It’s been a few months since the passage of Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”), which took effect on July 1, 2025. This bill transformed homeowners association (“HOA”) rules enforcement by imposing a $100 ceiling on most monetary penalties for violations of the governing documents. Designed to shield homeowners from overly punitive measures and encourage conflict resolution (at least, in theory), AB 130 also carves out an essential exemption for infractions that could lead to negative effects on health or safety within common areas or between neighboring properties. 

This “health or safety” exception might be the lone saving grace for HOA boards and managers. When AB 130 was first passed, the broad $100 limit seemed like a major hurdle to basic rule enforcement and maintaining community order—realistically, how much of a deterrent is a $100 fine to the habitual rule-violator? However, by applying the health and safety exemption, associations can sustain more substantial penalties in their fine schedules. While the legislation is still in its fledgling stage and we still don’t know how courts might interpret the health or safety exemption, HOA boards are being proactive by adopting robust enforcement policies and fine schedules which outline health and safety breaches in a way that’s both expansive to encompass various violations or harmful behaviors, but precise to ensure enforceability and reasonableness. 

What Happened? 

Before AB 130, HOAs had broad discretion to establish fine levels via their operating rules, often with progressive increases for ongoing issues. Now, per Civil Code Section 5850(c), penalties are restricted to the lower of the HOA’s outlined amount or $100 for each infraction, which arguably extends to penalties involving renters or visitors.

Fortunately, the exemption in Section 5850(d) permits elevated fines—aligned with the HOA’s fine schedule—if the breach "may result in an adverse health or safety impact on the common area or another association member’s property." Notably, any such fine requires a documented determination by the board during an open session, specifying the exact potential harm or health or safety violation (more on that in the next section).

AB 130 acknowledges the varying severity of violations. Trivial matters, such as a non-standard fence paint, might stick to the $100 threshold, but risks like hazardous electrical work threatening fire outbreaks call for stronger measures. Violations of rental restrictions may also call for exceeding the $100 fine limit, if considered a “health or safety” risk. Through targeted use of this exemption, HOAs can effectively sidestep the general cap, preserving discipline without insulting the statute’s authors. 

Where Are We Now? 

The ambiguity of this “health or safety” exemption in the Civil Code may be a blessing in disguise. Since the statute doesn’t define those terms precisely, we can only assume legislators wisely held back from their inclination to micromanage the inner workings of private HOAs. So, boards have been proactively updating their disciplinary protocols via their rules and regulations and fine schedules—the goal being to characterize "adverse health or safety impacts" in a way that's sufficiently wide-ranging to address diverse scenarios but detailed enough to offer clarity and minimize legal disputes.

In doing so, HOAs can adhere to the $100 legal limit when fining for routine violations, while upholding or introducing larger sums for exempted health or safety breaches, and recurring violations. By updating and expanding enforcement rules to clarify AB 130’s “health or safety” ambiguity, boards are able to tie violations directly to the identified health or safety risks, giving them solid legal footing when imposing fines over $100.

And what about that “open meeting” requirement I mentioned above? AB 130 seems to suggest that, in order to impose a higher fine under the “health or safety” exemption, the board must make a written finding in an open meeting first, which may also suggest (inadvertently) a need to publicly disclose details of individual disciplines and compromise the resident’s privacy. By proactively adopting an updated enforcement policy and fine schedule that clearly defines and categorizes health or safety violations—with broad yet targeted descriptions—boards can effectively address this open meeting obligation in a single, comprehensive step. This approach allows the policy itself eliminate the need for separate open meetings prior to each disciplinary action solely to confirm the violation's “health or safety” status.

What’s Next? The Future of AB 130 and Enforcement

Having only recently taken effect on July 1, 2025, the long-term implications of AB 130 remain uncertain, particularly around the health and safety exemption. With no major litigation reported yet, the ambiguity in defining "adverse health or safety impacts" could invite legal challenges from homeowners contesting fines exceeding $100. Courts may eventually clarify the threshold for what constitutes a qualifying violation, potentially narrowing or expanding the exemption based on case precedents. For instance, if homeowners argue that the board applied the health or safety exemption in an overly broad way, judges might require stricter evidence of potential harm, emphasizing actual risk over speculative concerns. However, by updating enforcement policies in advance of any future judicial interventions, boards are documenting their rationale, tying it to the specific needs of the community and overall welfare of the members. This will help ensure that fines hold up under scrutiny, as California courts have historically exercised restraint in intervening when the board is using its business judgment to enforce reasonable rules. 

Boards may consider adopting the following categories of “health or safety” violations in their HOA’s enforcement policy, in order to continue to enforce adequate fines and maintain community harmony: 

• Structural Maintenance Risks: Categories involving neglected repairs, such as failing to address leaks or weakened supports, could be upheld in litigation as clear health threats due to mold or collapse potential. 

• Fire Prevention: Infractions like improper storage of hazardous materials and unkempt landscaping are likely defensible as “health or safety” violations given California's ongoing wildfire and arson vulnerabilities.

• Sanitation Issues: Issues like waste mismanagement, i.e., leaving trash bins out for extended periods in violation of existing community rules or policies, align with public health and safety priorities generally.

• Nuisance with Health Ramifications: Chronic disturbances affecting sleep or stress levels represent a grayer area, potentially facing pushback. However, categorizing them as a health or safety violation within the policy, with proper verbiage, can bolster support if challenged.

• Rental Violations: A short-term rental violation, for example, might not be considered a “health or safety” risk on its face, especially if the tenant came and went without any controversy. However, short-term rentals introduce a security risk through unfamiliar access to common areas, straining infrastructure, and potentially compromising safety and security generally. Having this identified in HOA policies is a proactive way to defend against those challenges.

Community leaders should be proactive and stay up-to-date on ongoing legal challenges involving AB 130. If litigation arises, HOAs may need to update enforcement policies or fine schedules, including adjusting definitions for greater specificity. As AB 130 matures, its “health or safety” exemption could either solidify—or it might require recalibration. 

Boards and managers should collaborate with legal counsel to draft these policies, ensuring they align with governing documents and avoid overreach that could invite lawsuits. We’ve already come a long way in just a few short months since the initial shock of the $100 fine limit, and there will surely be more changes to come. Be proactive, because if you stay ready, you never have to get ready!

A.J. Jahanian, Esq. is a Shareholder with Beaumont Tashjian, where he devotes his time servicing the unique needs of the Firm’s clients throughout California. Mr. Jahanian has devoted the entirety of his career serving residential and commercial common interest developments and advising their boards and managers in all respects, including Civil Code compliance, elections and voting, fair housing, governing document review, fiduciary duties, and dispute resolution. AJ can be reached at ajahanian@hoaattorneys.com.