The 2025 legislative session is well underway at this point, and most bills have been advancing through various committees. By the time you read this, the June 6 deadline for bills to pass out of the house of origin will have passed. We are rapidly approaching the September 12 final deadline for bill passage. There are a couple of bills that would be tough for HOAs to handle. In particular, see AB-21 (a Davis-Stirling “kitchen sink” bill), AB-739 (requiring all managers to obtain a broker’s license from the Department of Real Estate), SB-546 (eliminating the financial review option outside of board meetings), SB-677 (allowing housing developments and urban lot splits in HOAs), and SB-681 (capping fines at $100). We have already seen some positive developments on these bills, but at this stage in the game, things can change quickly. So stay tuned!
Two important and related housing concepts generating some buzz, which have already impacted and will continue to impact HOAs, have emerged and are important to keep in mind: “missing middle” and “gentle density” housing. These are the result of concerns regarding housing costs and the shortage of available housing. As noted in some of these bills, the cost of housing in California is the highest of any state in the country. Missing middle housing has been characterized as the sweet spot between “large, single-family homes (which can be an inefficient use of land) and mid- and high-rise construction (which can be expensive to build).” Missing middle housing includes medium density housing types like ADUs, condos, duplexes, fourplexes, etc. The other overlapping concept, “gentle density” housing, has been described as “ADUs, duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and other moderately dense developments that were common before the imposition of zoning.” These concepts are driving policy related to construction of ADUs, permitting requirements, and building code standards. HOAs, along with cities and counties, will likely be significantly impacted.
This bill would require the Department of Insurance, on or before January 1, 2030, and every five years thereafter, to consider whether or not to update its regulations to include additional building hardening measures for property-level mitigation efforts and community-wide wildfire mitigation programs. As part of this consideration, the bill would require the department to consult with specified agencies to identify additional building hardening measures to consider, as well as to develop and implement a public participation process during the evaluation.
STATUS: Passed out of Assembly 79-0.
Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to convene a working group to research and consider recommending building standards to allow residential developments between 3 and 10 units to be built under the requirements of the California Residential Code (CRC), and requires HCD to perform a review of residential construction cost pressures, as specified.
STATUS: Passed out of Assembly 79-0.
Existing law (the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act) governs the management and operation of common interest by an association. If a provision of that act requires an association to deliver a document by “individual delivery” or “individual notice,” the act requires the association to deliver that document in accordance with the preferred delivery method specified by the member. Existing law also requires the board of an association to provide general notice of a proposed rule change at least 28 days before making the rule change, in accordance with certain procedures. This bill would revise the above-described rule change provision to require the board to provide individual notice pursuant to the above-described provision governing document delivery.
Existing law prohibits the board of a common interest development from taking action on any item of business outside of a board meeting. Existing law also prohibits the board from conducting a meeting via a series of electronic transmissions, except in specified emergency circumstances. This bill would prohibit a majority of the members of the board, outside an authorized meeting, from conducting communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business within the board’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Existing law requires a common interest development’s association to generally give notice of the time and place of a board meeting at least four days before the meeting and requires the notice to contain the agenda for the meeting. This bill would also require the notice containing the agenda to have instructions on how a member may get a copy of the agenda packet for the open session portion of the meeting and would establish procedures for the board to follow in responding to those requests.
Existing law authorizes the board to adjourn to, or meet solely in, executive session to consider litigation and other specified matters. Existing law requires any matter discussed in executive session to be generally noted in the minutes of the meeting immediately following that is open to the entire membership. This bill would require the board, if the association becomes involved in litigation, to announce the litigation at its subsequent meeting, including stating the name of the court and case number in the meeting minutes. The bill would also require the board, if the association files an insurance claim or has an insurance policy change, to announce the claim or policy change at its subsequent meeting, as specified. The bill would further require discussions regarding ongoing litigation to have the case name included as part of the executive session meeting minute notes.
This bill would require open session meetings of the board to be electronically recorded using audio, or audio and video, and would consider the recordings to be a record of the association and to be available to members on the same basis as written meeting minutes. The bill would require notice to be given at the beginning of every open session of the board that the meeting is being recorded.
Existing law requires the minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes of a board meeting, other than an executive session, to be available to members within 30 days of the meeting and distributed to a member upon request and upon reimbursement of the association’s cost for making that distribution. This bill would require that there be no charge for minutes distributed electronically. The bill would require the minutes, or proposed minutes, to include specified information, including the date and time of the meeting and whether a quorum of directors was established.
