Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the formation and operation of common interest developments. Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association.

Existing law requires the board of an association, if the association adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, to adopt and distribute to each member a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, as provided. Existing law prohibits a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents from exceeding the lesser of the amount stated in the schedule that is in effect at the time of the violation or $100 per violation, except if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association members property, as specified.

This bill would remove the exception if the violation might result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association members property, and would, instead, also except if the violation might result in, among other things, certain fire or environmental hazards, including the storage of any flammable or combustible material in a common area. is contained in a specified list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate. In this regard, the bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than $100, as specified. The bill would require the list to be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.

Existing law requires the board to notify a member in writing at least 10 days before a meeting to consider or impose discipline or a monetary charge on a member, as specified. Existing law requires the board to give a member the opportunity to cure a violation prior to the meeting, and prohibits the board from imposing discipline if the member cures the violation prior to the meeting or, if curing the violation would take longer than the time between the notice provided and the meeting, the member provides financial commitment to cure the violation.

This bill would specify that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.

Existing law gives a person the right of protection from bodily harm and the right to possess and use property. If a person suffers bodily harm or a loss of their property because of the unlawful act or omission of another, existing law authorizes them to recover compensation from the person at fault, which is known as damages.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2579

Author:(Petrie-Norris)

As Amended Ver:April 29, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Department of Real Estate (DRE) to establish a list of violations that permit a homeowners association (HOA) to fine a member more than $100 dollars.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the DRE, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an HOA may impose a monetary penalty in excess of $100, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
2. Requires the list developed pursuant to 1) to include clear definitions of violations and only address violations posing significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.
3. Requires the DRE, in developing the list of violations pursuant to 1) to focus on violations that include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards;
   2. Violations resulting in environmental harms;
   3. Violations involving unpermitted construction or alterations;
   4. Violations related to animal control and pose risks to other residents;
   5. Violations that constitute a failure to maintain property in a manner as to create health or safety risks;
   6. Violations that involve violence of the threat thereof; and
   7. Violations that cause damage to common areas or facilities.
4. Requires the DRE, before finalizing the list specified in 1) to seek input from the following stakeholders:
   1. Members of common interest developments from a regionally diverse section of the state;
   2. Members of age-restricted communities;
   3. Members of associations on fixed incomes;
   4. Association board members; and
   5. Association management professionals.
5. Requires the DRE to publish a list of proposed violations and accept public comment on the list prior to publishing the final list.
6. Clarifies that a member of an HOA engaged in the habitual violation of an association rule is not deemed to have cured the violation simply because they are not presently engaging in the violation at the time the association board meets to consider penalties.

COMMENTS

Common Interest Developments (CIDs): There are over 50,000 CIDs in the state that range in size from three to 27,000 units, with the average CID having 286 residents. CIDs make up roughly 4.7 million housing units, and 36% of Californians (over 14 million Californians) live in a CID. These rates are even higher for homeowners, with approximately 65% of homeowners living in a CID. CIDs include condominiums, community apartment projects, housing cooperatives, and planned unit developments. They are characterized by a separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided interest in a common property, restricted by covenants and conditions that limit the use of common area, and the separate ownership interests and the management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by an HOA. CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act) as well as the governing documents of the association (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or CC&Rs), including bylaws, declaration, and operating rules.

Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act: The Act went into effect in 1986 and is the primary body of law governing CIDs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly.

Over time, the Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and to increase transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including internal dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution, before certain legal actions can proceed. As CIDs continue to represent a significant portion of California's housing stock, the Act plays a critical role in shaping the living environment and governance of millions of residents across the state.

Fines: In 2025, the Legislature enacted a policy capping the fines an HOA may impose for violations of governing documents at $100 per violation, unless the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member's property, through the housing budget trailer bill (AB 130, Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025). Existing law requires that, prior to imposing a higher fine under this exception, the HOA board make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in an open board meeting. AB 130 also prohibits an HOA from charging late fees or interest on monetary penalties and requires that members be given an opportunity to cure violations prior to the imposition of discipline, including access to internal dispute resolution procedures. These provisions were initially proposed in SB 681 (Wahab) of 2025 and later incorporated into AB 130.

The Legislature adopted these limitations in an effort to increase affordability and prevent excessive or punitive fines within common interest developments, while preserving an exception for more serious violations implicating health and safety. Prior to the enactment of AB 130, HOAs were generally permitted to impose monetary penalties in accordance with their governing documents and adopted enforcement schedules, without a statutory cap.

This Bill: This bill would task the DRE with developing a list of violations for which an HOA could impose penalties in excess of $100 by 2028. This bill outlines the types of violations that the DRE is required to focus on, largely those related to community safety, but also provides the DRE with latitude to make its decisions on what violations to include in the final list. This bill requires the DRE to conduct extensive stakeholder engagement when crafting the list, including seeking input from HOA boards, members from HOAs from a geographically diverse area of the state, and from HOA members on fixed incomes. This bill requires the DRE to publish a preliminary list of violations that would permit penalties in excess of $100 and requires the DRE to receive and consider public comment before publishing the final list of violations sufficiently severe to warrant exceeding the $100 cap.

