Overview

Home security cameras have become a normal part of residential life in California. Cameras mounted near a front door, pointed toward a driveway, or monitoring a backyard are now more common than alarm systems and motion-activated lighting. As a result, many homeowners who live in HOAs assume they have the right to install cameras on their own homes to monitor deliveries, deter theft, and protect their families from crimes. In most situations, that assumption is correct. But disputes still arise because HOA boards sometimes adopt overly broad rules banning cameras altogether, or because neighbors claim that a camera invades their privacy. Understanding where the law draws the line between personal security and privacy is essential.

The starting point is that homeowners generally have the right to install reasonable security devices on property they control (i.e., both their own property and any exclusive use common area assigned to them). Cameras mounted on a homeowner’s house, garage, or yard typically fall within the owner’s authority to use and protect their property. HOAs do have the ability to adopt operating rules and architectural standards under the Davis-Stirling Act, but Civil Code 4350 limits those rules. A rule must fall within the HOA board’s authority, must be consistent with the governing documents and California law, and must be reasonable. A blanket rule banning all security cameras would therefore be impossible for an HOA to reasonably justify and would almost certainly be struck down. [In other words, my position is that when a homeowner installs a security camera on property the homeowner controls for legitimate security purposes, an HOA board cannot reasonably prohibit that conduct. Pass rules ensuring that cameras respect the privacy of others? Certainly. But a policy banning cameras outright? No chance.]

To be sure, the law does not give homeowners unlimited freedom to record whatever their cameras capture. California recognizes a strong right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and several statutes explicitly protect individuals from intrusive surveillance. Penal Code 647 prohibits certain forms of visual intrusion into private spaces, and Civil Code 1708.8 imposes civil liability for both physical and constructive invasions of privacy when someone uses a device to capture images of activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. These laws focus on the nature of the activity being recorded and the location in which it occurs. In practical terms, this means that homeowners may monitor their own property, but they cannot use cameras to peer into a neighbor’s home (never mind their bedroom or bathroom), or any other area where a person reasonably expects privacy.

These legal principles create the tension that often fuels HOA disputes. Homeowners want to protect their homes and families. HOA boards want to enforce architectural standards and prevent conflicts between neighbors. And neighbors understandably do not want surveillance devices pointed at their private spaces. The law does not eliminate these tensions, but it does provide a framework for resolving them. The key questions usually involve where the camera is installed, what area it monitors, and whether the HOA rule regulating the device falls within the limits imposed by the Davis-Stirling Act.

This Fact Sheet explains how those issues intersect. It addresses how privacy laws limit where cameras may be pointed, whether HOAs can ban security cameras installed on a homeowner’s property, and how HOA rules must operate within the limits imposed by the Davis-Stirling Act and other California laws.

If you want to understand how these issues arise in condominium buildings, see the companion Fact Sheet “Can a California Condo Owner Install a Video Doorbell Outside Their Unit?,” which explains why hallway-mounted doorbells and cameras raise different legal questions when the devices are attached to common areas. If your concern involves surveillance systems installed by the HOA board itself, the Fact Sheet “Can a California HOA Install Security Cameras in the Common Areas?” explains when HOAs may monitor shared spaces such as hallways, garages, and entrances. And if the surveillance system goes further by identifying residents or tracking their movements, the Fact Sheet “Can a California HOA Use Biometric Surveillance in Common Areas?” examines when such systems (including facial recognition technology) cross the line into serious privacy violations under California law. And because recording audio raises additional legal issues in California, the last Fact Sheet in this series, “Is It Illegal to Record Audio on Security Cameras or Video Doorbells in California?,” explains why audio surveillance is treated differently from ordinary video monitoring, as well as when audio recording violates Penal Code 632.

Key Points

Video surveillance, led by security cameras and video doorbells, has surpassed traditional alarm systems as the primary security measure for California homeowners. This shift has triggered a surge in disputes between homeowners and their HOAs. Under the Davis-Stirling Act, an HOA’s authority to regulate these devices is not absolute. Legality is determined by a three-pronged analysis: the installation site, the privacy implications of the captured footage, and the objective reasonableness of the HOA’s restrictions.

