The 2026 legislative session has officially come to a close. The Legislature adjourned on August 31, and the Governor’s deadline to sign or veto bills expired on September 30. There were more bills impacting community associations in this legislative session than ever before; many would have adversely affected community associations.
Hughes Gill Cochrane Tinetti worked closely with CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee (“CLAC”) and with CACM’s Legislative Committee and their advocates to help achieve a very successful session under difficult circumstances. Two of the bills sponsored by CAI-CLAC are now law, and several bills that would have harmed community associations were defeated or withdrawn altogether.
Unless otherwise noted, the bills signed by the Governor take effect on January 1, 2027.
AB 2050 – Reserve Funding
Perhaps the most significant win of the session came with CAI-CLAC sponsored Assembly Bill 2050 (Caloza), which the Governor signed on September 29. The bill is designed to ensure that associations save enough for the long-term repair and replacement of major components and to reduce the likelihood of sudden, steep special assessments. Beginning January 1, 2032, an association’s reserve study must identify the minimum annual reserve contribution needed to keep the reserve account balance from falling below zero over the next 30 years.
The association must review and update the study every year and fund its reserves at no less than that minimum contribution level. If the study projects that the reserve balance will fall below zero at any point in the 30-year period, the association must transfer at least 15% of its gross annual budget to reserves each year until that is no longer projected. If the budget cannot meet the minimum contribution level, the association must levy a reserve funding special assessment, subject to the same limits as any other special assessment; if the amount the board can levy without a member vote is insufficient, the members must vote to approve the additional amount. Associations may not levy a reserve funding special assessment more than once every nine years.
The 2032 operative date gives associations several years to plan for these requirements and adjust their budgets accordingly. We extend our thanks to Stacie Donnelly, Bay Area/Central California Chapter Delegate and Chair of CLAC, who testified several times before committees on AB 2050; her efforts were instrumental in getting the bill across the finish line. Additionally, we thank Robert DeNichilo, Esq., Orange County Chapter Delegate and Legislative Co-Chair of CLAC, who was CLAC’s spokesperson on the bill for media outlets.
AB 1892 – Elections and Utility Service
Assembly Bill 1892 (Davies), also sponsored by CAI-CLAC, was signed by the Governor on August 31. This omnibus bill makes several needed corrections to existing law. Most notably, it streamlines the process for elections by acclamation. The initial notice of the election and nomination procedure must now be given at least 30 days before the nomination deadline, rather than 90 days. The reminder notice must be given at least 10 days before the deadline, replacing the current window of 7 to 30 days. These changes simplify the election calendar and make it easier for associations to use acclamation when there are no more candidates than open seats.
The bill also clarifies that an association is responsible for the repairs and replacements needed to restore interrupted gas, heat, water, or electrical services when the interruption begins in the common area, even if the problem extends into a separate interest or exclusive use common area. That responsibility does not apply where a utility provider is responsible for the repair or the association’s CC&Rs provide otherwise.
Finally, for associations that use electronic voting, the bill clarifies that the 30-day notice explaining how to access the electronic voting system and how to vote electronically only needs to be sent to the members who are voting electronically.
SB 1267 – Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
CAI-CLAC also supported Senate Bill 1267 (Allen), which the Governor signed on September 20. The bill makes several improvements to the law governing owner-installed electric vehicle charging stations in the common area and exclusive use common area. Owners, and each successive owner, were already responsible for damage resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of a charging station. They are now also responsible for damage resulting from use of the station. The bill also requires the installer of the charging station to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for any loss or damage caused by the installation. Finally, the bill states the Legislature’s intent to give associations that comply with the electric vehicle charging station law civil liability protection for injuries and damages arising from a charging station (including its use) that the association does not own, except where the association has been grossly negligent. Although this is a statement of intent, rather than an express immunity, it is a welcome recognition that associations should not bear the risk of member-owned equipment.