According to the Author

"After the Legislature limited Homeowners Association fines to $100 in 2025, there has been an uptick in violations that threaten the health and safety of residents without a meaningful deterrent. In many cases, the only way for an HOA to enforce rules is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court, which ultimately increases costs for all residents.

If one resident's actions threaten the health and safety of an entire community, an HOA needs the appropriate tools to mitigate that behavior so that the responsibility lies with the offender, not the entire community."

Arguments in Support

The California Association of Community managers writes in support: "Homeowner associations are an important part of California's housing stock, as they are self-sufficient communities that alleviate local governments of various obligations and maintain the quality of life for its residents. One of the most fundamental obligations of an association is to protect its members from health and safety violations such as fire hazards, unstable structures, uninhabitable conditions and physical threats by other residents. Under current law, none of these would be able to be enforced beyond a one-time $100 fine, which does little to deter significant misconduct. Because of this overly broad cap, boards of directors have been unable to fulfill their fiduciary duty to their residents.

AB 2579 builds off the existing health and safety exception in current law and refines it to create a process where health and safety violations that may exceed the $100 cap. We believe that AB 2579 enhances the health and safety of homeowners, allows associations to function more effectively, and preserves the protection for homeowners from being fined for minor infractions."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, DRE estimates the following costs:

1. One-time General Fund costs of $1.12 million in the first year and $1.1 million in the second year for seven positions to enact a program to develop and publish a comprehensive list of specified violations, including (a) researching common HOA violations, (b) reviewing HOA governing documents, (c) contacting local, state, or federal government officials regarding health and safety rules and regulations, (d) reviewing stakeholder feedback, (d) coordinating with the consultant, (e) researching and defining violations, including clear objective standards for violations, (f) drafting and promulgating regulations, and (g) handling an increased volume of calls and "Ask DRE" emails from potentially dissatisfied consumers.
2. One-time General Fund costs of $500,000 for an external consultant to assist DRE staff with the above tasks as well as to develop and assist with the implementation of a public communications plan.
3. DRE further anticipates existing staff within the Legal, Subdivisions, Communications, and Information Technology Divisions will be required to divert attention from existing obligations to assist with the development and implementation of this program.

Because HOA boards, members, and managers impacted by this proposed list development process are not contributors to the Real Estate Fund and the proposed program falls outside of the fund's scope, costs to implement this bill would be General Fund costs.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Johnson, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Lee, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 29, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002444

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2579

Author:(Petrie-Norris) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires, by January 1, 2028, the Department of Real Estate (DRE) to establish a list of violations for which a homeowner association (HOA) may impose a fine of more than $100.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the DRE, by January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an HOA may impose a monetary penalty in excess of $100, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
2. Requires the list developed pursuant to item 1, above, to include clear definitions of violations and only address violations posing significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development (CID).
3. Requires the DRE, in developing the list of violations pursuant to item 1, above, to focus on violations that include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards.
   2. Violations resulting in environmental harms.
   3. Violations involving unpermitted construction or alterations.
   4. Violations related to animal control and that pose risks to other residents.
   5. Violations that constitute a failure to maintain property in a manner as to create health or safety risks.
   6. Violations that involve violence of the threat thereof.
   7. Violations that cause damage to common areas or facilities.
4. Requires the DRE, before finalizing the list specified in item 1, above, to seek input from specified stakeholders, including members of common interest developments from a regionally diverse section of the state, members of age-restricted communities, members of associations on fixed incomes, association board members, and association management professionals.
5. Requires the DRE to publish a list of proposed violations and accept public comment on the list prior to publishing the final list.
6. Clarifies that a member of an HOA engaged in the habitual violation of an association rule is not deemed to have cured the violation simply because they are not presently engaging in the violation at the time the association board meets to consider penalties.

FISCAL EFFECT:

DRE estimates the following costs:

1. One-time General Fund costs of $1.12 million in the first year and $1.1 million in the second year for seven positions to enact a program to develop and publish a comprehensive list of specified violations, including (a) researching common HOA violations, (b) reviewing HOA governing documents, (c) contacting local, state, or federal government officials regarding health and safety rules and regulations, (d) reviewing stakeholder feedback, (d) coordinating with the consultant, (e) researching and defining violations, including clear objective standards for violations, (f) drafting and promulgating regulations, and (g) handling an increased volume of calls and “Ask DRE” emails from potentially dissatisfied consumers.
2. One-time General Fund costs of $500,000 for an external consultant to assist DRE staff with the above tasks as well as to develop and assist with the implementation of a public communications plan.
3. DRE further anticipates existing staff within the Legal, Subdivisions, Communications, and Information Technology Divisions will be required to divert attention from existing obligations to assist with the development and implementation of this program.

