HOA vs. ADU in California: What AB 956 Changes for Condo Owners

The dispute at Mystic Point Homeowners Association in Carlsbad became a state-level test of California's ADU protection laws. CalMatters.

A San Diego County judge ruled in April that California's main HOA protection law for ADU builders does not cover condo-owners. The ruling ended a year-long fight by Adam Hardesty, a Carlsbad homeowner, to convert his garage into a rental unit over the objections of his homeowners association. It also exposed two specific statutory gaps that let the HOA win. AB 956, amended in the California Senate on May 27, 2026, addresses both gaps by name. If the bill becomes law, the protections that single-family homeowners in most HOA-governed subdivisions already hold against ADU restrictions would extend to roughly one-third of California's households, the share that live under some form of association governance.

What the court actually ruled

The 2019 law at the center of the case is AB 670, which made void and unenforceable any HOA restriction that effectively prohibits ADU construction on a lot in a "planned development" zoned for single-family residential use. For most suburban HOA neighborhoods built as individually owned lots with shared rules, this protection works: the HOA restriction simply cannot stand against a state-compliant ADU application.

Hardesty is a condo-owner. His development, Mystic Point in Carlsbad, is organized as a condominium project under California's Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, not as a planned development. Judge Victor Torres of San Diego County Superior Court ruled that the legislature's specific use of "planned development" in AB 670 was intentional and did not extend to condominium projects. If the legislature had intended to cover condos, Torres wrote, it could have easily made that language more explicit. It did not.

The second issue is zoning language. AB 670 applies to lots "zoned for single-family residential use." Mystic Point allows townhomes and small condos alongside single-family homes, so Torres ruled it does not qualify under that narrow reading either. Hardesty had been backed by a California Housing and Community Development department planner who believed state law was on his side. By the time the case concluded, he and his wife had spent more than $100,000 in combined construction and legal costs, according to CalMatters reporting by Ben Christopher.

What AB 956 changes

Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva introduced AB 956 in February 2025, with co-authors Assembly Members Carrillo and Wicks. The California Senate amended it on May 27, 2026, in language that responds directly to the two points Torres cited. The bill is pending and has not yet been signed into law. Here is what the current version does, precisely:

Condo coverage. AB 956 expands the "void and unenforceable" provision from planned developments to "any common interest development," the broader legal category that includes condominium projects like Mystic Point. A qualifying HOA restriction in a CID would be unenforceable against a state-compliant ADU application if the bill passes.

Zoning language. The bill changes "zoned for single-family residential use" to "zoned to allow single-family residential use." That is the exact phrase Torres said was missing from the current law. A mixed-zoning lot that permits single-family homes alongside attached townhomes would qualify under the revised language, where it does not qualify today.

Two detached ADUs. The bill also increases from one to two the number of detached, new-construction ADUs that a local agency must ministerially approve on a single-family lot. This is a separate provision from the HOA restriction question, but it is part of the same bill and would take effect together if it passes.

Who this affects and who should be paying attention

If you are a homeowner planning an ADU and you live under HOA rules, the first practical question is whether your development is organized as a planned development or a condominium project. That distinction is not obvious from the street. Planned developments are typically subdivisions where each owner holds fee title to their individual lot. Condominium projects are ones where owners hold title to airspace or units, with the association controlling the land. The governing documents your attorney reviewed at closing should name the form.

First-time ADU clients in HOA-governed communities should pull those documents before spending money on architectural drawings. If your development is a condominium project, current California law gives you weaker protection against HOA interference than it gives a neighbor in a planned development on the next block. That gap is exactly what AB 956 is designed to close. A real estate or construction law attorney experienced in California ADU cases is worth a consultation now if your HOA has already issued a denial or a warning letter, since the bill has not passed and today's legal reality still governs today.

The state's housing regulators and the attorney general's office have historically not taken enforcement action against HOAs the way they do against local governments that reject ministerially-approved applications. AB 956 does not change that enforcement posture. Even after the bill passes, an owner who receives a HOA denial would likely still face private litigation rather than automatic state intervention.

What to watch next

The bill needs Senate floor votes, possible conference action if further amended, and a governor's signature. Watch for floor activity in August and September 2026. If AB 956 is signed, cities and counties with local ADU ordinances will need to update any HOA-related guidance, and associations will need to review governing documents with counsel. The state has not announced any companion enforcement mechanism to accompany the new language.

If you are evaluating an ADU project in an HOA community and want to find California-licensed professionals experienced in permit and HOA law, A-du's services marketplace is a useful starting point.