AB 2035 – Court Approval of Amended CC&Rs
Assembly Bill 2035 (Dixon) changes the process for asking a court to approve an amendment to the CC&Rs when the required member vote was not reached. Under existing law, the amendment may be approved only if members holding more than 50% of the votes voted in favor. The bill lowers that threshold to more than 37% for a very narrow group of associations. The association must be an over-55 housing development with more than 6,000 separate interests, more than 25% of the separate interests must be occupied by tenants, and the CC&Rs must not have been amended in at least 35 years
AB 2692 – Reinstatement of CC&Rs
Assembly Bill 2692 (Irwin) was passed as an urgency measure to prevent displacement and promote rebuilding in communities damaged or destroyed by the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires. It took effect immediately when the Governor signed it on August 24. The new law allows associations in Los Angeles County whose CC&Rs have expired at the end of their initial term to reinstate them. Reinstatement requires approval by the percentage of members the CC&Rs require to extend their term or, if the CC&Rs are silent, by a majority of all members. The reinstated CC&Rs become effective once member approval is certified by the designated officer or the association’s president and the CC&Rs are recorded. They remain in effect for the length of the original term or 20 years, whichever is less. The association must then deliver a copy of the reinstated CC&Rs to each member, along with a statement that they have been recorded. The reinstatement process is available only until January 1, 2028.
AB 739 – Managing Agent Fees
AAssembly Bill 739 (Jackson), which the Governor signed on September 27, adds a new item to the list of financial documents the board must review. In addition to the existing monthly reviews, the board must now review, on an annual basis, a statement of fees charged by the association’s managing agent. The statement must include the time period it covers, the total number of separate interests in the association during that time period, and the total amount billed to and paid by the association to the managing agent. That total must be broken down into three categories: base management fees under the management agreement, fee schedule charges for additional or optional services, and reimbursable expenses for third-party costs the managing agent incurred on the association’s behalf. The statement of fees is now an association record that members may inspect and copy. Employees of the association are not considered managing agents for purposes of this requirement.
SB 868 – Portable Solar Devices
Senate Bill 868 (Wiener), which the Governor signed on September 30, addresses portable solar generation devices, often called “plug in” or “balcony” solar panels. These devices plug directly into a standard outlet and feed electricity into the home’s electrical system to offset the owner’s electricity use. To receive the protections of the new law, a device must provide no more than 1,200 watts per dwelling, meet the National Electrical Code and California Electrical Code, be certified by Underwriters Laboratories or an equivalent testing laboratory, and include a certified feature that prevents it from sending electricity back to the grid during a power outage.
Until January 1, 2030, qualifying devices are exempt from utility interconnection requirements. Utilities may not require approval, charge any fee, or require additional equipment, although they may require the owner to register the device through an online form. Beginning January 1, 2030, devices that do not meet the code and safety certification requirements may not meet the code and safety certification requirements may not be sold in California.
The bill does not directly limit an association’s authority over these devices. However, associations should expect more owners to request to install them, particularly on balconies and patios.
AB 1684 – Cooling Systems
The Governor signed Assembly Bill 1684 (Ward), which CAI-CLAC opposed unless amended. The author worked with CAI-CLAC, and the bill was significantly improved during the legislative process. However, the bill does not address CAI-CLAC’s primary concern: what happens when an association’s electrical system lacks the capacity to support multiple owners’ new cooling systems, and who bears the cost of any necessary upgrades.
The new law makes void and unenforceable any provision of the governing documents or architectural guidelines that prohibits or restricts the installation, upgrade, replacement, or use of a cooling system that complies with applicable state and local building codes. “Cooling system” is defined broadly to include portable and window air-conditioning units, swamp coolers, cooling fans, heat pumps, and any other technology that reasonably creates a cooling benefit. Associations may not charge a fee for the installation or use of a cooling system, require a specific system, product, or contractor, claim any rebate or commission, or require a member to remove a cooling system or prevent its replacement or upgrade.
The only exceptions are where the installation or use would violate the law, or where a required building, electrical, or other permit is not granted. If a member’s cooling system affects the common area or exclusive use common area, the association can still require the member, and any successor owner, to repair any damage the system causes to the common area, exclusive use common area, or another member’s separate interest. In that case, the association can also require the member to use a licensed contractor for systems that need a building permit and to disclose the system to prospective buyers.
An association that willfully violates the new law will be liable to the member for actual damages and a civil penalty of up to $2,000. Any member who prevails in a lawsuit to enforce these rights is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.
