CALIFORNIA HOA LAWS 2025: MID-YEAR LEGAL UPDATE

OVERVIEW

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act is the primary body of law that governs California HOAs. Found in Civil Code sections 4000 through 6150, it controls everything from how boards impose rules, hold elections, and spend money, to how disputes are resolved and what records homeowners can access. It’s not a law that gives homeowners rights. Rather, it’s a law that restricts what HOAs can do.

California’s HOA laws aren’t just complicated, they’re constantly in flux. Case in point: 2025 saw several important legislative changes go into effect, reshaping how California HOAs operate and what rights California homeowners can enforce. From board elections and electronic voting, to assessment limits, repair obligations, and disciplinary fines, this past year has redefined the legal playing field. And if you live in a common interest development, you need to understand what that means for your home, your dues, and your leverage.

This article walks through the essential components of HOA law in California, including what HOAs are required to do, what they’re forbidden from doing, and how this year’s new laws (like SB 900, AB 130, AB 2159, AB 2460, AB 572, and SB 326) all added obligations, exemptions, or procedural shifts. It’s a high-level guide to just how much can change in a single year.

This article will remind you how to identify unlawful board actions, enforce your rights under the Davis-Stirling Act, and protect your interests in communities where boards often overreach.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING HOAS

Every HOA in California operates under a layered legal structure. At the top of that structure is the Davis-Stirling Act, which governs nearly every aspect of HOA conduct across the state. The Davis‑Stirling Act applies to all residential common interest developments—i.e., condominiums, planned developments, stock cooperatives, and community apartment projects—and covers developments created both before and after its adoption.

The law doesn’t just outline procedures. It controls how HOAs create rules, enforce penalties, hold meetings, adopt budgets, maintain common areas, and resolve disputes. It sets the limits of board authority and creates legal obligations that cannot be overridden by an HOA’s governing documents or custom. Even if your governing documents say otherwise, they must yield to Davis-Stirling where there’s a conflict.

But Davis-Stirling isn’t the only statute that applies. If the Act is silent on a particular issue—especially something involving nonprofit corporate governance—then the California Corporations Code often steps in. Most HOAs are incorporated as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations. That means Corporations Code sections governing elections, director standards, meeting procedures, and member rights may fill in the gaps. Together, Davis-Stirling and the Corporations Code form the statutory backbone of HOA governance in California.

Then come the governing documents: the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, Operating Rules, and Architectural Guidelines. These documents vary from community to community, but they must be interpreted in harmony with state law. If a board adopts a rule that violates the Davis-Stirling Act, that rule is legally invalid, no matter how many homeowners vote for it or how long it’s been enforced.

Understanding the hierarchy is critical. State law overrides governing documents, and governing documents override board policies. For example, if a homeowner needs a disability-related accommodation, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code § 12955 et seq.) requires the HOA to comply—even if the request conflicts with its governing documents. Homeowners often lose leverage, or fail to enforce their rights, because they don’t know which rules actually carry legal weight. That confusion always works to a bad HOA’s advantage.

The final layer involves local ordinances and federal laws. City zoning codes, fire safety mandates, and building standards may all affect what HOAs can enforce. Likewise, federal laws will almost always trump an HOA’s governing documents too. For example, federal disability accommodations mandated under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) apply to HOAs (rather than the ADA, unless the HOA operates facilities open to the general public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-members), as do its mandates regarding service animals and discrimination. Boards that ignore these higher laws expose themselves to real legal liability.

CALIFORNIA LAW IMPOSES LEGAL DUTIES ON ALL HOAS

California law doesn’t just tell HOAs what they can do. It tells them what they must do. These aren’t suggestions. They’re legal requirements grounded in the Davis-Stirling Act, the Corporations Code, and other statutes. When a board fails to comply, it doesn’t just create friction. It opens the door to legal exposure, which in turn provides homeowners with real leverage to push back if they understand how to apply that leverage.

