OVERVIEW
In California’s war against its self-imposed housing crisis, the state has declared a bold strategy: prioritize and protect rapid densification over local context. Through laws like SB 9 and ADU mandates, Sacramento is attempting to rewrite the rules of single-family living—pushing backyard units, lot splits, and duplexes into neighborhoods that were never designed for them. But in HOA-governed communities, this push is encountering resistance. And for once, that resistance may be exactly what homeowners need. HOA boards—often criticized for overreach—are stepping in to defend neighborhood character, community expectations, and the rights of homeowners who invested in stable, planned environments.
This article takes a different tone than many others I’ve published. While our firm has spent years challenging HOAs for overreaching, mismanaging, and abusing their power, this is one of the rare instances where many HOAs, as a group, may actually be getting it right. In defending the character, density, and livability of California’s traditional single-family neighborhoods, HOAs are often standing in the gap where cities can’t—or won’t.
The state’s top-down housing mandates threaten to reshape communities without any individualized analysis or local accountability. In the process, they impose real burdens on homeowners—those who followed the rules, bought into planned developments, and now face diminished privacy, increased traffic, rental churn, and enforcement chaos. In this article, we explore the legal tensions and practical implications for homeowners who don’t want Sacramento telling them what must be allowed next door.
Through case studies, statutory analysis, and homeowner-centered commentary, we’ll unpack where the law currently stands, why the conflicts are growing, and what you can do when state law and HOA governance collide.
THE BACKDROP: CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING LAWS v. HOA POWER STRUCTURES
California’s housing shortage is among the worst in the nation, and in response over the last few years, the state legislature has passed sweeping reforms. Notably, laws supporting Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) and Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)—which allows certain single-family lots to be split into two lots and developed with duplexes—aim to increase housing supply by empowering homeowners.
Laws like 2020’s SB 13 and AB 68, and 2022’s AB 881, have stripped cities and counties of the power to arbitrarily deny ADU permits. And while that’s not necessarily a bad thing for homeowners—many homeowners living in HOA communities love the idea of being able to build ADUs in their yards—it is part of a disturbing trend by the power elite in California to urbanize suburbia and permit urban lot splits with reduced procedural barriers. In other words, imagine apartments and duplexes in your single-family neighborhoods. Fortunately, one powerful land-use authority is pushing back—HOAs.
Homeowners associations are not public entities; they are private, contractual organizations governed by Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) and enforced through California’s comprehensive HOA law known as the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the “Davis-Stirling Act”). HOAs operate outside municipal zoning authority, yet exercise quasi-governmental control over land use within their communities. This makes them formidable opponents to California’s housing mandates. While cities are now compelled to comply with ADU and SB 9 laws, HOAs often argue they are exempt—or at least not clearly bound by the same rules.
Because the Legislature does not always remember to explicitly state that their new housing laws override private CC&Rs, HOAs continue to wield enormous influence over what homeowners can build. In many communities, HOA rules remain stricter than local zoning ordinances and are used to outright block projects that the state now encourages. And while most of the time, we fight against HOAs that do this, in this particular instance, we think that they’re on the right side. Who would’ve expected it?
REAL WORLD CASE STUDIES WHERE HOAS SAID “NO”
Thus far, I’ve been talking in the abstract. But there are real-world examples of HOAs who have stepped in when California’s housing laws have gone too far. Indeed, while policymakers in Sacramento tout the benefits of densification, the reality on the ground tells a more complicated story. I’ve included these three examples not simply as anecdotes, but as concrete illustrations of the broader legal, social, and political dynamics explored throughout this article. They highlight how homeowners—many of whom bought into planned communities with specific expectations—are now finding that the Legislature if working hard to obliterate those expectations. They also illustrate how HOAs have become critical gatekeepers in preserving community integrity, ensuring consistency with long-standing development expectations, and protecting the homeowners who invested in a specific neighborhood vision and feel.
In short, the following examples show what happens when state housing policy collides with private governance—and what’s at stake when local control is stripped away. These stories underscore the core argument of this article: that unchecked densification may be eroding not just neighborhood character, but the very concept of predictable, stable homeownership.
- The Carlsbad Garage Fiasco. In 2023, a homeowner in Carlsbad attempted to convert his condo garage into a rentable ADU. The city had no objection, but his HOA did. They argued that their CC&Rs precluded such conversions, citing architectural uniformity, impact, and parking concerns. The HOA also argued that the relatively recent ADU laws cited by the homeowner did not apply because those were intended to apply only to single-family housing, and the condo complex wasn’t single-family housing. In any event, the HOA refused to allow the project, threatening fines and enforcement action. Without a clear statutory mandate requiring HOA compliance, the homeowner faced the expensive and time-consuming prospect of litigation.
