Georgia lawmakers are considering several bills this session that would significantly reshape how homeowners associations operate statewide. While many of the proposals are intended to expand homeowner protections, the cumulative effect of this legislation, including S.B. 107, 108, 361 and 406, along with H.B. 389, could increase housing costs, weaken local governance and shift financial burdens onto responsible homeowners.
More than 2.5 million Georgians live in approximately 11,300 homeowners associations, condominiums or cooperatives, representing over one-fourth of the state’s population and ranking ninth in the country for volume of community associations, respectively. [1] These communities manage shared infrastructure, insure common property, maintain amenities and fund long-term capital repairs through assessments paid by all owners.
Research from the Foundation for Community Association Research consistently shows that homes in associations tend to retain higher property values than comparable homes outside them, due in part to predictable governance and shared financial responsibility.
In addition to property value stability, resident satisfaction data provides important context to the policy discussion. The Foundation for Community Association Research’s most recent Homeowner Satisfaction Survey, conducted among residents in the U.S. in 2024, found that 86% of residents rate their overall community association experience as “very good,” “good” or “neutral.”[2]
While no governance model is without conflict, this data suggests that the vast majority of homeowners living in association-governed communities report generally positive or satisfactory experiences. Policymaking in this area should therefore be grounded not only in anecdotal disputes, but also in broad-based survey data reflecting how most residents evaluate their communities.
Under existing Georgia law, all homeowners in an association are required to pay assessments to cover common expenses. Associations may not withhold services from owners who fall behind on assessments, and boards remain legally obligated to maintain the community regardless of delinquency rates. When owners do not pay, the resulting financial shortfall is absorbed by the association, often through increased dues or deferred maintenance for everyone else.
Several pending bills would materially alter this framework. Introduced in February 2025, S.B. 107 and S.B. 108 would impose new limitations on assessment enforcement, including expanded assessment waivers and refunds, restrictions on late fees and liens, and requirements that associations fund alternative dispute resolution for a wide range of conflicts. The bills would also subordinate association liens to unpaid medical debt and create a new community association ombudsman’s office funded by per-unit fees assessed on associations, along with expanded reporting obligations to the Georgia secretary of state.
These measures would introduce direct costs for associations, including legal, administrative and compliance expenses, while increasing the workload and liability exposure of volunteer board members who already manage their communities without compensation.
The regulatory scope expands further under S.B. 361, which was introduced in March 2025 and would require additional registration and administrative hearing processes for homeowners associations. While framed as oversight, the bill would add layers of bureaucracy and recurring compliance costs for volunteer-led nonprofit corporations that are already subject to corporate, contract and property law requirements. For many associations, particularly small communities, these mandates could divert limited resources away from maintenance and reserve funding and toward administrative overhead.
S.B. 406, introduced in January and passed unanimously in the Georgia Senate on March 4, proposes an even broader restructuring of association governance. The bill would mandate statewide registration of property owners’ associations and impose detailed operational standards governing record retention, financial audits, amendment procedures and inspections. It would also establish a state board for review of complaints with authority to investigate grievances and enforce compliance with state regulations.
In addition, S.B. 406 would restrict foreclosure authority unless unprecedented financial thresholds are met and may prohibit associations from bidding on foreclosed properties, a necessary tool used to stabilize communities when no third-party buyers emerge. While the bill emphasizes owner access to records, meetings and remedies for discriminatory practices, it does so through an enforcement model that could substantially increase costs for associations that are already operating transparently and lawfully.
H.B. 1035, introduced in February, has also had traction this year. This bill would represent a major shift in how condominium and homeowners associations operate in Georgia.
The bill would eliminate an association’s ability to foreclose on a unit or lot for unpaid assessments — thereby removing what has historically been the most effective enforcement tool for collecting delinquent assessments, even though utilized only in extreme cases.
Community associations have real financial obligations. When assessments go unpaid, it becomes increasingly difficult for associations to meet essential responsibilities such as insurance, utilities, maintenance and other services that support the community.
Under H.B. 1035, the financial burden would ultimately shift to those homeowners who are paying their assessments, raising costsfor homeowners who are already meeting their financial obligations.
H.B. 389, introduced in February 2025, raises a different but related concern. The legislation addresses solar energy installations within homeowners associations. While associations broadly support solar energy and sustainable development, H.B. 389 would significantly limit an association’s ability to apply reasonable design, safety and placement standards, potentially overriding existing covenants without adequate safeguards. The issue is not whether solar should be permitted, but whether associations retain the authority to balance individual installations with structural integrity, insurance requirements and shared property Considerations.
Taken together, these bills reflect a growing legislative trend toward centralized regulation of community associations, entities that function as local, nonprofit governments elected by homeowners themselves. Association boards adopt budgets, manage multimillion-dollar infrastructure responsibilities and comply with extensive legal obligations. Board members can face personal liability if they fail to meet fiduciary duties, yet they serve on a volunteer Basis.
Recent reporting illustrates how rarely the most severe enforcement mechanisms are used. A February 2025 11Alive News investigation examining HOA lawsuits in DeKalb County found that over a two-year period, no case resulted in foreclosure, despite average unpaid balances exceeding $7,000. These unpaid assessments represent real costs already incurred to insure buildings, repair infrastructure and maintain safety standards.
When collection tools are limited, those costs do not disappear. They are redistributed to neighbors who are already paying their share. Public debate around homeowners associations often focuses on isolated disputes or rare remedies, such as foreclosure, but legislation should reflect how associations function for millions of residents on a daily basis. Broad mandates stemming from assumptions of widespread misconduct risk destabilizing well-run communities, discouraging volunteer leadership and increasing housing costs at a time when affordability remains a pressing concern.
Effective reform should protect homeowners’ rights while preserving the financial and governance structures that allow communities to function. Lawmakers should recognize that HOAs, condominiums and housing cooperatives operate as self-governed, nonprofit local governments, relying on volunteer boards to manage budgets, maintain infrastructure, enforce rules and address community needs without compensation.
Legislation that assumes widespread mismanagement could unintentionally burden these volunteer leaders, reduce the quality of community maintenance and shift costs onto residents. Thoughtful policy should balance accountability with practicality, encouraging transparency and fairness while maintaining the flexibility associations need to manage shared resources efficiently.
As lawmakers evaluate these proposals, careful consideration of the cumulative impact, not just individual provisions, will be essential to ensuring that Georgia’s housing communities remain stable, affordable, and well governed for current and future residents.