Some of the most important obligations include:

• Preparing an annual budget and disclosure package. Every HOA must circulate a complete annual budget report and policy statement, typically no later than 30 to 60 days before the start of the new fiscal year. These documents must include information about assessments, reserves, insurance, operating expenses, and the procedures used to enforce delinquencies. Boards that fail to distribute those disclosures on time are in violation of the law.
• Maintaining common areas. The board is legally responsible for maintaining and repairing the common areas, regardless of whether the board believes it has the funds or wants to delay the work. This includes roofs, plumbing lines, landscaping, community walls, roads, pools, and any other areas under HOA control. The duty to maintain is not discretionary, and failure to perform it exposes the association to liability from members whose units are affected.
• Conducting and funding a reserve study. Every HOA is required to conduct a visual inspection of all major components at least once every three years, and to review the reserve funding plan annually. The board must also include updated reserve funding figures in the annual budget report. Many boards skip or underfund this step, which can result in deferred maintenance, emergency assessments, or even structural damage that could’ve been avoided.
• Providing due process before imposing discipline. Before an HOA can fine a homeowner, suspend privileges, or take any other disciplinary action, it must provide proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing. That includes giving the homeowner written notice that specifies the alleged violation, the date and location of the hearing, and the right to be heard. If the board skips this step, or holds a sham hearing with no real opportunity for defense, any resulting discipline is legally invalid. Recent changes to California law—specifically AB 130—have also altered what happens after a hearing takes place, including how disciplinary outcomes may be enforced. I’ll cover those changes in detail later in this article.
• Holding open meetings and giving advance notice. With few exceptions, HOA board meetings must be open to all members and properly noticed in advance. California law requires boards to provide written notice of each meeting at least four days before it takes place, including the date, time, location, and a detailed agenda. That agenda must also be posted or distributed in a way that makes it accessible to every member. Boards cannot hold closed-door sessions for convenience or to avoid member input. The law allows for executive session only in narrow circumstances—such as litigation, personnel matters, or delinquency enforcement. Boards that conduct substantive business in secret or without proper notice violate the transparency rules built into the Davis-Stirling Act.
• Retaining and disclosing financial records. HOAs must keep accurate books and records and make them available for inspection upon request. Members have the right to review a wide array of HOA documents, including financial documents (e.g., credit card statements, check registers, cancelled checks, bank statements and reconciliations, budgets, income and expense reports, tax returns, reimbursement documentation, and reserve statements), vendor contracts and invoices, membership records, insurance policies, reserve studies, meeting minutes, and many more. Failure to disclose these records when requested exposes HOAs to substantial statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees under Civil Code section 5200 et seq.
• Enforcing rules consistently and in good faith. Even when an HOA’s rules are lawful, they must be enforced in a uniform and non-arbitrary manner. Boards that selectively enforce rules, or use them as a tool to target certain members or for retaliatory purposes, risk not only liability to the HOA itself, but also to the individual directors guilty of the illegal conduct. The law requires boards to act in good faith, and that means enforcing the rules as written, without favoritism or retaliation.

These obligations aren’t minor. They form the backbone of lawful governance in HOA communities. And when boards fall short, homeowners may take legal action to compel their HOAs’ compliance. Knowing what your HOA is required to do gives you the ability to spot unlawful conduct early and respond strategically when things go wrong.

THINGS HOAS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO

For all the authority that HOA boards are given under the Davis-Stirling Act, there are clear legal boundaries that they are not allowed to cross. And when a board exceeds those boundaries, regardless of why, it exposes the association to liability and gives homeowners a clear opportunity to push back.

