Overview

A trending issue in California HOA law involves senior citizens leaving their adult children or grandchildren title to properties inside senior citizen communities (e.g., a 55+ community). California’s senior citizen housing statutes let 55+ communities restrict who lives there. Bad (or just ignorant) HOAs, along with their managers and attorneys, routinely stretch that authority two steps further and tell under-55 owners that they can’t hold title and can’t run for the board. The HOA industry says it, other California HOA law firms publish it, and search engines and AI tools now hand it back to any homeowner who asks. Those HOAs are absolutely wrong on both counts, and both the Davis-Stirling Act and California’s senior citizen housing statutes make that very clear. This Fact Sheet is designed to set the record straight by explaining what California law says on the subject of young people who own properties within senior citizen communities and wish to serve on those communities’ HOA boards.

California’s senior citizen housing statutes authorize age limitations on occupancy, residency, and use. Those three concepts repeat throughout, and ownership never appears. The statutes cap how exclusive an age limitation can get, and they make age restrictions in the CC&Rs enforceable only as far as the statutes themselves permit.

The Davis-Stirling Act answers the board question on a separate track. Membership follows ownership, and eligibility to run follows membership. The Davis-Stirling Act then commands HOAs to disqualify nominees on two narrow grounds, and it gives HOAs an additional short, closed menu of optional disqualifications that they can adopt through their bylaws or election rules. Neither age nor residence appears on either list.

Bad HOAs, who are aware of the law and disregard it anyway, rarely announce an age bar outright. They point to a bylaw requiring directors to live in the community, or they tell new owners that the community exists “for seniors” and leave the rest unsaid.

In this Fact Sheet, I explain why age restrictions in 55+ communities reach residency but stop short of ownership, why the Davis-Stirling Act leaves no room for an age bar or a residence bar on who can run for or serve on the board, and what owners under their community’s minimum age should do when their HOAs refuse to put them on the ballot. Homeowners who accept the wrong answers circulating online do nothing other than to empower bad HOAs by surrendering HOA board seats the law entitles them to hold.

[If you want the full framework on how ownership creates HOA membership, including how title held through trusts, LLCs, and unrecorded deeds affects voting and board rights, read my Fact Sheet, “Who Counts as an Owner for California HOA Voting and Board Rights?”]

Key Points

Every wrong answer on this subject makes the same mistake. It spots a community’s age restriction and stops reading, as though the restriction settles who can own a unit and who can run for the board. Two separate laws settle those questions, and neither one says what the HOA industry, the other law firms, or the AI tools claim. California’s senior citizen housing statutes control who lives in an age-restricted community. The Davis-Stirling Act controls who runs for the board.

