Overview

While it’s true that homeowners’ associations (HOAs) in California have certain duties related to crime prevention and addressing safety concerns within their communities, HOAs are not private police forces. When it comes to addressing crime and safety within their associations, HOA board members have a duty and responsibility to maintain and manage common areas and to exercise reasonable care for the safety of residents in those areas.

In certain cases, an HOA’s breach of that duty could result in the HOA being held liable for negligence if it failed to address known safety issues, such as inadequate lighting in common areas, failure to maintain or replace a security-related component, like a gate, lock, or camera (all to deter criminal activity), or it could apply to an HOA’s failure to install a reasonable safety measure like lighting in or a lock. The latter is especially true in cases where the HOA has been made aware of prior crimes (or injuries) and then failed to act reasonably in response.

This Fact Sheet explains what your HOA is legally required to do regarding crime, the limits of its responsibility, the most common mistakes bad HOA boards (i.e., HOAs from HELL) make, and what you can do if your board ignores such risks.

For a deeper dive into this topic, see an episode of my podcast, HOA HELL, entitled “California HOAs and Crime: What Your Board is Required to Do.”

Key Points

Here are the essential things California homeowners should know about HOA duties regarding crime and crime prevention:

• Reasonable care is the legal standard. HOAs must act reasonably to protect residents from foreseeable harm in the areas the HOA controls.
• Maintenance of safety features. HOAs are expected to maintain lighting, locks, gates, fencing, and other security-related features in good working order. Failing to repair them after notice exposes the HOA to liability.
• Responding to known risks. If there is a history of crime in or around the property, or repeated break-ins tied to defective locks, gates, or lighting, the HOA must take reasonable action to address those conditions. The issue of an HOA’s duty to implement safety or anti-crime measures in various contexts, often focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the measures required, is something that many California courts have addressed. For example, consider the following three cases:
  • Case #1. The California Supreme Court held that a condominium owners association and its board members could be liable for injuries caused by third-party criminal conduct. The court found that the association had a duty of care to the plaintiff, which it breached by failing to respond to the need for additional lighting and by ordering the plaintiff to disconnect her own lights. The court held that the HOA’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries primarily because of its obligations under the governing documents relating to the maintenance, repairs, and replacements of the common areas and its exclusive authority over them.
  • Case #2. A California appellate court found that the management of an apartment complex had a minimal duty to maintain locks on doors and gates, especially given the repeated security breaches and the known presence of unauthorized intruders. The court concluded that a violent attack by an intruder was sufficiently foreseeable, and the failure to maintain the locks was a contributing cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The court in that case relied on a balancing test, where it considered the foreseeability of harm against the burden of security measures that could’ve prevented the harm. [Although the facts in that case related to an apartment complex rather than an HOA governed under the Davis-Stirling Act, this case is relevant to the duties of HOAs regarding safety or anti-crime measures because it establishes principles regarding a landowner’s duty to protect residents from foreseeable criminal acts. Although the case involved an apartment complex rather than an HOA, the legal reasoning can be applied to HOAs, as both entities manage residential properties and owe duties to their residents.]
  • Case #3. A California appellate court upheld an injunction requiring an HOA to conduct supplemental repairs to address water intrusion. The court rejected the HOA’s defenses, finding that it had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and acted in bad faith. Although this case primarily involved water intrusion and toxic mold, it highlights the court’s willingness to impose duties on HOAs to address safety concerns when they fail to act reasonably or in good faith.
• Duty to follow governing documents. If the HOA’s CC&Rs or rules obligate the HOA to maintain, repair, or replace common area components that include specific safety measures (such as patrols, guards, gate locks, lighting, cameras, or other security procedures), the board must provide, maintain, repair, and replace such items. Ignoring published commitments is an act of negligence, and depending on the facts, could also constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
• No duty to guarantee safety. Despite an HOA’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its members and residents, HOAs are not obligated to ensure (or insure) anyone’s safety. Unless the governing documents say otherwise, your HOA is not legally required to provide 24/7 armed security, install cameras in every corner of the community, or guarantee that crime will never occur.
• Quasi-governmental obligations. Several California cases have discussed the fact that HOAs are often viewed as quasi-governmental entities with responsibilities similar to those of municipal governments, including providing security services and ensuring public safety in common areas. Those cases when on to hold that such an analogy therefore underscored the expectation that HOAs take reasonable steps to protect residents from foreseeable harm in areas under their control, despite the fact that HOAs are not “insurers” of safety (i.e., they’re not a private police force).
• Communication is part of the duty. Several California courts have held HOAs liable for failing to notify its members or residents about a danger, such as a safety risk or criminal incident. For example, in one influential case, the California Supreme Court held an HOA liable for negligence resulting from the injuries suffered by a member who was attacked in a darkened area of the common area. The court held that because the HOA had been aware of prior criminal activity in the area and the need for additional lighting to deter such activity, but failed to notify the members/residents of the danger (or install the lighting that would’ve likely prevented the criminal act), the HOA had acted negligently, and thus was responsible for the member’s injuries. [Such liability is not, however, automatic. Courts have generally required a showing that the HOA had notice of the danger and failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate it.]
• Common missteps by bad boards. Bad HOA boards breach their duties related to crime and safety in a variety of ways, including: (i) ignoring repeated reports of broken lights, gates, or locks; (ii) claiming crime is not their concern, even when tied to HOA-controlled property; (iii) promising security measures in governing documents but failing to maintain, repair, or replace such features when necessary; or (iv) spending HOA funds on cosmetic projects while refusing to address obvious safety defects.

Your HOA cannot stop every crime. But when boards neglect lighting, ignore broken gates, or look the other way after repeated incidents, they are failing their legal duty of care. Likewise, when HOA’s fail to warn members and residents of known safety or criminal risks, they risk liability for negligence. In short, while HOAs in California have a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining common areas and addressing known safety risks, their responsibilities are limited to areas under their control and do not necessarily extend to broader crime prevention.

FAQs

About MBK Chapman Fact Sheets

Homeowners searching for answers online will often come across articles that appear authoritative, but are actually written as search-engine marketing content rather than by an experienced HOA lawyer. These pieces tend to prioritize keyword density over clarity, accuracy, or legal context, which often leaves homeowners more confused than informed.

At MBK Chapman, our Fact Sheets are part of our HOA Law Library and are written by Michael Kushner, an HOA lawyer with decades of hands-on experience representing California homeowners. In fact, Michael Kushner is the HOA lawyer who pioneered the systems and strategies used by some of California’s most successful homeowner-side HOA law firms.

Each Fact Sheet is deliberately concise, statute-based, and designed as a quick-reference guide to help homeowners understand key HOA laws and enforcement rules at a glance.

AND DON’T FORGET TO TUNE INTO MY PODCAST, HOA HELL

YOU CAN ALSO ORDER MY GROUNDBREAKING BOOK

HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs

Amazon  |  Barnes & Noble