Because HOA boards, members, and managers impacted by this proposed list development process are not contributors to the Real Estate Fund and the proposed program falls outside of the fund’s scope, costs to implement this bill would be General Fund costs.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

After the Legislature limited Homeowners Association fines to $100 in 2025, there has been an uptick in violations that threaten the health and safety of residents without a meaningful deterrent. In many cases, the only way for an HOA to enforce rules is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court, which ultimately increases costs for all residents. If one resident's actions threaten the health and safety of an entire community, an HOA needs the appropriate tools to mitigate that behavior so that the responsibility lies with the offender, not the entire community.

1. Background. CIDs. There are over 50,000 CIDs in California. They vary in size and structure and include condominiums, community apartment projects, housing cooperatives, and planned unit developments. CIDs are generally characterized by (a) separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided interest in a common property, (b) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or CC&Rs that limit the use of both separate interests and common property, and (c) management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by an HOA. CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, as well as the governing documents of the association (CC&Rs), including bylaws, declarations, and operating rules.

Fines. In 2025, the Legislature capped the fines an HOA may impose for violations of governing documents at $100 per violation, unless the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact, through AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025, the housing budget trailer bill. Existing law requires, prior to imposing a higher fine under this exception, the HOA board make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in an open board meeting. AB 130 also prohibits an HOA from charging late fees or interest on monetary penalties and requires that members be given an opportunity to cure violations prior to the imposition of discipline, including access to internal dispute resolution procedures.

The Legislature adopted these limitations to increase affordability and prevent excessive or punitive fines within CIDs, while preserving an exception for more serious violations implicating health and safety. Prior to the enactment of AB 130, HOAs were generally permitted to impose monetary penalties in accordance with their governing documents and adopted enforcement schedules, without a statutory cap.

This bill requires DRE to develop a list of violations for which an association may impose penalties in excess of $100 by 2028. The bill outlines the types of violations the department must focus on, largely those related to community safety, but also provides the department with latitude to make decisions on what violations to include in the final list.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2579

Author:(Petrie-Norris)

As Amended Ver:April 29, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Department of Real Estate (DRE) to establish a list of violations that permit a homeowners association (HOA) to fine a member more than $100 dollars.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the DRE, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an HOA may impose a monetary penalty in excess of $100, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
2. Requires the list developed pursuant to 1) to include clear definitions of violations and only address violations posing significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.
3. Requires the DRE, in developing the list of violations pursuant to 1) to focus on violations that include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards;
   2. Violations resulting in environmental harms;
   3. Violations involving unpermitted construction or alterations;
   4. Violations related to animal control and pose risks to other residents;
   5. Violations that constitute a failure to maintain property in a manner as to create health or safety risks;
   6. Violations that involve violence of the threat thereof; and
   7. Violations that cause damage to common areas or facilities.
4. Requires the DRE, before finalizing the list specified in 1) to seek input from the following stakeholders:
   1. Members of common interest developments from a regionally diverse section of the state;
   2. Members of age-restricted communities;
   3. Members of associations on fixed incomes;
   4. Association board members; and
   5. Association management professionals.
5. Requires the DRE to publish a list of proposed violations and accept public comment on the list prior to publishing the final list.
6. Clarifies that a member of an HOA engaged in the habitual violation of an association rule is not deemed to have cured the violation simply because they are not presently engaging in the violation at the time the association board meets to consider penalties.

COMMENTS

Common Interest Developments (CIDs): There are over 50,000 CIDs in the state that range in size from three to 27,000 units, with the average CID having 286 residents. CIDs make up roughly 4.7 million housing units, and 36% of Californians (over 14 million Californians) live in a CID. These rates are even higher for homeowners, with approximately 65% of homeowners living in a CID. CIDs include condominiums, community apartment projects, housing cooperatives, and planned unit developments. They are characterized by a separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided interest in a common property, restricted by covenants and conditions that limit the use of common area, and the separate ownership interests and the management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by an HOA. CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act) as well as the governing documents of the association (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or CC&Rs), including bylaws, declaration, and operating rules.

Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act: The Act went into effect in 1986 and is the primary body of law governing CIDs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly.

Over time, the Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and to increase transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including internal dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution, before certain legal actions can proceed. As CIDs continue to represent a significant portion of California's housing stock, the Act plays a critical role in shaping the living environment and governance of millions of residents across the state.

Fines: In 2025, the Legislature enacted a policy capping the fines an HOA may impose for violations of governing documents at $100 per violation, unless the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member's property, through the housing budget trailer bill (AB 130, Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025). Existing law requires that, prior to imposing a higher fine under this exception, the HOA board make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in an open board meeting. AB 130 also prohibits an HOA from charging late fees or interest on monetary penalties and requires that members be given an opportunity to cure violations prior to the imposition of discipline, including access to internal dispute resolution procedures. These provisions were initially proposed in SB 681 (Wahab) of 2025 and later incorporated into AB 130.

The Legislature adopted these limitations in an effort to increase affordability and prevent excessive or punitive fines within common interest developments, while preserving an exception for more serious violations implicating health and safety. Prior to the enactment of AB 130, HOAs were generally permitted to impose monetary penalties in accordance with their governing documents and adopted enforcement schedules, without a statutory cap.