• California law controls who lives in a 55+ community, and it stops there. Civil Code 51.3 builds the entire framework for age-restricted housing in California, and it hammers the three concepts of occupancy, residency, and use from beginning to end. Indeed, Civil Code 51.3 requires an HOA’s CC&Rs to set forth the limitations on occupancy, residency, or use on the basis of age. Among other things, the statute also: (a) defines a “qualifying resident” as a person of 62 years or older (in communities with fewer than 35 dwelling units), or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development with 35 or more dwelling units; (b) permits HOAs to require that one person in residence in each dwelling unit qualify as a senior citizen; (c) permits HOAs to require that everyone else in that unit (e.g., a spouse) qualify as a permanent resident or a permitted health care resident (as those terms are defined in the statute); and (d) forces HOAs to allow guests under 55 to stay for at least 60 days a year. [Although outside the scope of this Fact Sheet, I will say that Civil Code 51.3 and the related statutes create unique exceptions for senior communities located in Riverside County.]
  • Ownership never appears anywhere in California’s senior citizen housing statutes. Read Civil Code 51.3 from the first subdivision to the last and you won’t find an age limitation attached to a deed, to title, or to an owner. The statute speaks of “one person in residence,” of the persons “commencing any occupancy of a dwelling unit,” and of residents who “cease residing in the development.” It goes further and concedes that its own occupancy rules “may result in less than all of the dwellings being actually occupied by a senior citizen,” which means the Legislature contemplated units in 55+ communities where no qualifying resident lives at all. [So when a website tells you that a 55+ community can bar young owners from taking title, ask which words in which statute say so, because after 40 years of legislative tinkering nobody has written them.]
  • Civil Code 51.3 caps how exclusive an age limitation can get, and an ownership ban blows past the cap. Civil Code 51.3 states that an age limitation “shall not be more exclusive than to require that one person in residence in each dwelling unit may be required to be a senior citizen,” and it adds that the limitation “may be less exclusive.” So the Legislature gave HOAs a ceiling and a floor, and it left them room to move in between. An HOA that requires one person in residence to be a senior citizen sits at the ceiling. An HOA that requires nothing more than a senior citizen among the people moving in sits at the floor. A rule that the owner must be a senior citizen exceeds the ceiling entirely (because it reaches a person the statute never authorized HOAs to touch and it does so on top of the residency limit HOAs already get). And your HOA can’t look for that authority somewhere else, because Civil Code 51.2 lets a community restrict housing to senior citizens only “pursuant to Section 51.3.” Civil Code 51.3 is the whole grant. Whatever it withholds, your HOA doesn’t have. [Civil Code 51.3 lets your HOA require a senior citizen among the people moving in, and then it protects the people already there. When the senior citizen dies, enters the hospital, or divorces, Civil Code 51.3 lets the qualified permanent resident keep living in the unit. So a 68-year-old widow whose husband was the qualifying resident stays put. Run that across a few hundred units over a few decades and some units end up with no senior citizen inside, which is exactly why Civil Code 51.3 admits that its own rules “may result in less than all of the dwellings being actually occupied by a senior citizen.”]
• A 55+ HOA can’t manufacture an age bar out of its own governing documents. Contrary to a lot of online “information” telling people to look to the HOAs’ governing documents, Civil Code 4205 kills the argument in one sentence. Simply put, the law prevails over the governing documents wherever the two conflict. Civil Code 51.3 authorizes age limits on occupancy, residency, and use, so an age limit on ownership conflicts with Civil Code 51.3. Likewise, Civil Code 4160 is clear about how to define a member. And because Civil Code 4205 resolves the conflict in the laws’ favor, HOAs who push this narrative are just wrong. [If you’d like to know more about the hierarchy between the law and an HOA’s governing documents, read my Fact Sheet “California HOA Governing Documents: What Controls?”]
• Civil Code 4160 makes every owner a member, and membership has nothing to do with age. Civil Code 4160 defines a member as an owner of a separate interest. That’s the whole definition. Neither it, nor any other California statute, contains an age qualifier, and 4160 does not contain a residency qualifier. A 25-year-old who takes recorded title to a unit in a 55+ community becomes a member of that HOA the moment ownership vests, exactly like a 70-year-old who buys the unit next door.
• Under Civil Code 5105, HOAs can only disqualify board nominees on two grounds (and neither relates to age). HOAs get no discretion here. Civil Code 5105 requires California HOAs to disqualify a nominee who isn’t a member at the time of the nomination, and it requires HOAs to disqualify a nominee who has already served the maximum number of terms or sequential terms the HOA allows (assuming that the HOA’s governing documents contain such a term limit). Civil Code 5105 also disqualifies a sitting director who stops being a member. Those are the mandatory grounds. A young owner in a 55+ community clears the membership requirement, therefore, through Civil Code 4160, and term limits won’t apply even if they’re in place.
  • Civil Code 5105 gives HOAs four optional director disqualifications, and age and residence aren’t among them. HOAs can add disqualifications only through their bylaws or election rules, never through the CC&Rs, and only from the four items the Legislature listed in the statute. Those four cover nominees who aren’t current on regular and special assessments, nominees who would serve alongside a co-owner of the same parcel, nominees who have been members (i.e., owners) for less than one year, and nominees whose criminal convictions would result in a loss of the HOA’s fidelity coverage required under Civil Code 5806. Age isn’t there. Residence isn’t there. Civil Code 5105 then narrows even the delinquency ground and forbids HOAs from disqualifying nominees over unpaid fines, fines renamed as assessments, collection charges, late charges, or third-party costs. The one-year membership rule is the only provision in this entire scheme that can lawfully keep a new owner off a ballot.
