Many California homeowners have raised concerns over the years about how some homeowners associations (HOAs) use monetary penalties and enforcement discretion. Sacramento continues to hear those concerns.

AB 130 has been discussed in that broader context, and if enacted and implemented as described, it could represent a step toward placing clearer limits on certain HOA fine practices.

Some summaries of AB 130 describe it as generally limiting certain HOA fines to $100 per violation (with potential exceptions related to health and safety, depending on the final statutory language). As with any legislation, the details depend on the final text and how it interacts with the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and an association’s governing documents.

Any discussion of proposed or enacted legislation should be understood as general information and may not capture every exception, definition, or implementation detail.

At LS Carlson Law, we track developments affecting California common interest developments and the Davis-Stirling Act, including proposals that would change how associations impose or collect monetary penalties.

🏡 Why AB 130 Matters

In California, HOA monetary penalties are typically set by an association’s governing documents and enforcement policy, and they can be significant depending on the community. Even where boards are acting in good faith, the notice-and-hearing process can feel confusing or intimidating to homeowners—especially when communications are unclear.

AB 130 (as described in public summaries) would:
✅ Limit certain fines to $100, subject to any health/safety-related exceptions or other statutory limitations in the final language.
✅ Increase predictability by clarifying how monetary penalties may be assessed in covered circumstances.
✅ Reduce the risk of outsized penalties for minor issues, depending on how the statute defines covered violations and exceptions.

Reasonable people can disagree on the best policy approach, but the goal often described by proponents is to better align enforcement tools with fairness and transparency for California homeowners.

🚨 Industry Groups Have Raised Concerns

As with many HOA-related reforms, some industry stakeholders and community association groups have expressed concerns that a statutory cap could reduce enforcement options or shift costs in other ways.

Supporters, on the other hand, generally describe AB 130 as a measure aimed at curbing excessive or inconsistent fine practices while still allowing associations to address legitimate health and safety concerns.

However the policy debate unfolds, it highlights an ongoing tension in California common interest developments: effective governance on one hand, and limits on punitive enforcement on the other.

✊ A Continuing California Policy Discussion

This isn’t about any one community. It reflects a continuing California policy discussion about how to balance HOA enforcement authority with homeowner protections.

To homeowners who have felt overwhelmed by enforcement or fines, it may help to know that California law already provides procedural protections for disciplinary actions. For example, the Davis-Stirling Act generally requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an association may impose discipline (including certain monetary penalties), along with written notice of the decision afterward.

This content is provided for educational purposes only and is not legal advice.