Here are some of the most common things HOAs are prohibited from doing under California law:

• Enforcing rules that conflict with state or federal law. If a rule in governing documents directly contradicts federal, state, or local law, then it’s unenforceable. For example, the board can’t require homeowners to remove drought-resistant landscaping if it violates Civil Code section 4735. Nor can it impose pet restrictions that contradict federal and state reasonable accommodation requirements. Federal, state, and local statutes always trump private HOA documents. And boards that knowingly enforce unlawful rules will face civil penalties in addition to monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.
• Selectively enforcing rules or targeting specific members. Boards must apply rules uniformly. They can’t impose a fine on one homeowner for a rule violation while ignoring the same violation committed by another. They also can’t use enforcement tools—like fines, letters, or hearing notices—as a way to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against members they don’t like. This kind of selective enforcement isn’t just unfair, it’s illegal. Courts have consistently invalidated board actions that are arbitrary, retaliatory, and capricious. And in some cases, individual board members can be held personally liable for misuse of enforcement powers.
• Fining homeowners without following proper procedure. The Davis-Stirling Act imposes strict due process requirements before any monetary penalty can be imposed. Boards must give written notice of the alleged violation, provide a fair hearing, and allow the member to present evidence and be heard. If the board skips any of these steps, the fine is invalid. And as of June 30, 2025, the financial impact of these hearings has changed. AB 130 now caps monetary penalties at $100 per violation (with limited exceptions) and creates new enforcement issues that many HOAs are completely unprepared for. I’ll explain those issues in the next section.
• Holding secret meetings or making decisions behind closed doors. Unless the topic qualifies for executive session—and that list contains only five topics that can rightfully be discussed in executive session—HOA board meetings must be open to all members. That includes budget discussions, rule changes, spending decisions, and many others. Boards that conduct business in private, whether in person, over email, or by phone, violate the open meeting rules built into the Davis-Stirling Act. These violations may seem procedural, but they can be used to challenge board actions and unwind decisions that were made without proper notice or transparency.
• Denying access to records without legal cause. Homeowners have the right to inspect a wide range of association records, including financials, contracts, reserve studies, rosters, board meeting minutes, disciplinary letters (with redactions), and more. Unless a specific exception applies, the board can’t refuse to produce these records or impose unlawful barriers to access. If they do, the homeowner can bring a petition under Civil Code section 5235 and recover attorneys’ fees, statutory damages, and even court orders compelling compliance.
• Suspending rights or privileges for unlawful reasons. Boards may suspend privileges like access to non-essential amenities—e.g., pools, gyms, or concierge services—but they cannot suspend access to anything essential, such as ingress and egress, voting, or utilities like power, water, and gas. If your board is threatening to block access to your home or cut off your water, they’ve crossed a legal line, and the courts take that seriously.

When bad HOAs overstep their authority, they don’t just harm individual members. They undermine the legitimacy of the association itself. And the longer homeowners allow unlawful behavior to go unchecked, the harder it becomes to restore lawful governance. The key is knowing where the lines are, and then acting quickly when your board crosses them.

HOW NEW LAWS CHANGED THE HOA LANDSCAPE IN 2025

The Davis-Stirling Act still governs how HOAs operate in California. But 2025 has been an unusual year because several new laws went into effect that dramatically changed things in ways that most boards aren’t ready for. These aren’t cosmetic updates.

Let’s start with the one that has caused the most confusion and will have a seriously negative impact on the rights of “good” homeowners—AB 130.

AB 130: The $100 Fine Cap That Changed The Game

As of June 30, 2025, HOAs in California are no longer allowed to impose fines over $100 per violation unless the board can prove the violation involves a significant and imminent threat to health or safety. This change to Civil Code section 5855 applies regardless of how the penalty is labeled, how many times the violation occurs, or what the HOA’s fine schedule says.

But AB 130 didn’t just impose a fine cap. It also made sweeping changes to the hearing process, most of which were added with little thought to how they’d actually work. For example, the hearing must now be canceled if the homeowner cures the violation—or shows a “financial commitment” to cure it—at least seven days before the hearing. But the law doesn’t define what qualifies as a “financial commitment,” leaving both boards and homeowners guessing. And without safeguards, this provision invites abuse by serial violators who know how to game the system.

