By: Jason A. Savlov, Esq.
This article first appeared in the CAI Coachella Valley Chapter’s HOA Living Magazine: August 2025 Issue
On June 30, 2025, at the last minute, the California legislature revised AB 130 to include changes to the Davis-Stirling Act regarding the enforcement of governing documents. The bill, which primarily addressed affordable housing, amended Civil Code §§ 5850 (schedule of monetary penalties) and 5855 (notice of disciplinary hearing) and became effective immediately.
Under AB 130, monetary penalties (i.e., fines) that homeowners associations can impose for governing document violations are limited to $100 per violation. In addition to hindering compliance, this limitation on the amount of monetary fines may severely impair the deterrent effect that higher fines provide. For example, higher fines developed to deter short-term rental violations can no longer be imposed. Another example is installing architectural modifications without approval. Due to the lower fine amounts, associations will now need to step up enforcement procedures, such as having legal counsel write letters and initiate dispute resolution procedures sooner.
One question is whether associations can impose daily fines of $100.00 for these types of continuing violations. At best, AB 130 is unclear whether daily fines are allowed. The statute limits fines to $100 “per violation.” However, “violation” is not defined. Each occurrence of a violation could be subject to a $100 fine. For example, each occurrence of a loud party that violates quiet hours and/or nuisance provisions could be fined $100.
AB 130 allows fines higher than $100 per violation for violations that may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member’s property. Therefore, if an association has a smoking ban, to impose a higher fine, the association would have to show that smoking is causing damage to the common area or another member’s property, as the exception does state it is for adverse impact on other residents within the community. Prior to imposing higher fines under the adverse health or safety impact basis, the board must make a written finding in an open board meeting specifying the adverse health or safety impact. Associations will need to have a fine schedule for these types of violations. The new changes also prevent associations from imposing interest or late fees for nonpayment of monetary penalties.
In addition to limiting fines, AB 130 added enforcement procedures. Members must have the opportunity to cure alleged violations before the disciplinary hearing. Boards cannot impose discipline if the member cures the violation before the disciplinary hearing or provides a financial commitment to cure the violation. If, after the hearing, the member and the board do not reach an agreement, the member has the ability to request internal dispute resolution (IDR). If an agreement is reached, then the board must prepare a written resolution that will be binding on the association and judicially enforceable if signed by both parties. Finally, the timeframe to provide the member with the results of the hearing has been shortened from fifteen (15) days to fourteen (14) days.
Although AB 130 does not require revision of enforcement policies and fine schedules, boards should consult with their legal counsel on the adequacy of their current enforcement procedures and fine policies. It may be beneficial for associations to update their enforcement policies/fine schedules to include the new fine amounts and procedures.
Although AB 130 was introduced as a bill to address affordable housing, the consequence of these Davis-Stirling Act changes may result in associations spending more money to enforce violations of the governing documents effectively.
