Arizona HOAs Now Have a Statutory Duty to Act Reasonably
The law discussed below takes effect September 12, 2026. This post is current as of July 2026.
For nearly twenty years, Arizona homeowners challenging an HOA's discretionary decisions had to rely on a common law duty found in a single court of appeals opinion.
As of September 12, 2026, that duty is a statute. House Bill 4011, signed by Governor Hobbs on June 5, 2026, adds A.R.S. § 33-1821 to the Planned Communities Act and a parallel provision to the Condominium Act at A.R.S. § 33-1242(E). The association "has a duty to act reasonably in the exercise of its discretionary powers."
The Case Behind the Statute
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195 (App. 2007)
The new law codifies Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195 (App. 2007), and the case is worth knowing because it will continue to shape how the statute is applied.
The Kitchukovs built a detached garage in a Gilbert subdivision after moving it closer to their property line than their approved plans allowed. The town approved the new location. The HOA's architectural committee did not, insisting on a 25-foot setback and fining the family $500 per day. Litigation followed.
The association argued its committee's decision deserved judicial deference under the business judgment rule, the forgiving standard courts apply to corporate boards. The court of appeals refused.
Instead, it adopted § 6.13 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, which imposes on community associations a duty to treat members fairly and to act reasonably in exercising their discretionary powers, including rulemaking, enforcement, and design control. The court explained that the business judgment rule "provides too little protection against careless or risky management" when applied to HOAs.
Kitchukov struck a balance, though, and homeowners should understand both halves of it. The homeowner challenging a discretionary decision bears the burden of proving the association acted unreasonably, and of proving the breach caused or threatens injury. And because reasonableness is ordinarily a question of fact, these disputes rarely end at summary judgment. The Kitchukovs themselves didn't win in the court of appeals. They got a trial.
What the New Statute Says
The Legislature passed HB 4011 without a single no vote in either chamber. The operative language is spare. The association has a duty to act reasonably in the exercise of its discretionary powers, and that duty "includes the duty to exercise discretionary powers neutrally, fairly, without favoritism and in a nonarbitrary fashion." A.R.S. § 33-1821; A.R.S. § 33-1242(E).
Note the word "includes." The Legislature gave an illustrative definition, not an exhaustive one. Neutrality, fairness, evenhandedness, and non-arbitrariness are the floor. The broader Restatement duty that Kitchukov adopted should continue to give the statute content.
What Actually Changes
Skeptics will say the bill merely restates existing law, and there is something to that. But codification matters in at least three ways:
The duty now expressly covers condominium associations. Kitchukov was a planned community case, and while its reasoning applied broadly, condo boards had room to argue otherwise. That argument is gone.
The duty is now a statute regulating planned communities and condominiums, which matters for forum. The Legislature has, in effect, adopted standards for what constitutes the floor, but not the ceiling, for reasonableness.
Favoritism is now on the face of the statute. Selective enforcement has always been the heart of HOA resentment. The neighbor's RV sits untouched while your trash cans draw a violation notice. After September 12, that pattern is not just unfair. It is evidence of a statutory violation.
What It Doesn't Change
The statute does not say who bears the burden of proof, so expect associations to argue, with some force, that Kitchukov's framework still governs and the homeowner must prove unreasonableness and injury.
Nor does the statute turn every architectural denial into a lawsuit. A board that investigates, applies its guidelines consistently, and documents its reasons will usually be acting reasonably, even when a homeowner disagrees with the result. The duty polices how boards decide, not whether they decide the way you'd like.
What Homeowners and HOA Boards Should Do
Homeowners facing an architectural denial, an enforcement action, or a decision that smells like favoritism should start documenting now.
How has the board treated similarly situated owners?
What reasons did it give, and when?
Boards, for their part, should review their architectural and enforcement policies before the effective date, because "in our sole and absolute discretion" is no longer the end of the conversation.
If you’re looking for HOA legal support in this area, contact an HOA-specific lawyer.