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.
There were fifteen (15) HOA related bills in the 83rd session. My personal support or opposition for each bill is noted. It is subject to change as bills are amended. To become law, bills must pass multiple stages; clear the first legislative house by April 22th, 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).
Comments from the users of this page are requested. Please use the form on the HOME page.
I find very troubling several bills 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).
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
Two very impactfully bills need HOA owner involvement. The first is SB 433. This is the most dangerous bill to owners I have seen proposed in my many years advocating for Nevada HOA law reform. A hearing is scheduled for April 8th, 1:00pm. Scroll to the bottom of this page to read more- AND ACT. Owners must speak out and turn out in opposition. Find here for information on contacting Senate Judiciary Committee members. Plus, go here look in the upper right hand corner of the page and express your "Opinion" on the bill. It is very easy. Show up in person or speak virtually at the April 8th hearing.
To: Melanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us
The second is AB 129 (see below). The Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair has refused to schedule the bill for a hearing. Chair Miller is playing "politics" with HOA owner homes. I ask owners send an email objecting.
To: Brittney.Miller@asm.state.nv.us
Cc: AsmJUD@asm.state.nv.us
posted 4/3/25
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 HOA's face issues. I would like to see the bill add clarity making it applicable only for HOA's 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. I await answers.
First hearing held Tues. 2/18/25 @ 8:00, Assembly Comm on Government Affairs. Click here to view.
AB 129
Title/Summary- Revise bidding procedure for HOAs. (fromally BDR 10-818) Strongly Support
The bill seeks to end the unintended loophole used to avoid the clear intent of the statute requiring competitive bids for large projects and contracts. I am working closely with the bill's sponsor Assemblyperson Dickman. This bill is a start at restoring some balance to the severely unbalanced relationship between developer and manager dominated HOAs and the residents and homeowners.
When heard in committee, she has committed to an amendment (found here along with some background) that will address the unfortunate and acknowledged mistake of the current minimum bid provision. The amendment also adds provisions addressing "evergreen" provisions, prohibiting a declarant board from approving a contract with an entity affiliated with the declarant, and providing for greater owner transparency.
Find here CAI's positions on HOA bills. Not surprising CAI opposes AB 129 and most all owner friendly bills. In the case of AB 129 CAI makes untrue assertions as to what the bill proposes. All projects do not go to bid. Requiring bids for large contracts is a widely accepted as a good business practice. Nothing "imprudent" about requiring HOA boards exercise more quality control and good practices.
No hearing has yet to be scheduled. The bill sponsor has informed me the Chair of Asm Jud, Asm Miller, will not be giving the bill a hearing. Write to Chair Asm Miller and tell her to STOP playing politics with HOAs.
AB 185
Title/Summary- Related to childcare. Oppose
The bill prohibits HOAs from prohibiting the operation of a licensed child care facility. Over 50 restricted HOAs are exempt. I personally concur with the idea of an HOA permitting, assuming owners agree, a licensed child care in a unit (providing limits are in placed on the number of children and size of the facility- which BTW is absent in the bill at present).
However, I believe the bill oversteps the authority the Legislature should exert over an HOA and its owners. HOAs should be able to control and regulate unit's owners. This is one of five bills (AB 152, AB 322, AB 396 & SB 201) where Legislators have injected themselves into these private contracts mandating provisions. I request Legislators look to fix the problem permitting the micromanagement of owners everyday personal life and not inject their values issue by issue. Many people seek HOAs because they do not let any business operate in their neighborhoods. Read more here.
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). This bill ignores these concepts injecting state legislative mandates, absent the exercise of generally recognized "emergency powers", into private contracts (see Contract Clause of US Constitution). This bill seeks to relieve a symptom- not the underlying problem created when declarations can be attached to homes by developers, intruding into the personal lives, with effectively little regulatory oversight. 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 was heard March 31st. It passed out.
AB 322
Title/Summary- Provides HOA may not prohibit small child care establishments within a units. Oppose
The mandates an HOA permit a unit owner or tenant to operate a "small child care establishment". This is defines as an establishment that furnishes care to not more than four children under 18 years of age who are not related to the operator of the establishment for at least 6 hr/day and at least 4 days/week (NRS 432A.029). Nevada does not require a licence to operate if serving 4 or less children.
My comments for this bill are the same as for AB 185. The bill oversteps the authority the Legislature should exert over an HOA and its owners.