This Bill: This bill would task the DRE with developing a list of violations for which an HOA could impose penalties in excess of $100 by 2028. This bill outlines the types of violations that the DRE is required to focus on, largely those related to community safety, but also provides the DRE with latitude to make its decisions on what violations to include in the final list. This bill requires the DRE to conduct extensive stakeholder engagement when crafting the list, including seeking input from HOA boards, members from HOAs from a geographically diverse area of the state, and from HOA members on fixed incomes. This bill requires the DRE to publish a preliminary list of violations that would permit penalties in excess of $100 and requires the DRE to receive and consider public comment before publishing the final list of violations sufficiently severe to warrant exceeding the $100 cap.

According to the Author

"After the Legislature limited Homeowners Association fines to $100 in 2025, there has been an uptick in violations that threaten the health and safety of residents without a meaningful deterrent. In many cases, the only way for an HOA to enforce rules is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court, which ultimately increases costs for all residents.

If one resident's actions threaten the health and safety of an entire community, an HOA needs the appropriate tools to mitigate that behavior so that the responsibility lies with the offender, not the entire community."

Arguments in Support

The California Association of Community managers writes in support: "Homeowner associations are an important part of California's housing stock, as they are self-sufficient communities that alleviate local governments of various obligations and maintain the quality of life for its residents. One of the most fundamental obligations of an association is to protect its members from health and safety violations such as fire hazards, unstable structures, uninhabitable conditions and physical threats by other residents. Under current law, none of these would be able to be enforced beyond a one-time $100 fine, which does little to deter significant misconduct. Because of this overly broad cap, boards of directors have been unable to fulfill their fiduciary duty to their residents.

AB 2579 builds off the existing health and safety exception in current law and refines it to create a process where health and safety violations that may exceed the $100 cap. We believe that AB 2579 enhances the health and safety of homeowners, allows associations to function more effectively, and preserves the protection for homeowners from being fined for minor infractions."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Johnson, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Lee, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: April 29, 2026

CONSULTANT: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002444

Date of Hearing: April 28, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2579

Author:(Petrie-Norris) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: discipline

KEY ISSUE: should the department of real estate be required to develop a list of infractions for which a homeowner assocIation may fine a member more than $100?

SYNOPSIS

Homeowner associations serve as the governing system for homeowners living within a common interest development. While most homeowner associations are content to focus on managing the financial condition of the association, and planning for needed repairs, landscaping, and other maintenance, the existing law does vest homeowner association boards with the ability to fine members of the association who violate association rules. Some boards, particularly those placing a heavy emphasis on maintaining aesthetic uniformity within a community, could ruthlessly fine their neighbors for relatively minor violations of association policies. Seeking to ensure that relatively minor neighborhood disputes do not cascade into costly litigation, last year, the Legislature enacted AB 130 (Committee on Budget) Chap. 22, Stats. 2025, to cap most homeowner association fines at $100. As a result of AB 130 several homeowner associations across the state now believe they have lost a vital tool to police the behavior of their neighbors.

This bill seeks to strike a balance between the overly punitive nature of some pre-AB 130 homeowner association enforcement regimes and ensuring that homeowner associations maintain the tools necessary to protect the health and safety of their communities. To that end, as proposed to be amended, this bill would task the Department of Real Estate with developing a list of violations for which a homeowner association could fine a member more than $100. The bill directs the Department to take extensive stakeholder input before developing the list and requires the Department to accept public comment prior to publishing the final list in 2028.

This measure is supported by homeowner association boards and association management companies. The supporters contend that AB 130 went too far and removed important tools for homeowner associations. This measure has no known opposition. The proposed amendments were agreed to in the Committee on Housing and Community Development, which approved this bill unanimously, but to due to legislative deadlines and related logistics the amendments will be adopted by this Committee.