Existing law authorizes a member to bring a civil action for declaratory or equitable relief for a violation by the association of specified provisions governing board meetings within one year of the date the cause of action accrues. Existing law entitles a member who prevails in a civil action under these provisions to reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. This bill would require a court to void any action taken by the board at a meeting shown to be conducted in violation of the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize a cause of action under those provisions to be brought in either superior court or small claims court. The bill would also require a member who prevails in a civil action brought in small claims court to be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred.
This bill would exclude an amendment to the operating rules from the requirement that the amendment be held by secret ballot. The bill would also prohibit a member from being denied a ballot for any reason other than not being a member at the time when the ballots are distributed. The bill would update definitions and would make various other related and conforming changes to the act.
STATUS: The bill was referred to the Housing and Community Development and Business and Professions committees. It failed to advance out of committee and is now dead. The author has stated his intention to bring it back next year (or support a colleague in doing so) in the second half (2026) of this legislative session.
This bill would require a broker of record to determine if a FAIR Plan policy can be moved to a voluntary market insurance company before the policy is renewed. It would also require the FAIR Plan Association to notify all policyholders of coverage options. This is a good reminder that FAIR Plan policies should truly be a last resort for most HOAs.
STATUS: Passed out of Assembly Insurance Committee 17-0 and Appropriations Committee 14-0. Headed to suspense file.
This bill would authorize the association (if granted prior approval from the commissioner) to request the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to issue bonds and would authorize the bank to issue those bonds to finance the costs of claims, to increase liquidity and claims-paying capacity of the association, and to refund bonds previously issued for that purpose. The bill would specify that the association is a participating party and that financing all or any portion of the costs of claims or to increase liquidity and the claims-paying capacity of the association is a project for bond purposes. The bill would authorize the bank to loan the proceeds of issued bonds to the association, and would authorize the association to enter into a loan agreement with the bank and to enter into a line of credit agreement with an institutional lender or broker-dealer. This bill would require the association, if the above-described bonds, loan agreements, or lines of credit received the prior approval of the commissioner, to assess members in the amounts and at the times necessary to timely pay in full all obligations of the association with respect to those bonds, loan agreements, or lines of credit and related agreements, as specified.
STATUS: Passed out of the Assembly 77-0 on April 1, 2025. Headed to the Senate Business and Professions, the Economic Development, and the Insurance committees. It was amended in the Senate on May 29, 2025.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (which is administered by the California Coastal Commission) requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit from a local government or the commission, except as provided. Existing law specifies that the above-described provisions governing accessory dwelling units do not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976, except as specified. This bill would exempt the construction of an accessory dwelling unit located within the county of Los Angeles, and in any county that is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the governor on or after February 1, 2025, from the need to obtain a coastal development permit, as specified.
STATUS: Passed out of the Assembly 77-0 on April 1, 2025. Headed to Senate Natural Resources, Water, and Housing and Community Development committees. Amended in the Senate on May 13, 2025.
This bill would require a managing agent of a common interest development to hold a real estate broker license issued by the state.
STATUS: The bill has been referred to the Housing and Community Development and Business and Professions committees. It was not heard in either of these committees and appears to be dead.
This bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any parking standards if the accessory dwelling unit is 500 square feet or smaller. Under this bill, that owner-occupancy requirement would apply only if the junior accessory dwelling unit has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure. The bill would require an ordinance that provides for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit to require that a rental of a junior accessory dwelling unit be for a term longer than 30 days.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Assembly 70-1.
This bill would prohibit a business entity, as defined, that has an interest in more than 1,000 single-family residential properties from purchasing, acquiring, or otherwise obtaining an ownership interest in another single-family residential property and subsequently leasing the property, as specified.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Assembly 42-18.
This bill would void any restrictions in governing documents that prevented the replacement of a fuel-gas-burning appliance with an electric appliance or prevented the installation or use of a residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system.
STATUS: The bill passed out of committees before getting sent to the suspense file in the Appropriations Committee.
This bill would require HOAs to provide potential buyers with the inspection reports required under Section 5551 (SB-326 balcony inspection reports).
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Senate 34-0.
This bill would prescribe a procedure for the notice and removal of a squatter by a local law enforcement agency. The bill would authorize a property owner or their agent to serve a demand to vacate, as specified, upon a squatter. The bill would authorize the owner or agent, after service of the demand, to submit a request, signed under penalty of perjury, to the local law enforcement agency with primary jurisdiction where the property is located, as specified. This bill would require the law enforcement agency, upon receipt of the request, to verify the request and, upon verification, to remove the unlawful occupants from the property without unreasonable delay, as specified.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Public Safety (6-0), Judiciary (13-0), and Appropriations (7-0) committees but was placed in the suspense file. The suspense file is supposed help legislators consider the fiscal impact of bills, but it is often used to quietly kill bills. Significant concerns were expressed by staff, so don’t expect this bill to move.