As was the case before, if the hearing does proceed, it must be held in executive session, and the homeowner must be allowed to appear and be heard. That’s all fine. But AB 130 added an entirely new set of requirements relating to the parties (the homeowner and the HOA) reaching an “agreement” of some sort at the hearing. If that happens, the board must now draft a written resolution, which, if signed by both sides, becomes judicially enforceable. That’s both a dramatic and alarming shift from how these hearings used to work, and it raises serious due process concerns, particularly in cases where homeowners aren’t allowed to bring counsel (HOAs do not have to allow homeowners to have counsel present during disciplinary hearings).

If no agreement is reached, AB 130 also imposes a new IDR requirement that not only adds a whole new set of ambiguities into the mix, but leaves unanswered what it means for the historical use of IDR, which used to be discretionary on the part of the homeowner (but mandatory for the HOA if requested by the homeowner). The statute now suggests that IDR is mandatory for both sides, but doesn’t say so clearly, so nobody seems to know what it actually requires. What is certain, is that this will absolutely result in delays and uneven enforcement—even from well-managed HOAs.

Other 2025 Laws That HOA Members Need to Know About

• AB 2159 (Electronic Voting). Although AB 2159’s electronic voting law went into effect on January 1, 2025, most HOAs in California have not yet made the necessary changes to properly implement the law. Specifically, the new law (Civil Code § 5116) allows HOAs to conduct director elections via electronic voting, but only if they first amend their election rules and give members the option to opt in or out. Paper ballots are still required for those who don’t opt in, and once electronic voting is adopted, floor nominations are prohibited. The new law also requires homeowners to notify the HOA of their voting preference at least 90 days before the election. AB 2159 is a good law, but it’s benefits won’t be seen until most HOAs have adopted the necessary changes and implemented electronic voting.
• AB 2460 (“Re-Noticed” Quorum Rule). AB 2460 amended both Civil Code section 5115 and Corporations Code section 7512. Under previous law, if an election couldn’t proceed due to lack of quorum, the HOA could reconvene the meeting with a lower quorum threshold, but didn’t have to re-notice the new meeting. That’s no longer allowed. Under the new law, if a quorum isn’t reached at the initial election meeting, the HOA must now provide a new notice at least 15 days before the reconvened meeting. The quorum threshold then drops to 20% of the members voting in person, by ballot, or by proxy, unless the governing documents specify a lower percentage.
• AB 572 (Assessment Cap for Affordable Housing HOAs). This law applies to HOAs formed after January 1, 2025, and consisting of 20 or fewer deed-restricted affordable units. For these associations, regular assessments cannot increase more than 5% plus cost of living in the first year, and may not exceed a total increase of 10%. While narrow in scope, AB 572 imposes real financial constraints on smaller associations and creates administrative challenges for developers who might not be familiar with HOA law.
• SB 326 (Balcony Inspections). SB 326 required HOAs with qualifying buildings to comply with California’s new mandatory balcony inspection requirements (often referred to as California’s “Balcony Law”) no later than January 1, 2025. That meant that HOAs are required to have already completed the required inspections of all exterior elevated elements—e.g., balconies, decks, stairways, and walkways. Despite a deadline extension granted to certain apartment buildings under SB 721 (which extended the deadline to January 1, 2026), the compliance date for HOAs governed by SB 326 has not changed. To comply, the HOA must retain a licensed structural engineer or architect to inspect these components for structural safety. Boards that failed to meet the deadline are now out of compliance and may face fines, enforcement action, and potential liability if a structural failure occurs.
• SB 900 (Repair Obligations for Utility Interruptions). HOAs must now repair or replace gas, heat, water, or electrical systems that originate in the common area even if the interruption only affects an individual unit. The board must begin repairs within 14 days unless the governing documents allow more time. If there aren’t enough funds in reserves, the board may impose an emergency assessment or obtain a loan without a vote. Utility systems must also now appear as line items in the reserve study.