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Real Estate to establish a list of violations that permit a homeowner association to fine a member more than $100 dollars. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Department of Real Estate, on or before January 1, 2028 to develop and publish a list of specified violations for which a homeowner association may impose a monetary penalty in excess of $100, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
2. Requires the list developed pursuant to 1) to include clear definitions of violations and only address violations posing significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.
3. Requires the Department of Real Estate, in developing the list of violations pursuant to 1) to focus on violations that in include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Violations that create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards;
   2. Violations resulting in environmental harms;
   3. Violations involving unpermitted construction or alterations;
   4. Violations related to animal control and pose risks to other residents;
   5. Violations that constitute a failure to maintain property in a manner as to create health or safety risks;
   6. Violations that involve violence of the threat thereof; and
   7. Violations that cause damage to common areas or facilities.
4. Requires the Department of Real Estate, before finalizing the list specified in 1) to seek input from the following stakeholders:
   1. Members of common interest developments from a regionally diverse section of the state;
   2. Members of age-restricted communities;
   3. Members of associations on fixed incomes;
   4. Association board members; and
   5. Association management professionals.
5. Requires the Department of Real Estate to publish a list of proposed violations and accept public comment on the list prior to publishing the final list.
6. Clarifies that a member of a homeowner association engaged in the habitual violation of an association rule is not deemed to have cured the violation simply because they are not presently engaging in the violation at the time the association board meets to consider penalties.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and provides for the rules and regulations governing the operation of a residential common interest development and the respective rights and duties of the homeowner association and its members. (Civil Code Section 4000 et seq.)
2. Provides that if homeowner association’s board adopts or has adopted a policy imposing any monetary penalty, including any fee, on any association member for a violation of the governing documents, including any monetary penalty relating to the activities of a guest or tenant of the member, the board must adopt and distribute to each member, in the annual policy statement, a schedule of the monetary penalties that may be assessed for those violations, which must be in accordance with authorization for member discipline contained in the governing documents. (Civil Code Section 5850 (a).)
3. Requires any monetary penalty imposed by a homeowner association to be reasonable. (Ibid.)
4. Requires a monetary penalty for a violation of the governing documents not exceed the lesser of the following:
   1. The monetary penalty stated in the schedule of monetary penalties or supplement that is in effect at the time of the violation; or
   2. One hundred dollars ($100). (Civil Code Section 5850 (c).)
5. Authorizes, notwithstanding 4), a homeowner association to impose a monetary penalty exceeding $100 if the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member’s property, and requires the board to make a written finding of that impact in an open meeting prior to imposing the penalty. (Civil Code Section 5850 (d).)
6. Requires a homeowner association to provide written notice to a member at least 10 days prior to a meeting to consider discipline or impose a monetary charge, including the nature of the violation and the member’s right to attend and be heard. (Civil Code Section 5855 (a).)
7. Requires a homeowner association to provide a member with an opportunity to cure a violation prior to the disciplinary hearing and prohibits discipline if the violation is cured or if the member commits to curing the violation within a reasonable timeframe. (Civil Code Section 5855 (c).)
8. Prohibits the imposition of interest or late fees on monetary penalties imposed by a homeowner association. (Civil Code Section 5850 (e).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Homeowner associations govern common interest developments, and generally exist to manage the day-to-day affairs of the association’s finances and maintain common areas within the development. To effectuate these duties associations are permitted to adopt rules and guidelines for residents within the association, and in some circumstances issue fines for violations of these rules. While some fines may be reasonable, for example damaging portions of the common area, others can be considered somewhat trivial, including failing to paint one’s front door an approved color or maintaining a mailbox that does not meet community guidelines. To rein in excessive penalties being imposed on residents for trivial rule violations, last year the Legislature capped such penalties at $100 unless a violation impacted the health and safety of others within the development. (AB 130 (Committee on Budget) Chap. 22, Stats. 2025.) However, some homeowner associations now believe that AB 130 limits their ability to properly police the behavior of their neighbors. This bill would task the Department of Real Estate with developing a list of violations that, in addition to those related to health and safety, may exceed $100. In support of this bill the author states:

After the Legislature limited Homeowners Association fines to $100 in 2025, there has been an uptick in violations that threaten the health and safety of residents without a meaningful deterrent. In many cases, the only way for an HOA to enforce rules is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court, which ultimately increases costs for all residents.

If one resident’s actions threaten the health and safety of an entire community, an HOA needs the appropriate tools to mitigate that behavior so that the responsibility lies with the offender, not the entire community.

Background on homeowner association governance. There are approximately 50,000 common interest developments in California. They vary in size and structure, but generally are characterized by the following: (1) separate ownership of individual residential units coupled with an undivided interest in common property; (2) CC&Rs that limit the use of both separate interests and common property; and (3) management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by a homeowner association.

Governance of these developments and the homeowner associations that make up their governing bodies is regulated under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code Section 1350 et seq.), which sets forth general rules governing common interest developments. Beyond the overarching state law, each individual association is also subject to specific rules and regulations set forth by the association’s “governing documents." These governing documents include the recorded declaration and any other documents, such as bylaws, operating rules of the association, or articles of incorporation that govern the operation of the association. Homeowner associations are governed by volunteer boards of directors who are elected by the members of the association and who are responsible for interpreting the governing documents and state law.

In order to maintain the common areas of the association, existing law enables association board to adopt rules and regulations for the community. These typically include requirements that properties be maintained, that exterior construction be conducted in accordance with association guidelines, and that activities occurring within common areas adhere to various codes of conduct so as not to disturb neighbors. While many homeowner associations adopt a live-and-let-live approach to governance, only cracking down on neighbors who disturb the peace or damage the common areas, others adopt draconian rules and regulations governing nearly every aspect of a resident’s life. Based on documents provided to the Committee by proponents of the bill, some associations go so far as to act as a second local government for those within the association. These associations enforce rules including association-specific speed limits, parking restrictions, rental restrictions, pet restrictions, and quiet hours. In addition to these rules, many associations strictly enforce aesthetic requirements including limits on the color and type of doors and mailboxes, mandating the use of specific roofing materials, and bans on patio furniture and security cameras.

Given complaints about overzealous enforcement of minor violations by some homeowner associations, last year, the Legislature enacted the aforementioned AB 130. That bill aimed to ensure that homeowner associations did not supplant local government and law enforcement within the association’s boundaries and sought to balance the need for homeowner associations to maintain their rules while simultaneously ensuring that petty neighborhood disputes do not lead to unnecessarily harsh financial penalties or costly litigation. However, many associations now bemoan their inability to properly police their neighborhoods.

