions, such as short-term rental enforcement, vegetation and landscaping changes, and more. It is critically important to consult with legal counsel to determine if your community is located in a Coastal Zone and how that impacts the association’s legal compliance and operations.

Woolard v. Regent Real Estates Services, Inc. - PUBLISHED

Facts: Two tenants (Smith and Thorne) filed suit against two other tenants (Woolard and Hall) and the Association’s management company (Regent) after a physical altercation where they claim Woolard and Hall punched, kicked, and ultimately stabbed Smith. Woolard and Hall then counter-sued, naming the Association and management for negligence. They claimed that the Association and management shared responsibility in the incident by ignoring prior complaints of Smith’s and Thorne’s alleged harassment and “outrageous behaviors,” which forced them to act to defend themselves. 

Court Decision: The Court determined that neither the Association nor its management company had a duty to involve itself in disputes absent an enforceable violation of the governing documents. Specifically, “Associations do not have police powers” and their volunteer boards “already have enough authority and responsibility.”

Takeaway: Navigating neighbor-to-neighbor issues can be tricky, particularly when emotionally charged neighbors are demanding the association takes action. This case highlights the importance of investigating complaints and working with legal counsel to determine whether a violation of the governing documents exists—or not. Deciding that a dispute is “neighbor-to-neighbor” requires an investigation of the facts and due diligence if the board wants to avoid being named in a breach of fiduciary duty or negligence lawsuit.

Majestic Asset Management LLC v. The Colony at California Oaks Homeowners Association - PUBLISHED

Facts: The Colony at California Oaks is a gated community located on a golf course, which is owned by Majestic, who acquired the golf course subject to a performance deed of trust (“PDOT”). This PDOT acted as a contract between the golf course owner and the homeowners association, by requiring Majestic to maintain the golf course, and giving The Colony the right to foreclose on the golf course if they breached. When Majestic failed to meet those maintenance requirements by allowing overgrown and unkempt vegetation to fester, The Colony sued.

Court Decision: The Court reinforced that PDOTs are valid mechanisms for HOAs to enforce maintenance duties on third-party-owned amenities (think golf courses, lakes, equestrian centers, marinas, etc.). Here, the Court also affirmed that the foreclosure remedy was appropriate and enforceable, per the terms of the PDOT—although the HOA’s recovery of attorneys fees and other costs was limited, due to the imprecise language of the agreement.

Takeaway: This decision is a win for associations managing amenity-dependent communities, validating PDOTs—and potentially other mutual use agreements or similar covenants—as a "stick" to enforce maintenance on non-HOA-owned properties and deterring owner neglect. However, it highlights drafting pitfalls and the importance of ensuring that all documents which impose reciprocal benefits and restrictions between parties—CC&Rs, easements, maintenance agreements, and the like—clearly delineate those obligations, including fee recovery and dispute resolution procedures.

Lipton v. Fairbanks Ranch Association - UNPUBLISHED

Facts: A homeowner removed the 20 foot-tall bamboo hedge screening their tennis court and lights from their neighbor’s view as part of a larger retaining wall repair project. Once the retaining wall repair was completed, the owners did not replace the bamboo hedge. While the Association did require the owners to install a green tennis court screen and fence and replace the bamboo hedge with a less invasive plant species, the owner only installed the fence. The neighboring owner complained that the tennis court and lights disturbed their sleep and that the Board breached its duty for not requiring complete replanting of the 20 foot-tall bamboo hedges.

Court Decision: The Court determined that association boards are entitled to use their discretion when adopting and enforcing the rules, as long as they do so in good faith, and in a non-arbitrary manner. However, board decisions are not protected if they fail to enforce the rules altogether. Here, the architectural guidelines explicitly required “natural screening” of tennis courts from adjacent homes and replacement of improvements within a “reasonable time” after they’ve been removed. The Court sided with the homeowners and required the Association to compel their neighbor to replace the bamboo hedges.

Takeaway: While this is an unpublished case, it serves as a stark reminder that rule enforcement is central to a board’s fiduciary duties. Failing to do so can result in costly litigation. Boards should be diligent when enforcing the governing documents and investigate every homeowner complaint. Not every complaint requires association intervention, but even a decision not to take action should only be made in good faith and after careful due diligence.