During an Assembly Judiciary hearing held February 27, it was discussed as BDR
AB 324
Title/Summary- Condo property insurance Oppose (until amended)
Eliminates some requirements to insure townhouses. Amendments can be made to address what I see is the objective. However, until so, I must oppose. I have yet to reach the sponsor for comment.
No hearing has yet been scheduled.
AB 396
Title/Summary- Rental units
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, 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 (NRS 116.2117(6)). Transient lodging (read AirBnB type units) will be held to the above criteria. The bill addresses 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 has committed to reach out to me but as yet to do so. I will remain neutral on this bill awaiting a discussion with the bills sponsor.
I recommend the following article on HOA rentals by HOPB (Homeowners Protection Bureau, LLC), a private organization
This will be heard in the Committee on Commerce and Labor. A hearing was held March 26th.
AB 478
Title/Summary- Related to construction. Neutral
Existing law provides that if, in a county whose population is 700,000 or more (currently only Clark County), ordinance restricting the hours in which construction work may begin, a declarant controlled common-interest community must not restrict the hours that construction work may begin in the declarant-controlled common-interest community during the period beginning on April 1 and ending on September 30 to hours other than those set forth in the ordinance. (NRS 116.347) Section 2 of this bill instead provides that these prohibitions apply to any common-interest community.
During an Assembly Government Affairs hearing held March 19th, it was discussed as BDR
SB 78
Title/Summary- Revise provisions relating to boards, commissions, councils and similar bodies. (BDR 18-301) Oppose
Of interest to HOA owners the bill seeks to eliminate the Common Interest Community (CIC) Task Force. A provision of SB 78 eliminates the Task Force. It would have to removed to get my support. A February 11, 2025 letter by Dr Sanchez commits to "reconstituting the CIC Task Force." There appears a disconnect. I await the first hearing or direct confirmation from the Director the Task Force will be removed from the bill.
Our state lawmakers are continually besieged with lobbying efforts to adopt narrowly focused special interests statutes intended to "fix" HOA "problems". The twelve (12) 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.
No hearing has yet been scheduled.
SB 121
Title/Summary- Related to an HOA dictating landscaping, collection, damages, and notice of management agreements. Support
Revises NRS 116.310313 to prohibit imposing late fees on past-due obligations until 30 days after the due date. 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.
A hearing is scheduled for April 9th.
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.
SB 221
Title/Summary- Complaints filed are public records Support (strongly with a few minor changes)
Changes make all complaints filed with NRED and information compiled from investigations public records- accessible to anyone interested. I do not concur with the red herring arguments from industry opposition government entities do so NRED stands to lose the cooperation and confidence of the public. Setting aside public confidence in NRED is already lost, this bill would expose the state's capture regulator to much need scrutiny. Sunshine laws exist for good reason. Half of Nevada's homes are under HOA control, giving these organizations significant power over citizens' property rights. Yet the current system keeps homeowners in the dark. Open records are fundamental to democracy. Government agencies routinely handle investigations while maintaining appropriate transparency. Truly sensitive personal information can be redacted while making the substance of complaints public.
The bill as introduced has some flaws that could be amended out and or fixed. I am in touch with the sponsor, Senator Buck seeking changes.
Opposition to SB221, making Intervention Affidavits and related information subject to public records requests, fundamentally misunderstands the proper relationship between state regulatory bodies and the citizenry they serve. The position requires thorough scrutiny and rejection. Making complaints public "risk[ing] confidentiality in investigations" and could "enable harassment" is reasoning precisely backward when viewed through the lens of proper democratic governance and established principles of open government. The system currently protects HOA boards from "harassment" by homeowners through draconian penalties, while simultaneously shielding those same boards from public scrutiny of their actions. The scales are already tipped dramatically against individual homeowners- as my experience demonstrates spend over half a million dollars on legal challenges with no meaningful regulatory relief. The current system results in complaints being dismissed as "unsubstantiated" without explanation, leaving homeowners in the dark. As have noted, "NRED should be able to at least explain what was lacking in the complaint." The absence of transparency shields not the integrity of investigations, but rather the absence of meaningful investigation.
Public records don't cause harassment – they create accountability. Democracy thrives in sunlight, not shadows. SB221 would restore balance to a system that currently favors industry insiders over the homeowners they're supposed to serve.
No hearing has yet to be scheduled.