Existing law requires the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development to, on a monthly basis, review specified documents, including account statements, reconciliations, and ledgers, unless the association’s governing documents impose more stringent standards. Existing law authorizes those review requirements to be met when every individual member of the board, or a subcommittee of the board consisting of the treasurer and at least one other board member, reviews the documents and statements independent of a board meeting, so long as the review is ratified at the board meeting subsequent to the review and that ratification is reflected in the minutes of that meeting. This bill would repeal those provisions authorizing the review requirements to be met when individual members or a subcommittee of the board review the documents and statements independent of a board meeting as described above.
STATUS: The bill has been referred to the Housing and Community Development and Judiciary committees but has not been taken up in either one.
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act governs the management and operation of common interest developments. This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the provision specifying the act’s title.
STATUS: This bill was likely a “spot” bill. It was never referred to any committees and won’t make it out of the Senate.
This bill would (1) create a streamlined ministerial approval process for rebuilding residential structures damaged in a disaster, (2) establish timelines for homeowners associations (HOAs) to review development proposals, (3) limit the scope of covenants and other instruments that would prohibit a property owner from rebuilding a residential structure destroyed in a declared disaster, and (4) prohibit local agencies from preventing property owners from living in a mobile home on their property for up to three years following a disaster.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Senate 39-0.
This bill would require local agencies to ministerially approve certain housing developments and urban lot splits and preclude the imposition of additional approval requirements. Additionally, this bill would make void any homeowner association private restrictions, including those contained in CC&Rs or other governing documents that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict these approved housing developments and urban lot splits.
STATUS: The bill was been referred to the Housing and Community Development and Judiciary committees. It did not make it out of committee but could be reconsidered.
This bill covers a lot of ground. Relating to HOAs, it would prohibit monetary fees from exceeding the lesser of that specified schedule or $100 per violation. The bill would require the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting to consider or impose discipline, as specified. The bill would reduce the time to provide written notification of a decision to impose discipline from 15 days to 14 days. The bill would also prohibit fees or other financial requirements to be imposed on the construction or use of an ADU or JADU.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Senate 28-10.
Cal REMIA would establish the California Residential Mortgage Insurance Fund in the State Treasury and would continuously appropriate moneys in the fund to the agency for the purpose of insuring construction loans and permanent loans and providing credit enhancements under the program and for the purpose of defraying administrative expenses incurred by the agency in operating and implementing the program.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Senate 38-0.
Existing law imposes various requirements regarding the installation and use of an electric vehicle (EV) charging station placed in a common area or an exclusive use common area of a common interest development, including that the owner is required to provide a certificate of insurance that names the association as an additional insured party. This bill would delete the requirement that the insurance policy name the association as an additional insured party, and would correct an erroneous cross-reference regarding the amount of that insurance.
STATUS: The bill passed out of the Senate 28-10.
Existing law makes delivery of a document under the Davis-Stirling Act complete upon either its deposit into the United States mail or upon electronic transmission. This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to those provisions.
STATUS: This bill is likely a “spot” bill and won’t move out of the Senate at this point.
On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the filing requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). However, while Justice Alito did grant the government’s motion for a stay (in the Texas Top Cop Shop case), another nationwide injunction (from the Smith case) was still technically in effect. The flip-flopping continued through February and March. As of February 18, the beneficial ownership information filing requirement had been reinstated and FinCEN issued a new reporting deadline of March 21, 2025, for most entities. But on March 2, the Treasury Department announced it would not enforce the CTA and was in the process of narrowing its application to only foreign entities.
Then on March 21, FinCEN issued an interim final rule that removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This means that FinCEN will not enforce penalties or fines against companies or beneficial owners who do not comply with the reporting requirements. The focus will now be on foreign reporting companies, relieving domestic entities from the burden of compliance.
Nathan McGuire, Esq., is a founding partner of McGuire Schubert Sohal LLP, a law firm specializing in representing community associations of all types. He has been engaged in legislative advocacy for HOAs for most of his 20-plus-year career and serves on the board of directors for Echo. He was named Super Lawyers magazine’s “California Rising Star” for six years running; Super Lawyer in 2021-2024; and is the recipient of an AV Preeminent Peer Review designation from Martindale-Hubbell, which signifies the highest level of excellence in the attorney profession.
© 2025 ECHO