As proposed to be amended, this bill would task the Department of Real Estate with developing a list of violations for which a homeowner association may impose a fine in excess of $100. The bill currently in print establishes an extensive list of violations for which fines in excess of $100 could be imposed. However, in conversations between the staff of this Committee, the Committee on Housing and Community Development, and the author, it became clear that the list in the bill in print may be both over- and under-inclusive. To ensure that adequately addressing homeowner association fine authority does not require annual legislative updates to strike a proper balance, the author agreed to amend the bill to task the Department of Real Estate with developing the violation list discussed above. Not only will this allow a more thorough public vetting of the list but also enable the Department to utilize the regulatory process to more swiftly update the list should the need arise. Accordingly, proposed amendments will remove the list of violations in the bill in print and replace that language with provisions tasking the Department of Real Estate with developing the violation list.

Recognizing that some homeowner associations may need greater fine authority than provided in AB 130, this bill would task the Department of Real Estate with developing a list of violations for which an association could impose penalties in excess of $100 by 2028. The bill outlines the types of violations that the Department is required to focus on, largely those related to community safety, but also provides the Department with latitude to make its decisions on what violations to include in the final list. The bill requires the Department of Real Estate to conduct extensive stakeholder engagement when crafting the list, including seeking input from association boards, members from associations from a geographically diverse area of the state, and from association members on fixed incomes. The bill requires the Department to publish a preliminary list of violations that would permit penalties in excess of $100 and requires the Department to receive and consider public comment before publishing the final list of violations sufficiently severe to warrant exceeding the $100 cap.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by both homeowner association board and homeowner association management companies. In support of the bill, the California Association of Community managers writes:

Homeowner associations are an important part of California’s housing stock, as they are self-sufficient communities that alleviate local governments of various obligations and maintain the quality of life for its residents. One of the most fundamental obligations of an association is to protect its members from health and safety violations such as fire hazards, unstable structures, uninhabitable conditions and physical threats by other residents. Under current law, none of these would be able to be enforced beyond a one-time $100 fine, which does little to deter significant misconduct. Because of this overly broad cap, boards of directors have been unable to fulfill their fiduciary duty to their residents.

AB 2579 builds off the existing health and safety exception in current law and refines it to create a process where health and safety violations that may exceed the $100 cap. We believe that AB 2579 enhances the health and safety of homeowners, allows associations to function more effectively, and preserves the protection for homeowners from being fined for minor infractions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Community Managers
California Building Industry Association
Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2579 (