SB 222 – Electric Appliances
The Governor also signed Senate Bill 222 (Wiener), which CAI-CLAC opposed, on September 28. CAI-CLAC’s primary concern was that the bill conflicts with Assembly Bill 1684, which already covers heat pumps as cooling systems. CAI-CLAC asked that the bill be limited to heat pump water heaters, and, like Assembly Bill 1684, require owners to use licensed contractors, obtain necessary permits, take responsibility for any damage, and bind successive owners to those responsibilities. Those amendments were not adopted, leaving associations with two overlapping laws governing heat pump HVAC systems.
The new law makes void and unenforceable any provision of the governing documents, architectural guidelines, or policies that prevents an owner from replacing a fuel gas burning appliance with an electric appliance that complies with applicable building codes. It also voids any provision that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system serving a single unit. As with Assembly Bill 1684, associations may not charge a fee for installing or using these systems, require a specific contractor or product, claim any rebate or commission, or require an owner to remove a system or prevent its replacement or upgrade.
The only exceptions are where the installation or use would violate the law, or where a required permit is not granted. If the system affects the common area or exclusive use common areas, the association can still require the owner to be responsible for the repair of any damage the system causes to the common area, exclusive use common area, or another member’s separate interest. The bill also streamlines local permitting and inspections for heat pump installations.
SB 908 – Replacement Windows
Senate Bill 908 (Wiener) was signed by the Governor on September 29. The new law makes void and unenforceable any provision of the governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts an owner from replacing existing windows with California Energy Code compliant windows of the same size and in the same location, or that imposes requirements on those windows. The law applies to windows in the owner’s separate interest, to exclusive use common area windows, and to common area windows that exclusively serve a single owner’s unit. Associations may still impose reasonable installation restrictions, as long as those restrictions do not increase the cost of the project by more than 10% or decrease its energy efficiency by more than 10%. Reasonable aesthetic restrictions are allowed only in multifamily buildings of more than 20 units not including townhomes – a term with no legal meaning in California – and only for projects that change the exterior appearance of the window. Even then, the installation and aesthetic restrictions combined cannot exceed the same 10% limits. If the governing documents do not contain reasonable restrictions on window replacement, the association may not subject the project to design review or any other approval at all.
Associations must approve any window application that complies with their reasonable restrictions, and an application not acted on in writing within 45 days is deemed approved. For exclusive use common area windows and common area windows serving a single unit, associations can require the owner to use a licensed contractor, obtain permits, and take responsibility for maintenance and any damage. Boards should work with their legal counsel to review their CC&Rs, architectural guidelines, and policies before these laws take effect on January 1, 2027.
Dropped Bills of Significant Importance
Nearly as important as the bills that became law are those that did not. Advocacy efforts were very effective at stopping bills that would have harmed community associations.
As we previously reported, Senator Menjivar pulled Senate Bill 1007 immediately before the scheduled hearing in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, and the bill died. The bill would have reduced the amount by which a board may increase regular assessments without a member vote from 20% to just 8% over the prior fiscal year, significantly limiting boards’ ability to levy assessments sufficient to meet their associations’ financial obligations. It also would have barred any regular assessment increase unless the annual budget report included a comparison of the prior year’s anticipated and actual expenses and a statement of management company compensation, and would have required associations to provide members with all physical evidence of an alleged violation, including metadata for any photographs or recordings, at least five business days before a hearing at which a monetary penalty is being considered.
Assembly Bill 1903 (Wicks) attempted to completely overhaul California’s longstanding construction defect law and transferred much of the risk for construction defects from the builders to the owners. SB 800 originally was adopted into law effective in 2003, to give builders the right to make repairs to documented violations of residential construction standards (construction defects) once they were notified by associations or homeowners of such conditions. Associations and homeowners subsequently can bring litigation or arbitration claims against builders if builders fail to respond appropriately to notice of documented conditions that violate the residential construction standards and/or fail to make appropriate repairs to address those conditions. Current law permits associations and homeowners to make claims for such construction defect violations, in many cases, prior to the occurrence of physical injury to persons or damage to property. For example, an association is not required by current law to wait for an earthquake or fire to cause harm to bring claims for a builder’s failure to construct residential buildings with adequate structural and fire protection systems in place. This bill, which was sponsored by the California Building Industry Association, attempted to eliminate such critical protections by re-writing the residential construction standards to first require actual injury or resulting property damage before a claim could be made. Our firm joined the effort led by a coalition of consumer advocacy groups (including the Consumer Attorneys of California), CAI and CACM to oppose this draconian bill and to try to negotiate compromises that would have maintained critical consumer protections. The bill ultimately died without a final legislative vote. We expect some version of this bill to be reintroduced next year.