• Homeowners generally have the right to install security cameras or video doorbells on property they control. Modern residential security cameras are widely used to deter vandalism, burglary, theft, and other crimes. These systems also allow homeowners to monitor entrances and activity at their homes when they are not present. Cameras mounted on a homeowner’s house, garage, driveway, yard, or other areas the homeowner controls (including exclusive use common area assigned to the unit) typically fall within the owner’s authority to protect and monitor their property. [Privacy concerns are legitimate, and as is discussed below, HOAs may address them through reasonable rules governing camera placement or orientation. But privacy law focuses on whether someone is recording activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Attempting to solve that issue by banning all cameras entirely is both overbroad and legally unsupported.]
  • While an HOA may regulate security cameras, it cannot impose a blanket ban. Under Civil Code 4350 and 4765, HOA rules and architectural standards must be reasonable and consistent with California law and the governing documents. An HOA board may require architectural approval for video surveillance devices attached to exterior walls or eaves to address aesthetics or installation methods. An HOA cannot, however, use the approval process as a backdoor method to deny homeowners the right to install reasonable video surveillance outright. A categorical prohibition on security cameras mounted on property the homeowner controls simply cannot be justified under the Davis-Stirling Act. [Bad HOA boards often confuse the power to regulate aesthetics with the power to govern every aspect of their members’ properties. That’s simply not the case. An HOA may adopt reasonable restrictions addressing camera placement or mounting hardware to prevent damage to common area components. But when an HOA rule moves from managing the “how” of a security camera installation to prohibiting the “if” of the security measure itself, it has likely crossed the line into an unreasonable and unenforceable restriction.]
• Privacy laws limit where security cameras may be pointed. California recognizes a strong right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Several statutes reinforce that protection. Penal Code 630 reflects the Legislature’s concern that advances in surveillance technology can threaten personal privacy if left unchecked. Penal Code 647 prohibits certain forms of visual intrusion into private spaces, and Civil Code 1708.8 creates civil liability for physical or constructive invasions of privacy when someone uses a device to capture images of activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. These laws do not prohibit ordinary residential security cameras, but they do prohibit directing cameras into places such as a neighbor’s backyard, bedroom, bathroom, or other private interior or exterior spaces.
  • Civil Code 1708.8 is the primary statute homeowners use when taking legal action for invasion of privacy. While other privacy laws (e.g., Penal Code 647) may require proof of criminal intent or depend on law enforcement action, Civil Code 1708.8 creates a direct civil cause of action. It allows injured homeowners and residents to pursue damages in court when a neighbor uses a device to capture images of activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute is particularly powerful because it authorizes enhanced remedies, including treble (triple) damages. This structure makes Civil Code 1708.8 an especially strong litigation tool when an HOA security camera dispute crosses the line from legitimate security monitoring into unlawful surveillance or invasion of privacy. [Audio recording raises separate legal issues under Penal Code 632, which prohibits recording confidential communications without consent. That issue is addressed in detail in the separate Fact Sheet on audio recording and security cameras.]
• The key legal question is usually not whether a camera exists, but what the camera records. California privacy laws  require a serious invasion of privacy, not a trivial or incidental impact. Consequently, courts evaluating privacy claims tend to focus on the nature of the activity captured and whether the person being recorded had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that location. Video that captures common areas (e.g., sidewalks, walkways, or streets) or a homeowner’s private property (driveways, back and side yards, entrances, or lawns) rarely raises legal concerns. Problems arise, however, when cameras are positioned in ways that intentionally or effectively monitor private interior or exterior spaces belonging to someone else (i.e., places where a person reasonably expects privacy).
  • Unintentional or incidental recording is treated differently from deliberate surveillance of private spaces. Residential cameras frequently capture portions of neighboring property simply because of their field of view. A camera positioned to monitor a homeowner’s driveway may incidentally record someone entering a nearby property. That type of incidental capture is very different from deliberately positioning a device to observe private activities occurring inside another person’s home or other private area.
• Exclusive use common area may be treated differently from general common area. Many HOA developments assign certain areas, such as patios, entry alcoves, or small yard spaces, as exclusive use common area. Homeowners typically have the right to use and maintain these areas subject to the governing documents. Cameras installed within those spaces may therefore fall within the homeowner’s control in the same way cameras installed on the homeowner’s own property would. Disputes may arise when devices are mounted directly to common area components or when they monitor shared spaces. [Those issues are addressed in the companion Fact Sheet discussing condominium doorbells and cameras installed outside individual units.]
• Modern security devices, such as doorbell cameras, fall within this same legal framework. These integrated tools combine video, motion detection, and remote monitoring into a single unit. Legally, they are simply another form of residential security camera. The same principles apply: homeowners may use them to monitor entrances and areas under their control, but they may not direct them into places where others reasonably expect privacy.
• There is no law requiring a homeowner to post signs. While some argue that signage increases the deterrent effect of security cameras and helps undermine future privacy claims, this approach is often unrealistic and provides no legal advantage. [Adding signage is typically more obtrusive than the video surveillance itself. If your HOA already objects to the aesthetics of a small video doorbell or a few cameras placed on a member’s home, they will almost certainly object to permanent signs bolted to the structure. For most homeowners, therefore, requiring signage merely turns a discreet security measure into a larger architectural conflict without providing any meaningful legal advantage.]
• If your HOA attempts to prohibit security cameras installed on property you control, call the HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman and we’ll set your HOA straight. When an HOA board adopts unreasonable restrictions that interfere with legitimate residential security measures, the highly experienced HOA lawyers at MBK Chapman can step in to enforce the legal limits on HOA authority.

California law does not require homeowners to choose between protecting their homes and complying with unreasonable HOA restrictions. The real legal question is not whether security cameras may exist, but whether they are installed in a lawful location, used for legitimate security purposes, and positioned in a way that respects the privacy rights of others. When those conditions are satisfied, attempts by an HOA board to prohibit homeowner-installed cameras will rarely survive scrutiny under the Davis-Stirling Act or California privacy laws.

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