Author:Petrie-Norris) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2026

SUBJECT: Common interest developments: discipline

SUMMARY: Allows the board of a homeowners’ association (HOA) to fine a member in excess of the statutory $100 fine cap if the member violates the HOA’s governing documents in specified ways. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows an HOA to fine a member more than $100 for any of the following violations:
   1. Any of the following fire or environmental hazards:
      1. The storage of any flammable or combustible material in a common area;
      2. The obstruction of a fire lane;
      3. The tampering or otherwise disabling of a fire alarm, smoke detector, fire extinguisher, or fire sprinkler;
      4. Smoking in any location within the community;
      5. The use of open flames in any area in which the use of open flames is prohibited;
      6. The improper discharge of chemicals or hazardous waste in the community;
      7. The failure to abide by any fire hardening and setback requirements; and
      8. The flying of drones over common areas or another person’s lot or condominium.
   2. Any of the following issues with respect to architectural improvements:
      1. The unauthorized construction of improvements or alterations, or the creation of unstable structures;
      2. The exposure or installation of wiring or electrical components that is not in compliance with any applicable code requirements; and
      3. The removal of any safety features, including the removal of railings or barriers from decks.
   3. Any of the following issues with respect to animals:
      1. The keeping of a pet in the community that poses a danger to persons, other pets, or property;
      2. The keeping of a pet in the community that is determined by a public animal control agency to be vicious or potentially dangerous;
      3. The failure to keep any pet under control;
      4. The failure to pick up or properly dispose of pet waste in the common area or on another owner’s lot; and
      5. The keeping of prohibited animals within the community.
   4. Any of the following with respect to maintenance:
      1. The stockpiling or excessive storage of items visible from the common area or outside the lot or condominium that poses fire or health risks;
      2. The accumulation of trash or debris, which results in a sanitation risk and attracts rodents or other pests;
      3. The visible growth of mold or mildew on exterior walls or roofs, which could impact neighboring lots or condominiums; and
      4. The accumulation of standing water to remain or pool, which poses risks of reproduction among mosquitoes or other pests.
   5. Any of the following damages with respect to common areas:
      1. The cutting down, removal, or modification of trees, plants, or other landscaping or vegetation in a common area;
      2. The riding of bicycles, e-bikes, or other related motorized vehicles in a dangerous and unsafe manner, or otherwise in violation of the governing documents, in a common area;
      3. The dumping or otherwise discharging of water or other fluids onto a common area, resulting in obstructions in the community;
      4. The placement of personal items within a common area, including, but not limited to, on walkways, sidewalks, trails, or emergency exit paths;
      5. The placement of toys, games, or sports equipment in a common area or on another owner’s property when not in use, resulting in tripping hazards or the obstruction of traffic; and
      6. The obstruction of tree limbs or overgrown landscaping into the sidewalks and streets of a common area.
   6. Either of the following violent acts:
      1. Any physical acts or threats by residents or guests, including, but not limited to, harassment or stalking by residents, members, or association employees or vendors; or
      2. The discharging of a weapon.
   7. A violation of a short-term rental policy that is for a period of 30 days or less.
2. Deletes a provision that would only allow an HOA board to charge more than $100 for violations that may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another HOA member’s property.
3. Deletes a provision that would require the HOA board to make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in a board meeting open to the HOA members before imposing a fine of greater than $100.
4. Provides that if an HOA member engages in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations, that member is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the hearing.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes an HOA to impose monetary penalties on a member for violations of the governing documents, provided the board adopts and distributes a schedule of monetary penalties in the annual policy statement. (Civil Code (CIV) Section 5850)
2. Requires that monetary penalties be reasonable and consistent with the HOA’s governing documents. (CIV 5850)
3. Caps monetary penalties at the lesser of $100 per violation, or the amount specified in the HOA’s penalty schedule, unless an exception applies. (CIV 5850)
4. Authorizes an HOA to impose a monetary penalty exceeding $100 if the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member’s property, and requires the board to make a written finding of that impact in an open meeting prior to imposing the penalty. (CIV 5850)
5. Prohibits an HOA from charging late fees or interest on monetary penalties. (CIV 5850)
6. Requires an HOA to provide members, upon request, with the current schedule of monetary penalties and any supplements. (CIV 5850)
7. Requires an HOA to provide written notice to a member at least 10 days prior to a meeting to consider discipline or impose a monetary charge, including the nature of the violation and the member’s right to attend and be heard. (CIV 5855)
8. Requires an HOA to provide a member with an opportunity to cure a violation prior to the disciplinary hearing and prohibits discipline if the violation is cured or if the member commits to curing the violation within a reasonable timeframe. (CIV 5855)
9. Provides an HOA member with the right to request internal dispute resolution if the matter is not resolved following the hearing. (CIV 5855)
10. Requires the HOA to provide written notice of any disciplinary decision within 14 days and conditions the effectiveness of the discipline on compliance with procedural requirements. (CIV 5855)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “After the Legislature limited Homeowners Association fines to $100 in 2025, there has been an uptick in violations that threaten the health and safety of residents without a meaningful deterrent. In many cases, the only way for an HOA to enforce rules is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court, which ultimately increases costs for all residents.

If one resident’s actions threaten the health and safety of an entire community, an HOA needs the appropriate tools to mitigate that behavior so that the responsibility lies with the offender, not the entire community.”

Common Interest Developments (CIDs): There are over 50,000 CIDs in the state that range in size from three to 27,000 units, with the average CID having 286 residents. CIDs make up roughly 4.7 million housing units, and 36% of Californians (over 14 million Californians) live in a CID. These rates are even higher for homeowners, with approximately 65% of homeowners living in a CID. CIDs include condominiums, community apartment projects, housing cooperatives, and planned unit developments. They are characterized by a separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided interest in a common property, restricted by covenants and conditions that limit the use of common area, and the separate ownership interests and the management of common property and enforcement of restrictions by an HOA. CIDs are governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act) as well as the governing documents of the association (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or CC&Rs), including bylaws, declaration, and operating rules.

Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Act): The Act went into effect in 1986 and is the primary body of law governing CIDs in California. The Act provides the legal framework for the creation and management of HOAs, including rules related to governance, assessments, dispute resolution, maintenance responsibilities, and member rights. The law aims to balance the authority of HOAs with the rights of individual property owners, ensuring that communities are managed efficiently and fairly.

Over time, the Act has been amended to address the evolving needs of CIDs and to increase transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. Key provisions include requirements for open meetings, financial disclosures, election procedures, and architectural review processes. The Act also provides mechanisms for resolving disputes, including internal dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution, before certain legal actions can proceed. As CIDs continue to represent a significant portion of California’s housing stock, the Act plays a critical role in shaping the living environment and governance of millions of residents across the state.

Fines: In 2025, the Legislature enacted a policy capping the fines an HOA may impose for violations of governing documents at $100 per violation, unless the violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another member’s property, through the housing budget trailer bill (AB 130, Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025). Existing law requires that, prior to imposing a higher fine under this exception, the HOA board make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in an open board meeting. AB 130 also prohibits an HOA from charging late fees or interest on monetary penalties and requires that members be given an opportunity to cure violations prior to the imposition of discipline, including access to internal dispute resolution procedures. These provisions were initially proposed in SB 681 (Wahab) of 2025 and later incorporated into AB 130.