Unfortunately, one of CAI-CLAC’s own bills also fell short this session. Assembly Bill 2579 (Petrie-Norris) did not make it through the legislature this year. The bill sought to address some of the concerns created by Assembly Bill 130 (2025), which capped association fines at $100 and gave members an opportunity to cure violations. Assembly Bill 2579 would have exempted from the fine cap a number of violations that threaten the health and well-being of homeowners, and it would have clarified the cure exemption. For now, the fine cap and cure requirements remain in place, but the issue will likely be considered in future legislative sessions.
Finally, Assembly Bill 1184 (Patterson), dubbed the “Homeowner Association Accountability and Transparency Act of 2026,” passed the Senate but died in the Assembly at adjournment. Among other things, it would have prohibited a majority of the board from using a series of email communications outside a meeting to discuss or act on association business, except in an emergency, while still permitting purely informational and scheduling communications. It would have required executive session minutes to identify the case name, case number, and court for any ongoing litigation discussed. Recordings of open board meetings would have become association records available to members, other than recordings used solely to prepare the minutes. The bill also would have prohibited charging members for electronic copies of minutes, required minutes to include specified information such as the directors present and how each director voted on operating rule changes, and required the annual budget report to list active litigation in which the association is a party. Given the attention these issues received this session, we expect to see some of them again in future legislative sessions.
Vetoed Bills of Significant Importance
The Governor also vetoed two significant, harmful bills.
Senate Bill 1238 (Wahab) was sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and originally would have imposed a new fiduciary duty on an association’s managing agent to both the association and its individual members. This bill also proposed a new requirement that managers make disclosures and selective judgments in a home transaction related to federal lending rules regarding “critical repairs.” While both of those unprecedented requirements were amended out of the bill with significant efforts from CACM, the bill still would have established a new duty of care owed by an association’s managing agent to both the association and its individual members. It also would have required additional disclosures to prospective purchasers and restricted boards from using reserve funds for certain litigation involving members. In vetoing the bill, the Governor explained that a managing agent acts on behalf of the association, and that a duty owed to both the association and its individual members “could create conflicting obligations when a member’s interests diverge from those of the community as a whole.” He observed that the resulting uncertainty could invite litigation, the costs of which homeowners would ultimately bear. He also noted that the bill’s other provisions largely overlapped with existing requirements for reserve planning and homeowners’ access to association records. The Governor ultimately concluded that “California should improve transparency and accountability in homeowners associations without creating legal uncertainty that could invite litigation and increase costs for homeowners.”
In its final form, Assembly Bill 2439 (Rubio) would have generally prohibited associations from restricting members’ parking rights on public streets. It also would have imposed new notice requirements, including certificates of mailing and, in certain circumstances, certified mail with a return receipt, when the person authorized to receive assessment payments changes. In addition, it would have made associations liable for “any costs” a homeowner incurred because the association failed to follow assessment-collection procedures, and it would have made the board liable for a $1,000 civil penalty if the association committed a third notice violation within five years. In his September 20 veto message, the Governor expressed support for protecting homeowners from improper collection practices, but then noted that the undefined and unlimited “any costs” standard could invite disputes and litigation and impose costs disproportionate to the underlying violation. He also expressed concern that the bill did not explain how liability against “the board” would work, particularly when board membership changes between violations, and that this uncertainty “could discourage residents from volunteering to serve.” Finally, he found that the mailing requirements could impose substantial administrative costs that would ultimately increase costs to homeowners.
If you have any questions about new laws and their impact on your association, please feel free to contact us. We will continue to keep you apprised of significant legislative developments.
Assistance Animals, Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals