Colorado HOAs: Is Your CC&R Compliant With CCIOA?

You can read a Colorado declaration cover to cover and still get the answer wrong. Some of what it says has already been overridden by state law, automatically, with nothing recorded to tell you.

When a buyer asks whether the HOA can stop them doing something, the usual move is to read the CC&Rs and answer. In Colorado that fails often enough to matter. The state's community association law, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, or CCIOA, has provisions that operate directly on the declaration and change what it means without changing a word of what it says.

The clearest example is the vote it takes to change the rules. A Colorado declaration that requires 75 percent owner approval to amend is, as a matter of law, a declaration that requires 67 percent. The recorded page still reads 75. Nobody has to go to court or record a correction for the lower number to be the real one.

That matters on a deal. A buyer who is told the community can never change its rental cap, or an owner told a restriction is permanent because the threshold is out of reach, may be working from a number that no longer applies. Below is what actually governs, what to ask for, and the two rules that changed on August 12, 2026. Every citation is to Title 38, Article 33.3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, so you can check any of it yourself.

1. What CCIOA Governs, and Why Your Creation Date Decides It

The act took effect July 1, 1992. A community recorded before that date is covered by only part of it, so the recording date changes the answer.

Under C.R.S. §38-33.3-115, CCIOA applies to common interest communities created in Colorado on or after July 1, 1992, "except as provided in section 38-33.3-116". For communities created before that date, C.R.S. §38-33.3-117 supplies a list, and the list is what applies. Everything not on it does not.

That list is not one list. Section 117 turns the act on in stages, and each stage has its own start date. The two that decide most questions are July 1, 1992, when the first group of sections reached older communities, and January 1, 2006, when a second group did. A few individual provisions switch on later still, the newest of them in 2017.

The practical effect is worth stating plainly, because it drives everything below. Two Colorado communities can be subject to different halves of the same statute, purely because one was recorded in 1988 and the other in 1998. The 67 percent amendment rule covered in section 4 sits in the 2006 group, so it reaches a pre-1992 community only from that date forward. The management company handover rule in section 7 sits in the same group. When you are checking whether a rule applies to a specific community, the recording date is the first thing to establish, not the last.

Small communities get a further break, and if you are looking at a ten-unit conversion or a twenty-unit planned community, check this before assuming any of the rest applies. There is one exception on each side of the 1992 line. Under §38-33.3-119, a cooperative or planned community created before July 1, 1992 that contains no more than ten units and is not subject to any development rights, or whose declaration limits annual common expense liability to the amount specified in §38-33.3-116(1), is "subject only to sections 38-33.3-105 to 38-33.3-107" unless its declaration is amended to take advantage of §38-33.3-120. On the other side of the line, §38-33.3-116(1)(a) does the same for a cooperative or planned community created on or after July 1, 1992 that either contains only units restricted to nonresidential use, or contains no more than twenty units and is not subject to any development rights, unless the declaration provides that the entire article applies. Note what both sections name: cooperatives and planned communities, rather than common interest communities generally. Establish which type a community is before relying on either exception.

2. The Rule That Makes a CC&R Provision Unenforceable

The act cannot be signed around, and its rights cannot be waived. A conflicting line in the declaration does not just sit alongside it.

C.R.S. §38-33.3-104 is the provision that gives the rest of the act its force against a recorded document. It reads, in full:

"Except as expressly provided in this article, provisions of this article may not be varied by agreement, and rights conferred by this article may not be waived. A declarant may not act under a power of attorney or use any other device to evade the limitations or prohibitions of this article or the declaration."

Two phrases carry the weight. "Except as expressly provided" means the statute wins by default, and any exception has to be found in the act itself. "May not be waived" reaches past the declaration to what an owner signs, which is the part that matters at closing: a buyer does not give up one of these rights by accepting the deed or signing an acknowledgment that they have read the community rules.

The pattern of a governing-document provision that stays on the page while the law moves past it is not unique to Colorado. We covered the general version of this in 5 HOA provisions that boards enforce but probably can't and the diagnostic version in 7 signs your HOA governing documents are outdated.

3. If Your Community Predates July 1992, the Declaration May Win

For an older community, on part of the act, the declaration can beat the statute. This is the reverse of what most people expect.

This is where the intuitive answer flips. Almost everyone assumes that where the statute and the declaration disagree, the statute wins. For communities created before July 1, 1992, on the sections listed in §38-33.3-117(1), Colorado says close to the opposite.

"Except for section 38-33.3-217 (7), in the event of specific conflicts between the provisions of the sections specified in paragraphs (a) to (j) and (l) of subsection (1) of this section, and express requirements or restrictions in a declaration, bylaws, a plat, or a map in existence on June 30, 1992, such requirements or restrictions in the declaration, bylaws, plat, or map shall control, but only to the extent necessary to avoid invalidation of the specific requirement or restriction in the declaration, bylaws, plat, or map."

Three limits are built into that sentence and all three matter. The conflict has to be specific, not a general difference in approach. The declaration provision has to have been in existence on June 30, 1992. And the declaration controls only to the extent necessary to avoid invalidating that specific provision, which is a narrow carve-out rather than a general exemption from the section.

Sections 217(7) and 316 are expressly excluded from that treatment and are applied as stated in those sections. Subsection (3) closes the frame: "Except as expressly provided for in this section, this article shall not apply to common interest communities created within this state before July 1, 1992."

So there is no answer to whether a Colorado declaration complies, taken as a whole. There is an answer per rule, and it turns on when the community was created and which group of sections the rule falls into. If someone hands you a blanket yes or no on a Colorado declaration, they have skipped the question that decides it.

4. An Amendment Threshold Above 67 Percent Is Already Void

A declaration cannot demand more than 67 percent to amend. Anything higher is void, and the statute replaces the number itself.

Of everything here, this is the rule most likely to change an answer you would otherwise give a client. Section 38-33.3-217(1)(a)(I) provides that the declaration may be amended only by owners of units to which more than 50 percent of the votesin the association are allocated, "or any larger percentage, not to exceed sixty-seven percent, that the declaration specifies". It then does something unusual:

"Any provision in the declaration that purports to specify a percentage larger than sixty-seven percent is hereby declared void as contrary to public policy, and until amended, such provision shall be deemed to specify a percentage of sixty-seven percent."

The statute voids the provision and supplies the replacement number in the same breath. A community with a recorded 80 percent threshold does not need a court order, an owner vote, or a recorded correction before 67 percent is the operative figure. For communities created before July 1992, this rule reaches them from January 1, 2006 under §117(1.5)(d), which is the staged start date described in section 1.

The carve-outs are where this claim needs care. Subparagraph (III) makes paragraph (1)(a) inapplicable in five situations:

Carve-out (E) is the one to check first. A newer community still under declarant control, or one built in phases, is outside paragraph (1)(a), so the 67 percent ceiling does not do the work described above. The threshold substitution is a claim about communities that are neither phased nor declarant-controlled.

Two further details sit in the same paragraph. A declaration may specify a percentage smaller than a simple majority only if all units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential use. And under subsection (7), an association may seek a court order reducing the required percentage below 67 percent, which is a separate route from the automatic substitution. If your board is working through an amendment now, the amendment process for CC&Rs covers the mechanics.

5. What Your CC&Rs Cannot Prohibit, Whatever They Say

C.R.S. 38-33.3-106.5 lists uses an association shall not prohibit notwithstanding any contrary provision in the declaration or rules.

Section 38-33.3-106.5 opens with language that does not leave much room: "Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws, or rules and regulations of the association to the contrary, an association shall not prohibit any of the following". The enumerated list covers:

• Flags on a unit owner's property, in a window, or on an adjoining balcony, at (1)(a)
• Signs displayed by an owner or occupant on property within the boundaries of the unit or in a window of the unit, at (1)(c)
• Religious items or symbols on an entry door or entry door frame, at (1)(c.5), subject to five express exceptions at (1)(c.5)(I)(A) to (E), including a display that covers an area greater than thirty-six square inches individually or in combination
• Parking of an emergency responder's vehicle on a street, driveway, or guest parking area, at (1)(d), and only where the vehicle must be available at the residence as a condition of employment and all four listed criteria are met: a gross vehicle weight rating of ten thousand pounds or less, an occupant who is a volunteer firefighter or is employed by a primary provider of emergency fire fighting, law enforcement, ambulance, or emergency medical services, an official emblem or visible designation on the vehicle, and parking that does not obstruct emergency access
• Use of a public right-of-way in accordance with a local government's rules, at (1)(d.5)
• Vegetation removal to create defensible space against fire, at (1)(e), where the removal complies with a written defensible space plan prepared by the Colorado State Forest Service, a certified individual or company, or the responsible fire official, is no more extensive than that plan requires, and is registered with the association before work begins
• Reasonable accessibility modifications to a unit or the common elements, at (1)(g)
• Deed restrictions on affordability, at (1)(h), which by (1)(h)(II)(A) applies only to a county with a population under one hundred thousand that contains a ski lift licensed by the passenger tramway safety board, and by (1)(h)(II)(B) does not apply to a declarant-controlled community
• Xeriscape, nonvegetative turf grass, and drought-tolerant vegetation, at (1)(i) and (1)(i.5)
• A licensed family child care home as defined in §26.5-5-303 and licensed pursuant to part 3 of article 5 of title 26.5, at (1)(k), which by (1)(k)(III) does not apply to a community qualified as housing for older persons under the federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995
• A home-based business operated by an owner or resident, at (1)(l)

The association can still impose reasonable restrictions in several of these areas. What it cannot do is ban them outright, and that is the line to check when a client is told something is simply not allowed. Two companion sections extend the same treatment:§38-33.3-106.7 on unreasonable restrictions on energy efficiency measures, and §38-33.3-106.8 on electric vehicle charging systems, which we covered in detail in HOA EV charging and CC&R compliance.

6. Nine Policies the Association Has to Have, and What Their Absence Tells You

Colorado requires written policies in nine areas. Ask for them, and treat a missing one as a question rather than a formality.

Section 38-33.3-209.5(1)(b) requires associations to adopt policies, procedures, and rules concerning nine subjects: collection of unpaid assessments; conflicts of interest involving board members, which must include at minimum the criteria in §209.5(4); conduct of meetings; enforcement of covenants and rules, including notice and hearing procedures and the schedule of fines; inspection and copying of association records; investment of reserve funds; adoption and amendment of policies; disputes between the association and unit owners; and reserve studies.

Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(a.5) add two more duties: maintain accurate and complete accounting records, and periodically request and maintain a telephone number, cell number, and email address for each owner or designated contact.

The ninth policy is the most frequently misdescribed provision in Colorado HOA writing. Subparagraph (IX) requires a policy addressing when the association has a reserve study prepared, whether there is a funding plan for the recommended work and the projected sources of funding, and whether the study is based on a physical analysis and a financial analysis. It closes with a sentence that settles the question directly: "For the purposes of this subparagraph (IX), an internally conducted reserve study shall be sufficient."

What the section requires is a policy about reserve studies. It does not require the association to obtain a reserve study, on any schedule, from any outside professional. So a Colorado seller can truthfully say the association is fully compliant here while no independent study of the building exists. If you want the financial picture rather than the compliance posture, ask for the study itself and read it, and how to read a reserve study more useful than the statute here.

One item sits outside §209.5 and carries a sharper consequence, and it is worth knowing about before a closing. Under §38-33.3-401(3), an association that fails to register annually with the director of the division of real estate, or whose registration has expired, has its right to impose or enforce an assessment lien under §316, and to pursue enforcement under §123, suspended until it is validly registered. A previously recorded lien is not extinguished by the lapse, but a pending enforcement proceeding is suspended and the applicable time limit is tolled.

7. What Changed on August 12, 2026

A 2026 law makes the developer pay for a 30-year reserve study before handing over control, and gives a departing manager 45 days to turn over the books.

House Bill 26-1099, "Concerning protecting the financial condition of common interest communities," was signed on April 13, 2026 and took effect on August 12, 2026, and is now published as chapter 42 of the 2026 session laws. That matters for anyone relying on it: the act took effect only because no referendum petition was filed against it inside the ninety-day window that ran to August 12, and the session law entry is the record that the condition resolved. It makes four changes to CCIOA.