The Legislature adopted these limitations in an effort to increase affordability and prevent excessive or punitive fines within common interest developments, while preserving an exception for more serious violations implicating health and safety. Prior to the enactment of AB 130, HOAs were generally permitted to impose monetary penalties in accordance with their governing documents and adopted enforcement schedules, without a statutory cap.

This Bill: Since the enactment of AB 130, stakeholders have raised concerns that the $100 cap, combined with the requirement to make case-by-case written findings of health and safety impacts, has limited HOAs’ abilities to effectively enforce their governing documents, including in situations involving recurring or potentially hazardous conditions.

This bill modifies the existing exception to the $100 cap by replacing the general “adverse health or safety impact” standard with a specified list of violations for which an HOA may impose a fine exceeding $100. These include, among other things, violations related to fire risks or environmental hazards (such as storing flammable materials or obstructing fire lanes), unpermitted construction or unsafe alterations, dangerous or uncontrolled animals, maintenance conditions posing health or sanitation risks, damage to common areas, violent or threatening conduct, and violations of short-term rental restrictions. This bill also removes the requirement that the HOA board make a written finding in an open meeting prior to imposing a higher fine, and instead authorizes higher penalties where the violation falls within the enumerated categories.

Additionally, this bill provides that a member engaged in habitual, repeated, or continuing violations is not deemed to have cured a violation simply because the violation is not occurring at the time of the disciplinary hearing. As a result, the existing law requirement that discipline not be imposed if a violation is cured prior to the hearing would not apply in those circumstances.

Policy Considerations: This bill raises questions about the appropriate balance between limiting excessive HOA fines and preserving the enforceability of governing documents. On the one hand, the $100 cap established by AB 130 may, in some circumstances, reduce the effectiveness of HOA enforcement, particularly where violations are ongoing, economically beneficial to the violator (such as short-term rentals), or occur in higher-income communities where a $100 penalty may not serve as a meaningful deterrent. In these cases, the inability to impose higher fines without making individualized findings of health or safety impacts at an open meeting may constrain HOAs’ abilities to address persistent or harmful conduct.

On the other hand, by replacing the general health and safety exception with a detailed and expansive list of violations eligible for higher fines, this bill may significantly broaden the circumstances under which HOAs can impose penalties exceeding $100. The enumerated categories include a wide range of common violations, such as maintenance issues, architectural modifications, and use of common areas, which may effectively allow higher fines in many routine enforcement situations. As a result, the Committee may wish to consider whether the bill maintains the original intent of AB 130 to limit excessive fines, or whether it shifts the balance back toward broader HOA enforcement authority in a way that could undermine affordability and consumer protections for homeowners.

Committee Amendments: In order to address the above policy considerations, the Committee may wish to consider the following amendments:

CIV 5850 is amended to read:

(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the board may impose a penalty stated in the schedule of monetary penalties or supplement that is in effect at the time of the violation that is greater than one hundred dollars ($100) per violation, if the violation may result in any of the following: either of the following apply to the violation:

(A) The violation may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member’s property.

(B) The violation is contained in the list developed and published by the Department of Real Estate pursuant to Section 5851.

(2) Before imposing a penalty on a violation pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the board shall make a written finding specifying the adverse health or safety impact in a board meeting open to the members.

CIV 5851 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

(a) On or before January 1, 2028, the Department of Real Estate shall develop and publish a list of specified violations for which an association may impose a monetary penalty that is greater than one hundred dollars ($100), notwithstanding any other provision of law.

(b) (1) The list shall be limited to violations that are clearly defined and address significant risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development.

(2) (A) In developing the list, the department shall identify categories of violations that pose heightened risks to health, safety, or the integrity of the common interest development, including, but not limited to, violations that do any of the following:

(i) Create a risk of fire or other life safety hazards.

(ii) Result in environmental hazards.

(iii) Involve unpermitted construction or alterations.

(iv) Relate to animal control and pose a risk to other residents.

(v) Constitute a failure to maintain property in a manner that creates health or safety risks.

(vi) Involve violence or threats of violence.

(vii) Cause damage to the common area or common facilities.

(B) The department shall ensure that each category of violation included in the list is described using clear and objective standards sufficient to provide notice to members of the conduct subject to enhanced penalties.

(c) Before finalizing the list, the department shall conduct a stakeholder engagement process to solicit input from a broad range of interested parties. The department, at a minimum, shall convene a stakeholder group that includes all of the following members:

(1) Members of common interest developments representing diverse geographic regions of the state.

(2) Members of age-restricted communities.

(3) Members of associations on fixed incomes.

(4) Association board members.

(5) Association management professionals.

(d) The department shall release a draft list of violations for public comment and shall consider all timely submitted comments before finalizing the list of violations.

(e) The department shall publish the final list of violations on the department’s internet website.

Related Legislation:

AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025, established the $100 cap on fines that an HOA can charge.

SB 681 (Wahab) of 2025 initially contained the $100 cap on fines that an HOA can charge, which was eventually incorporated into the 2025 Housing Trailer Bill (AB 130).

Double-Referred: This bill was also referred to the Committee on Judiciary, where it will be heard should it pass out of this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Community Managers
California Building Industry Association
Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085