HOW HOMEOWNERS CAN ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS

Knowing what your HOA is required to do isn’t enough. California law gives homeowners a wide range of legal rights under the Davis-Stirling Act, but those rights don’t mean anything unless you know how to enforce them. And boards know that. That’s why so many of them rely on delay, confusion, and selective enforcement. They assume that most homeowners won’t do anything about it.

Here’s how to prove them wrong.

• Document everything. Before asserting any right, start by documenting the issue clearly. That means keeping written records of every communication with the board, photographing or videoing violations or damage, requesting copies of notices, and saving emails or newsletters that contradict the board’s claims. If you submit a request and the board ignores it, don’t just let it go. Follow up in writing and keep a timeline. Courts respond to documentation. Boards often don’t.
• Make targeted legal demands. California law gives you the right to demand specific documents (under Civil Code section 5200), to inspect financial records, to require open meetings, and to challenge improper fines or assessments. But those rights only work if you invoke them specifically. Don’t just tell your board “I want information.” Cite the statute. Give a clear deadline. And make it obvious that you know the difference between a request and a legal demand. The more precise you are, the more risk the board faces by ignoring you.
• Use IDR strategically—but know when it’s worthless. Internal Dispute Resolution can be useful when the issue is procedural or miscommunication-based. But it’s often a waste of time if the board is acting in bad faith. You, as the homeowner, are never required to accept IDR if the board initiates it, and you should never attend unless you’ve been clear about what you want, and what will happen if the board refuses to cooperate. IDR is not an excuse for delay or gaslighting. It’s a formal step that either resolves the issue or sets up your next move.
• Demand a board recall if things get bad enough. If your board consistently violates the law, ignores membership input, or weaponizes the rules to serve personal agendas, it’s time to consider a recall. Under California law, members can initiate a recall petition with as little as 5% of the membership signing the petition. Once that threshold is met, the board must notice and conduct a recall election under the Davis-Stirling Act’s secret ballot procedures. If done correctly, this process can reset board control, as well as set an example for future directors who think they’re above the law.
• Initiate the ADR Process & Litigate if Necessary. If your HOA violates the Davis-Stirling Act and your self-help efforts have failed to change anything, your next step is to escalate by taking legal action. Because the Davis-Stirling Act may require you to first attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) before you file an enforcement action, however, and in the context of HOA law, ADR generally means mediation, you can’t just skip the step and go straight to court. Civil Code section 5930 requires HOAs and their members to engage in mediation—which is just a formal word for “settlement talks”—before filing a lawsuit to enforce the governing documents. The ADR requirement kicks in if the claims involve declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or a combination of those remedies and monetary damages totaling $12,500 or less. In cases that don’t meet those conditions, it isn’t mandatory (even if it is recommended in almost every case). And while ADR might sound simple on paper, it’s a legal minefield if you’re not careful. Boards often use the process to posture, delay, or spin the narrative in their favor, especially when the homeowner isn’t represented. If you mishandle this step, you may lose leverage, undermine your position, or walk into a legal trap you didn’t see coming. That’s why this is the point where you need to bring in counsel. At MBK CHAPMAN, we don’t just attend ADR. We use it to pressure boards, frame the dispute, and build your case. And if the case doesn’t resolve at mediation, we’re already prepared to take the next step.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

Most homeowners assume their HOA is following the law. That is, until they find out the hard way that it’s not. The Davis-Stirling Act lays out strict rules about what HOAs must do, what they’re allowed to do, and where the boundaries are. And in 2025, those boundaries changed. New laws like AB 130 and SB 900 didn’t just tweak procedures. They fundamentally altered the power dynamics between boards and members, often in ways that will create more confusion than clarity.

That’s why homeowners need more than general knowledge—they need a plan. Knowing the law is one thing. Knowing how to use it is something else entirely. If your board is ignoring its obligations, selectively enforcing the rules, or exploiting your lack of legal footing, don’t wait for things to get worse.

Call us at MBK CHAPMAN, and we’ll set your HOA straight.

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