The declarant reserve study, new C.R.S. §38-33.3-209.2

The new section, C.R.S. §38-33.3-209.2, requires that prior to transfer of control from the declarant to the association of a planned community or condominium, the declarant shall commission and pay for a reserve study addressing the components of the common elements and property the association is responsible for maintaining, repairing, or replacing as described in the declaration. The study must project costs over a thirty-year period.

Subsection (3) sets independence requirements. The study must be conducted by an independent reserve study professional or other qualified professional who has knowledge of industry standards, has no business relationship with or financial interest in the declarant other than being retained to conduct reserve studies, and is not an affiliate of the declarant.

This duty is the developer's, and only before turnover. It does not create a recurring reserve study requirement for an established Colorado association, and it does not change §209.5(1)(b)(IX) for one. For anyone buying in a newer Colorado community, this is the useful part: the study is the document that shows what the developer has left the association to pay for, and as of August 12 it has to exist and has to be handed over. Ask for it by name. See developer-drafted CC&R red flags.

Two disclosure and turnover additions

Section 38-33.3-209.4(2)(j) adds the most recent §209.2 reserve study to the information an association must make available to owners within 90 days after assuming control from the declarant, and within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year thereafter. Section 38-33.3-303(9)(n) adds the declarant's reserve study to the package the declarant must deliver within 60 days after owners other than the declarant elect a majority of the executive board.

The management company handover, new C.R.S. §38-33.3-317(9)

When an association terminates or fails to renew an agreement with its management company, the former company has 45 days to deliver, at no charge to the association, all association property. The statute itemizes it: money, financial accounts, account books, financial records, insurance policies, contracts, business documents, invoices, receipts, subscriptions, account information, account passwords, keys, and any other property, records, or information concerning the association.

The exclusion is narrower than it is often summarized. Section 38-33.3-317(9) applies to every association other than "a self-managed association that has not retained an association management company". A self-managed association that has retained a management company for some function is not outside the rule. A proprietary software carve-out at (9)(a)(II) lets the former company keep its own software so long as the association's data and records within that software are submitted to the association.

The penalties for missing the deadline are "unless otherwise agreed in writing between the association and the former association management company", which makes them a term that can be bargained away in a management contract without anyone noticing. Where they apply, the former company is liable for interest and late fees on late payments plus other damages caused by the association's inability to reach its own accounts, owes $250 for each business day of noncompliance, and, where a court finds the violation willful, is liable for treble the association's actual damages plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

8. What Colorado Does Not Require

Colorado has no mandatory pre-suit mediation for HOA disputes, and no reserve study mandate for established associations.

Two obligations circulate widely in Colorado HOA content, including on pages selling services around them, and neither one exists.

There is no mandatory pre-litigation dispute resolution sequence. HB25-1123, which would have required negotiation and mediation before an owner or association could file suit, did not pass. Its official status on the Colorado General Assembly site is "Lost," with versions ending at reengrossed on April 28, 2025. The governing section,§38-33.3-124, is still titled "alternative dispute resolution encouraged" and still only requires each association to adopt a written policy setting out its procedure for addressing disputes, and to make that policy available to owners on request. Mediation under subsection (2) proceeds by agreement of the parties.

There is no general reserve study requirement for established associations. As covered above, HB26-1099 places the obligation on the declarant before turnover, and §209.5(1)(b)(IX) requires a policy while expressly accepting an internally conducted study.

One requirement that does exist and does override the declaration concerns construction defect claims. C.R.S. §38-33.3-303.5(1)(d)(I)(A), as amended by HB25-1272 effective August 6, 2025, provides that "notwithstanding any provision of law or any requirement in the governing documents," the executive board may initiate a construction defect action if authorized within the voting period by owners of units to which at least sixty-five percent of votes in the association are allocated. Note the denominator: allocated votes, not a headcount of owners, which differ wherever votes are not allocated one per unit.

The section carries two express exceptions. Approval is not required where the alleged defect pertains to a facility intended and used for nonresidential purposes and the repair cost does not exceed $50,000, or where the association is itself the contracting party for the labor, services, or materials. Per the act's editor note, the 2025 change applies to construction defect claims brought on or after August 6, 2025, and under §117(1.9), §303.5 reaches communities created on, before, or after July 1, 1992 for events occurring on or after September 1, 2017.