- Orange County’s Duplex Fight. Following the passage of SB 9 (the statute that authorized lot-splits on formerly un-splitable properties), a gated community in Huntington Beach swiftly amended its CC&Rs to ban duplexes and lot splits. The HOA board cited concerns over density, traffic, and property values. Although SB 9 was designed to override local zoning restrictions, the HOA asserted that CC&Rs were private covenants and therefore not subject to the same preemption principles. Homeowners who had hoped to split their parcels found themselves barred from doing so, despite the law’s intent. The City of Huntington Beach sided with the HOA, and fought the law. That position gained additional traction after an April 22, 2024 ruling from a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, who ruled that SB 9 was unconstitutional—at least as applied to the five charter cities that brought the lawsuit: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier, and Del Mar. Although the ruling didn’t aid Huntington Beach, which had separately fought SB 9 and lost, it opens the door for future challenges to the law’s validity and scope. More importantly, it reinforced a key limitation of SB 9 that has often been misunderstood: the statute only overrides local zoning laws—it does not override recorded CC&Rs in HOA-governed communities. In other words, despite SB 9, HOAs remain free to enforce their governing documents unless and until the Legislature says otherwise.
- Bay Area Backlash Against Rentals. In another example, a California HOA amended its CC&Rs to prohibit ADUs from being rented out, effectively neutering the purpose of the units for supplemental income or multi-generational housing. The HOA’s justification? Preserving the “residential character” of the community and avoiding “tenant turnover.” One homeowner, a retiree relying on rental income to stay in her home, filed a lawsuit arguing that the restriction was unenforceable. One of her arguments centered on another of California’s densification laws relating to rental properties. The homeowner in question argued that the HOA’s ban violated California law—specifically, Civil Code section 4741, which prohibits HOAs from banning rentals of more than 30 days, and Civil Code § 4745, which voids “unreasonable restrictions” on ADUs. While that case remains unresolved, its outcome may influence how far HOAs can go in using CC&Rs to restrict rental activity. It also highlights the tension between community uniformity and economic necessity.
LEGAL CONFLICT—WHOSE LAW WINS?
At the heart of the HOA v. housing dispute lies a legal tug-of-war between state housing mandates and private community restrictions. While the state has acted to liberalize land use policy, it has not been nearly as clear when it comes to preempting the private covenants enforced by HOAs.
California Civil Code section 4745 states that any provision of a governing document that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an ADU or junior ADU on a lot zoned for single-family residential use is “void and unenforceable.” But ambiguity remains. What qualifies as “unreasonable”? What happens when an HOA asserts that a proposed ADU interferes with architectural harmony or common area use?
SB 9 presents an even more complicated picture. Codified in Government Code section 65852.21 and related provisions, it does not contain language expressly overriding CC&Rs. While cities and counties are prohibited from denying qualifying lot splits and duplex projects, HOAs argue that private deed restrictions remain valid unless explicitly preempted by statute.
And that’s what HOAs have been using to fight the State’s efforts to forever change the character of their respective neighborhoods. By stopping short of unambiguously stating that state housing laws override CC&Rs, the Legislature—albeit unintentionally—has given HOAs enough ammunition to fight and win.
Many of these laws, however, are relatively new, so judicial decisions interpreting them are rather sparse. As of the date that I write this article, I have not found any published California appellate opinion that has definitively held that SB 9 overrides private CC&Rs. And that’s because it doesn’t (yet)—SB 9 expressly preempts local zoning ordinances, not private deed restrictions or an HOA’s CC&Rs. [In contrast, the Davis-Stirling Act does contain explicit preemption language making California’s ADU laws enforceable against HOAs.]
To date, most victories in this space have come through individualized legal battles, not legislative muscle. Without stronger preemption language or regulatory enforcement, homeowners seeking to invoke state housing rights in HOA-controlled communities must be prepared to fight—and fund—their own battles.
THE POLITICAL TENSION—STATE MANDATES v. LOCAL/HOA CONTROL
While the conflict over densification is often framed as a legal issue, the real battle is political. Sacramento has made a deliberate choice to push for the removal of suburbs in favor of urbanization—seen as more environmentally friendly, if that makes any sense—thus overriding traditional planning frameworks, including city councils, planning commissions, and neighborhood design standards. But in doing so, it has turned HOAs—usually seen as hyper-regulatory—into unlikely champions of local control.
