Arizona’s New HOA Reasonableness Statute:
What HB 4011 Actually Changes
Arizona homeowners have had the right to reasonable treatment from their HOA for nearly twenty years. Most of them never knew it. That is the problem that House Bill 4011 was written to fix.
Governor Hobbs signed HB 4011 on June 4, 2026. The bill adds a new A.R.S. § 33-1821 for planned communities and amends A.R.S. § 33-1242 for condominiums. Both provisions say the same thing. An association has a duty to act reasonably in the exercise of its discretionary powers, and “duty to act reasonably” means exercising those powers neutrally, fairly, without favoritism, and in a nonarbitrary fashion.
The law takes effect September 12, 2026, ninety days after the Legislature adjourned. Until then, the old rule applies. As it turns out, the old rule is the same rule.
The duty is not new. The statute is.
In 2007, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195 (App. 2007). The court had to decide how much deference an HOA board gets when it exercises judgment. The association wanted the business-judgment rule, the standard that protects corporate directors from second-guessing so long as they act in good faith.
The court rejected it, instead adopting the approach in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13, which imposes on associations a duty to treat members fairly and a duty to act reasonably in exercising discretionary powers, including rulemaking, enforcement, and design control.
HB 4011 lifts that standard almost word for word out of Kitchukov and codifies it in statute. Nothing about the board’s obligation changed. What changed is where you find it. A homeowner reading the Planned Communities Act will now see the duty in black and white, next to the statutes on assessments, fines, and open meetings, instead of needing a lawyer to explain what a 2007 appellate opinion means.
And that’s the point of the new statute. A standard nobody knows about set forth in a 20-year-old decision is a standard nobody follows. Both chambers of the Legislature agreed, and the Governor signed it into law.
What “discretionary powers” covers
Not every board decision involves discretion. If the CC&Rs expressly say that fences may not exceed six feet, a seven-foot fence is a violation. The reasonableness duty does not apply to that kind of call (although the decision whether to grant a variance may implicate questions of reasonableness). Similarly, the duty to pay assessments is not one conditioned on the duty to act reasonably. That is not a “discretionary power.”
The reasonableness standard applies where the governing documents leave the board room to choose. Whether to approve a paint color. Whether to enforce a landscaping rule this month or let it slide. How to interpret an ambiguous restriction. Whether a proposed addition is “harmonious with the surrounding homes.” Those are discretionary decisions, and the board must make them neutrally and without playing favorites.
The three classic discretionary powers are:
Rule-making,
Enforcement, and
Design-review approval.
A board that approves a solar array for one owner and denies an identical one for a neighbor, with no explanation, has a problem. So does a board that fines the owner who criticized it at the last meeting while ignoring the same violation three doors down. The statute does not require identical outcomes in every case. Reasonable boards can sometimes reach different results on different facts. But it requires that the difference be the facts, not the person.
What the HB 4011 statute does not do.
It does not give homeowners a veto over rules they dislike. If the board acts within its authority and applies the rules evenhandedly, a homeowner who simply disagrees with the result has no claim.
It also does not make a case easier to win. As we said above, the standard is not new. The statute makes the standard easier to cite, but it does not necessarily make your case easier to win.
What it does
The duty to act reasonably gives owners a basis for challenging arbitrary or unreasonable decisions of the association. An association generally loses the ability to enforce an unreasonable decision it has made. A court will not compel an owner to tear out a landscape design that the board denied for no reason, and it will not enforce a fine against one owner for a condition the board tolerates on the lot next door.
In practical terms, unreasonableness is a defense to enforcement and, where the owner has been harmed, a claim for breach of the governing documents.
What homeowners should do now
If you think your board is treating you differently from your neighbors, start:
Building a record.
Keep every violation notice, architectural decision, email, and hearing result.
Photograph comparable conditions on other lots.
Although the statute does not apply until September 12, the standards underlying the statute have been on the books since the Kitchukov decision in 2007.
Dessaules Law Group represents Arizona homeowners in disputes with their associations. If you have questions about HB 4011 or your HOA, contact us.