Should State Law Override HOA Rules?

One of the core ideas behind HOA living is predictability.

Shared Expectations

Communities adopt governing documents to establish shared expectations around maintenance, property use, amenities, and neighborhood standards. Buyers choose whether those standards align with how they want to live before purchasing into the community. At least they should.

What some homeowners don’t anticipate is that portions of those rules and restrictions can later be changed or overridden through legislative action, potentially altering some of the very standards and expectations that influenced their decision to buy there in the first place.

This discussion is currently playing out in Arizona through proposed legislation involving HOA authority over household pets and backyard chickens. Portions of the bill may limit an association’s ability to enforce certain pet restrictions and could require planned communities to allow backyard chickens in some situations.

The legislation itself may still change.

But the larger issue extends well beyond Arizona.

Across the country, states are increasingly limiting or overriding portions of HOA governing documents in areas involving:

• Solar energy systems

• Artificial turf

• Drought-tolerant landscaping

• EV charging equipment

• Political signs and flags

• Rental restrictions

• Pet regulations

The broader debate is shifting from:

“Buyers agreed to the CC&Rs when they purchased”

to:

“Should some homeowner rights override private community restrictions, even when those restrictions were part of the reason other homeowners chose to buy into the community in the first place?”

Why Governing Documents Exist

HOA governing documents aren’t arbitrary.

CC&Rs, Rules and Regulations, Design Guidelines, and related policies exist to create:

• Desirability

• Predictability

• Consistency

• Shared expectations

• Long-term planning standards

• Support and reinforce community home values

For many homeowners, that structure is part of the appeal of living in an HOA community.

Some buyers want flexibility and fewer restrictions. Others intentionally choose deed-restricted communities because they prefer a more structured environment.

Neither perspective is inherently wrong.

But it’s important to recognize that governing documents are part of the product buyers evaluate when deciding where to live.

Predictability Is Part of the Value

For many homeowners, HOA living is about more than amenities or landscaping.

It’s about predictability.

Homeowners often purchase into planned communities with the expectation that certain standards will remain relatively stable over time. That consistency can influence both community appearance and buyer confidence.

When state legislation overrides portions of governing documents, some homeowners become concerned that part of the value proposition of HOA living may begin to shift.

That doesn’t mean every legislative change is harmful, or that communities shouldn’t evolve.

It does mean there’s an ongoing debate about where the balance should exist between individual property rights and the shared expectations many buyers intentionally seek when purchasing into an HOA community.

Who Should Decide?

One of the larger questions behind legislation like this is who should ultimately decide what standards apply within a planned community.

For example, pet restrictions can significantly affect the livability of a neighborhood for many homeowners. Some residents specifically choose communities with limitations on the number, size, or type of animals because they prefer a more structured and, importantly, more quiet environment.

Others may prefer fewer restrictions and greater flexibility.

In many areas, both options already exist through HOA and non-HOA communities, along with communities that intentionally market themselves around specific lifestyles and priorities.

That raises an important governance question:

Should decisions involving issues like pet restrictions remain primarily with the homeowners within the community through their governing documents and voting processes, or should states establish less restrictive standards that override portions of those agreements?

Some would argue that if enough market demand exists for communities with fewer pet restrictions or backyard chickens, developers and communities will naturally begin creating and marketing neighborhoods designed around those preferences—perhaps something a little more intentionally pet-friendly than the average deed-restricted community—rather than some homeowners attempting to reshape existing communities after the fact.

Others believe certain homeowner rights should exist regardless of what governing documents say.

Reasonable people can disagree on the answer.

But the discussion highlights how closely community standards, homeowner expectations, consumer choice, and perceived value are often connected.

The Concern Isn’t Always the Specific Restriction

One important nuance in the current Arizona discussion is that some claims circulating online appear exaggerated.

References to “goats,” “pigs,” or unlimited pets are largely speculative and not specifically stated in the current bill language.

At the same time, concerns involving restrictions on breed, size, or weight limitations for pets—and potential requirements involving backyard chickens—do appear to be legitimate topics within the legislation.

The larger concern for many associations isn’t necessarily one specific restriction.

It’s the precedent.

Each time state law overrides portions of governing documents, it shifts the balance between individual property rights and community-based standards.

HOA Neutrality vs. Homeowner Advocacy

This type of legislation also raises an important question for associations themselves:

Should HOAs engage in political advocacy?

There’s an important distinction between:

Informing homeowners about pending legislation

vs.

Using association-funded communication channels to advocate a political position that may not represent all homeowners equally.

Associations can play an important role by:

Sharing factual information

Explaining how proposed legislation may affect the community

Encouraging homeowners to stay informed

But advocacy itself is often best left to individual homeowners.

Owners who feel strongly about pending legislation can contact legislators, participate in advocacy groups, attend hearings, or express their opinions directly through the political process.

That distinction helps associations remain focused on governance while still ensuring homeowners have the information needed to make informed decisions.

Why This Matters to Buyers

For prospective homeowners, this is an important reminder that HOA living isn’t static.

Communities operate within:

Their governing documents

State law

Federal law

And those laws evolve over time.

A buyer may choose a community because of its restrictions, standards, or consistency, only to see portions of those standards change later through legislative action.

That doesn’t automatically make HOA living better or worse.

It simply means buyers should understand that governing documents exist within a larger legal framework that can evolve over time.

HOA Governing Documents Matter

Reasonable people can disagree about where the balance should exist between homeowner freedoms and community restrictions.

But the discussion itself highlights something important:

Governing documents still matter.

They shape expectations, influence purchasing decisions, and help communities operate consistently over time.

As legislation continues evolving across the country, homeowners, boards, and prospective buyers all benefit from staying informed—not just about what their governing documents say today, but also how changing laws may affect them tomorrow.

At GUD, we believe associations serve communities best when they communicate clearly, stay fact-based, and help homeowners remain informed without turning community governance into political campaigning.

Because informed homeowners make better long-term decisions for their communities.

—Jonathan Brown