To be clear, many of the laws driving this conflict were not passed with HOA-governed communities in mind. Legislators focused on exclusionary zoning and municipal inaction. But by applying sweeping mandates statewide, they’ve created friction with communities that were never the real problem.
Homeowners across the political spectrum are now raising the alarm. They feel betrayed by lawmakers who sold them on planned neighborhoods, architectural continuity, and long-term investment—only to be told that the state will now force additional density onto their lots and streets. Bills like SB 9 are promoted as solutions to affordability, but they often overlook the practical consequences: increased traffic, increased crime, limited parking, increased enforcement burdens, declining aesthetics, crashing property values, and overloaded infrastructure.
Meanwhile, HOA boards—many of them run by unpaid volunteers—are put in an impossible position: follow CC&Rs that reflect the expectations of the community, or yield to vague state laws that offer little guidance and no enforcement mechanism. State agencies don’t intervene on behalf of homeowners or HOAs. There’s no hotline to call, no tribunal to appeal to.
The political tension is not just between Sacramento and the suburbs—it’s between competing visions of what homeownership means. Is it a right to build anything the state permits? Or is it a commitment to a community’s agreed-upon standards and long-term quality of life?
SOCIAL FALLOUT—WHO GETS LEFT OUT?
Proponents of densification and urbanization mandates often couch their arguments in equity—that loosening housing rules will help low-income families, renters, and marginalized communities gain access to high-opportunity neighborhoods. But for many existing homeowners—especially those in higher value HOA-governed communities—those promises feel disconnected from reality.
First, these laws do little to help the people they claim to protect. The cost of building an ADU or splitting a lot and constructing a duplex can easily exceed six figures—especially in desirable places to live, like South Orange County. This means that only well-capitalized property owners or developers can realistically take advantage. Meanwhile, the burdens—noise, congestion, parking scarcity, overtaxed amenities—fall disproportionately on everyone else.
Second, long-time residents and retirees often find themselves living next to mini-construction zones, short-term rentals, or hastily built duplexes that change the entire character of a once-quiet neighborhood street. The ideal of a stable, peaceful neighborhood is replaced by uncertainty and transience.
Finally, the State’s rush to densify undermines decades of thoughtful planning and homeowner investment. Communities governed by HOAs were designed with specific density, infrastructure, and amenity limitations in mind. Retrofitting them for intensified use—without addressing roads, plumbing, parking, or enforcement capacity—sets up conflict, not cohesion.
Ironically, the people most “left out” by California’s housing push may be the very homeowners who played by the rules. Their investments, quality of life, and expectations are being overridden in the name of affordability—while the actual affordability remains elusive.
THE BUSINESS OF CONTROL—THE INFLUENCE OF MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
In today’s legal climate, many HOA management companies are doing something surprising: pushing boards to support state-mandated densification—even when it contradicts the preferences of the homeowners they serve. Why? Because they fear the cost and liability of being sued under evolving housing laws.
Rather than empowering boards to enforce CC&Rs as written, some management firms are preemptively advising boards to approve SB 9 lot splits, regardless of whether the HOA’s governing documents prohibit them. The logic is rooted not in fidelity to community standards, but in legal risk aversion. Management companies are worried about ending up on the wrong side of a lawsuit if the law shifts—even when no court has definitively required HOAs to permit such projects.
Fortunately, in an unexpected display of courage and fidelity, many HOA boards are refusing to be bullied. They understand that their job is to reflect the will of the homeowners—not to roll over in fear of theoretical liability. In dozens of communities across the state, boards have chosen to uphold architectural standards, enforce density limits, and push back against Sacramento’s densification mandates when those mandates conflict with the community’s foundational rules.
This quiet resistance by local boards is a reminder that outside consultants—even those hired by the HOA—do not represent the community’s values. Homeowners should be vigilant, ask who is influencing board decisions, and demand that legal and management advice reflect what’s actually required under the law—not what’s convenient for vendors who want to avoid conflict.
Homeowners must begin asking questions—not just about their rights under state law, but about how and why their boards are being advised to block them. Because in some cases, it’s not the HOA that’s the problem—it’s the outside consultants calling the shots.
NAVIGATING THE BATTLEFIELD—A HOMEOWNER’S GUIDE TO FIGHTING BACK
For homeowners caught between vague state mandates and restrictive CC&Rs, the path forward is neither easy nor obvious. Some may want to build an ADU for an aging parent or to supplement their income. Others may simply want to preserve the community they invested in, free from unpredictable density. Regardless of which side of the line a homeowner falls on, navigating the legal, procedural, and political landscape requires preparation and strategy.
Start with your governing documents. Before proposing any project, review the CC&Rs, rules and regulations, and architectural guidelines. Many HOAs have broad restrictions that may pre-date California’s housing mandates. If the documents appear to ban what state law now allows, don’t assume they are enforceable—but don’t assume you can ignore them either.
Next, understand your statutory rights. Civil Code section 4745 prevents HOAs from imposing “unreasonable restrictions” on ADUs, but what qualifies as unreasonable is often disputed. There is no automatic override of your HOA’s rules unless you challenge them. Similarly, SB 9 allows lot splits and duplexes in urbanized areas—but does not expressly preempt CC&Rs. As a result, enforcing your rights may require legal counsel and a readiness to litigate. If your HOA won’t take the hard, but correct position, force the issue.
Use the Davis-Stirling Act’s internal and alternative dispute resolution procedures. Under the Davis-Stirling Act, associations must offer internal dispute resolution before escalating matters to formal enforcement. These sessions can serve as an opportunity to negotiate, build a record, and prepare for possible future litigation. Many boards are not well-versed in the nuances of state housing law and may be open to compromise if approached constructively. Likewise, if your HOA won’t act according to its governing documents (to, for example, prevent a lot split even though the law doesn’t override CC&Rs), demand alternative dispute resolution (a likely precursor to filing a lawsuit) under the Davis-Stirling Act. If you prevail, you’re entitled to your attorneys’ fees and costs.
Consider organizing with your neighbors. If you’re not alone in your concerns—whether for or against densification—form a committee or push for rule amendments. With the right numbers, owners can amend governing documents. If the board is unresponsive or dismissive, consider recalling the board, running for a seat yourself, or recruiting qualified homeowners who will better reflect the community’s values.
Finally, document everything. Keep detailed records of communications with the board and management company, including emails, notices, and minutes of meetings. If litigation becomes necessary, contemporaneous documentation can make a decisive difference.
For homeowners trying to exercise their rights or protect their community, the HOA battlefield is complex—but not unwinnable. Knowing your rights, mastering the procedures, and staying organized can tip the scales in your favor—whichever side of the policy debate you’re on.
LOOKING AHEAD—WILL THE LAW CATCH UP?
As California’s housing crisis deepens, the Legislator continues to experiment with increasingly aggressive laws aimed at forcing more units onto less land. But as SB 9’s legal challenges demonstrate, not every community is willing to go along quietly—and the courts are beginning to take notice.
In HOA-governed communities, the question is no longer whether the housing laws go far enough, but whether they go too far. Policymakers have, so far, failed to provide a coherent answer to a fundamental issue: should private contractual restrictions (CC&Rs) be treated the same as local zoning laws? In the case of ADUs, the Legislature answered yes, through statutes like Civil Code sections 4741 and 4751. But in the case of SB 9, the silence is deafening.
If history is any guide, the Legislature may soon be forced to address the ambiguity head-on. Already, some lawmakers are discussing reforms to clarify whether SB 9 projects must be allowed in HOA communities. Others are proposing further constraints on HOAs—similar to the ones that have already limited their authority over satellite dishes, solar panels, ADUs, and low-water landscaping.
One thing is certain: the courts will play a major role. The April 2024 ruling declaring SB 9 unconstitutional in five cities may only be the beginning. Future litigation could determine how far HOAs can go in resisting lot splits and duplexes, or conversely, whether the state can override centuries-old private land-use contracts in the name of public policy.
For now, the balance of power is uncertain. Homeowners who want to preserve their communities must stay informed, stay organized, and keep pushing back—politically, legally, and within their associations. The coming years will define whether HOA communities remain places of stability and predictability, or whether they’re swept aside in Sacramento’s latest wave of land-use experimentation.
CONCLUDING THOUGHT
For years, HOAs have correctly been caricatured as petty bureaucracies, obsessed with mailbox colors and lawn heights. But in the fight over California’s future, they’ve emerged as one of the last lines of defense for homeowners who simply want certainty, order, and respect for the promises that brought them into their communities in the first place.
I like to give credit where credit is due, so kudos to those HOA boards.
State lawmakers may see lot splits and ADUs as policy tools. But for homeowners, these mandates affect the character of neighborhoods, the value of investments, and the integrity of agreements they relied on when they bought their homes. HOAs aren’t perfect. But in this fight, they may be doing what no one else is willing to do: standing up for the people who played by the rules.