SB 222
Title/Summary- Recording of meetings Strongly Support
Authorizes owners to record various meetings. I am working with the bill's sponsor Senator Buck. I anticipate an amendment will be introduced requiring owners be noticed and allowed to attend all meetings of the executive board (expect the very narrow exceptions currently identified).
Opposition argues owners should be grateful they have the right to even attend board meetings. They go on asserting recording meetings "has no legitimate legal purpose, further incentivizes such inappropriate activates as well as creating a hostile situation..." despite recording meeting is required under the law. WOW.
No hearing has yet to be scheduled.
SB 339
Title/Summary- Multiple provisions related to HOA. Oppose (as written)
If passed, Justice Court would be an option for owners. This has been used effectively in California for years. Ensuring elected directors know the law and their responsibilities is also a good idea.
I'd like to see changes in this section of NRS 116 precluding an HOA from suing its owners for violations of the law- often solely to chill. Homeowners must be protected from the weaponization of association attorney’s fees for attempting to enforce the law. The Division and the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to investigate and the Commission has jurisdiction to take appropriate action against any entity that commits violation of law (NRS 116).
Conducting undefined "reports on the background of candidates" to be an HOA director is a bad idea for many reasons.
Changing reserves study update to annually, now required at least every five (5) years, would increase costs while adding little value- unless the updated study if actually used. It is not the answer to boards failing to understand the study, failing to act on the valuable information it holds, and/or using reserves and an unbudgeted "piggy bank".
This bill was release 3/12/25. I am talking to the sponsor hoping changes can be made when it is heard in committee so support for passage can be provided.
No hearing has yet to be scheduled. Based on information it appears the bill will not get a hearing.
SB 433
Title/Summary- Multiple provisions related to HOA. Strongly Oppose
Numerous changes to NRS 116. It is an almost exact copy of SB 417(2023) introduced during the last session by Senator Schieble and the CAI (HOA industry), led by Adam Clarkson. Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro is the point of contact. I have reached out to here for clarification. I have yet to hear back.
SB 433 is an attack on owners. Rouge boards, managers, even vendors will weaponize proposed changes to chill owner opposition. Its predecessor, SB 417(2023) sought to revise the definition of a "violation" in turn, allow NRED to investigate opposition as a criminal violation, allow an executive board, a director, a manager, and/or an employee of any vendor the right to bring a civil action for what is described as "bullying" (an exact copy of Nevada law addressing bullying in schools). SB 433 will do the same. The chilling effect of this on HOAs across Nevada should this bill pass can not be underestimated. Nevada already has laws in place. Certainly, speaking out in opposition to a decision/action of your HOA board is not a criminal act. Nor should criminal investigations be conducted by the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED). The Division has failed in advancing owner complaints and keeps owners in the dark (see SB 222) fueling frustrations. This would allow them to attack you in the dark. NRED is captured by the industry this bill seeks to weaponize.
Here is a pdf of SB 433 as introduced. NRED "expects a surge in complaints requiring additional [staff]".
Public opposition resulted in the removal of the chilling provisions of SB 417(2023), now resurfaced in SB 433(2025). Here is my testimony during the 2023 hearing. Public opposition is again needed. This bill's offending provisions are intermingled with unrelated nitch changes to building structural issues and associated funding. If passed the bill opens a very dangerous door to not only HOA boards, but to their community managers, to attack owners. It will also allows their agents (contractors), and even employees to act as proxies.
The private regulatory enforcement of a quasi-governmental HOA allowed in SB 433 is wrong. It will lead to a "chilling effect" deterring protected speech or actions due to fear of perceived illegality or negative consequences. Public enforcers are best vested with the authority to implement the law- not HOAs, industry players, and/or their vested legal counsel.
The bill also makes changes to NRS 38 (Alternate Dispute Resolution) affecting HOA owner who file complaints. Making arbitration as the default will case a huge (4x) increase in cost/claim bore by participants.
I have provided a link here to a good story by Dana Gentry of the Nevada Current written in 2023 about SB 417. It applies to SB 433.
Find here my letter in strong opposition to SB 433. Go here , look in the upper right hand corner of the page and express your "Opinion" on the bill. It is very easy.
A hearing is scheduled for April 8th 1:00 pm
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. 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.
I have reached out to the sponsor.
A hearing is scheduled for April 9th 1:00 pm