• Regardless of what your HOA’s governing documents say, a residency requirement can’t keep you off the ballot. This is the move bad HOAs make instead of admitting they’re using age, and it’s frequently (and unfortunately) the answer waiting for you online. Civil Code 5105 names the only two places an HOA can put an extra candidate disqualification, which are its bylaws and its election rules, and it uses the word “only” to say so. Residence, though, fails in either of those because residence isn’t one of the four grounds the Legislature listed. Civil Code 5105 then makes the point directly because it declares that a nomination or election procedure isn’t reasonable if it disallows any member from nominating themself for election to the board. A residency requirement takes members who satisfy Civil Code 4160 and blocks their self-nomination on a ground the Legislature never authorized. Civil Code 5100 finishes it, because Civil Code 5100 applies to every HOA in California notwithstanding any contrary provision of the governing documents. HOA-side attorneys who tell 55+ communities to enforce residency requirements are advising their clients into a Civil Code 5145 lawsuit that the HOAs are going to lose.
• If your 55+ HOA is trying to bar you from the board because you’re too young, force it to commit that refusal to writing before the election happens. Homeowners lose these fights by arguing at meetings and win them by building a paper record. So if your HOA is one of those that you know is violating the Davis-Stirling Act in this regard, run the sequence below the moment you decide to campaign. [The deadlines in Civil Code 5115 move fast, and an HOA that stalls you past them has cost you the election even though you’re right about everything.]
  • Submit your self-nomination in writing, and submit it early. Civil Code 5115 requires HOAs to give general notice of the nomination procedure and deadline at least 30 days before that deadline. Send your nomination by a method that generates proof of delivery, and send it well inside the window so that the HOA can’t blame the calendar for what it’s about to do.
  • Demand that the HOA identify the specific statutory ground for any rejection. Demand that the HOA board and the inspector of elections to state, in writing, which provision of Civil Code 5105 disqualifies you, and to identify which provisions of the governing documents support their refusal. Bad HOAs will often “answer” that question with silence, or they might point to vague requirements indicating that the community is reserved for senior citizens. You should understand that it doesn’t matter whether your HOA answers or not because you’ll benefit either way.
  • Invoke internal dispute resolution and put the statutes in front of every director. Civil Code 5910 requires your HOA to participate once you invoke the procedure, and it prohibits your HOA from charging you a fee to use it. Cite Civil Code 4160, Civil Code 5105, and Civil Code 51.3 by number, and address your written request to each director rather than to the manager alone, because directors who receive the statutes and disregard them anyway have made a choice they’ll answer for later. [You can learn more about your IDR rights by reading my Fact Sheet, “What Is IDR in a California HOA? Does It Stop Fines, Lawsuits, or Enforcement?”]
• Civil Code 5145 voids the election and hands your HOA the bill. If your HOA keeps you off the ballot and the election proceeds anyway, Civil Code 5145 lets you file in superior court or in small claims court for declaratory or equitable relief. A court must void the results once you establish by a preponderance of the evidence that your HOA didn’t follow the required election procedures, unless your HOA proves that its noncompliance didn’t affect the outcome. And an HOA that excluded a candidate outright will likely never be able to prove that. When you prevail in that lawsuit, you’ll be entitled not only to your attorneys’ fees, but also a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation. Even better, if you somehow lose such a lawsuit, you will not have to pay the HOA’s attorneys’ fees unless the HOA can prove that your lawsuit was frivolous (which is extremely rare). But be sure to watch the clock because Civil Code 5145 gives you one year from the date the inspector of elections notifies the membership of the results or from the date your cause of action accrues, whichever comes later.
• If your 55+ HOA told you that you’re too young to own your home or serve on the board, call the HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman. The California HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman are widely considered the most experienced in California homeowners-side HOA law, and we’re experts at dismantling exactly this kind of HOA conduct. We know these statutes cold, and we know what happens to HOA boards that ignore them.

The wrong answer spreads because it seems to make sense. A community restricts age, so people assume the restriction covers everything, including who buys, who holds title, and who runs for the board. California’s senior citizen housing statutes, however, restrict one thing, which is who lives in the unit. The Davis-Stirling Act ties board eligibility to a deed and gives HOAs no power to add an age requirement on top of it. Every 55+ HOA board that keeps a young owner off its ballot is counting on that owner reading a website instead of a statute.

FAQs

About Michael Kushner

Michael Kushner is a California attorney with over 30 years of experience representing homeowners in disputes with their HOAs. He is widely regarded as California’s leading homeowner-side HOA attorney, and has built one of the state’s most prominent law practices dedicated to holding HOAs accountable under the Davis-Stirling Act and California law.

In addition to his law firm’s work, Michael is a recognized lecturer, author, and the host of the hit HOA HELL podcast, where he provides homeowners living in HOA-governed communities with clear, practical strategies for dealing with bad HOAs. He’s also the author of the best-selling book, HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs, which has become a go-to resource for both homeowners seeking real-world solutions to their HOA disputes, as well as those good HOA board members who are interested in doing a good job.

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