California HOA EV Charging

Quick-Reference EV Charging Table

Civil Code § 4745 was first enacted in 2011 (SB 209) and has been amended several times, notably by SB 880 (2012), SB 1016 (2018), and most recently SB 770 (2025), which took effect January 1, 2026. The approval period, the insurance requirement, and the common-area installation rules are the parameters most likely to have changed, so the current text was pulled from leginfo and is cited by subdivision below.

Section 1: Overview

California has written a detailed, owner-protective EV-charging statute, Civil Code § 4745, that renders void and unenforceable any governing-document provision — any covenant, restriction, or condition — that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station within an owner's unit or in a designated parking space.¹ Section 4745, together with § 4745.1 on EV-dedicated time-of-use meters, sits inside the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Civil Code § 4000 et seq., the single framework governing every common interest development in the state.² An association keeps real authority here: it may impose reasonable restrictions, require compliance with its architectural standards, require a licensed contractor and liability insurance, and place the cost of installation, electricity, maintenance, and removal on the owner.¹ What it can't do is say no outright, or bury a request in conditions that significantly increase cost or reduce performance. California combines a broad right to charge with a strict deemed-approval clock and one-way attorney-fee exposure, which makes it the model owner-protective EV-charging state — the benchmark more restrictive or silent states get measured against. The sections that follow work through the statutory framework, the operational rules for a charging-station request, and recent legislative activity. This page reflects § 4745 as amended by SB 770 (2025), effective January 1, 2026.

Section 2: The statutory and regulatory framework

2A. Civil Code § 4745 and § 4745.1

Civil Code § 4745 sits in the Davis-Stirling Act, within Part 5 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, in the article on protected uses.¹ The statute dates to 2011, first enacted as former Civil Code § 1353.9 — SB 209, Corbett, Chapter 121, Statutes of 2011, approved July 25, 2011 — amended in 2012 to add the "reasonable restrictions" concept via SB 880, the round-two EV bill, and renumbered to § 4745 in the 2012 recodification of Davis-Stirling that took operative effect January 1, 2014.³ SB 1016 amended it next — Allen, Chapter 376, Statutes of 2018 — expanding the right to reach installations within an owner's unit, relaxing the insurance requirement, and adding § 4745.1 for EV-dedicated TOU meters, effective January 1, 2019.⁴ Most recently, SB 770, from Sen. Allen and chaptered as Chapter 525 of the Statutes of 2025, amended § 4745 to delete the requirement that the owner's insurance name the association as an additional insured and to correct an erroneous cross-reference on the insurance amount, effective January 1, 2026.⁵ This page cites the current operative text by subdivision.

The core rule sits in subdivision (a): any governing-document provision or recorded covenant that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of a charging station within an owner's unit or in a designated parking space — including a deeded space, a space in an owner's exclusive use common area, or a space specifically designated for a particular owner — or that conflicts with the section, is void and unenforceable.¹ Subdivision (b) preserves reasonable restrictions, defined as restrictions that don't significantly increase the cost of the station or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, and it states the state's policy of promoting EV charging and removing obstacles to it.¹

Owner responsibilities run extensive. Under subdivision (f), an owner installing in a common area or exclusive use common area must comply with the association's architectural standards, engage a licensed contractor, provide a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval, and pay both the installation and the electricity costs.¹ The owner, and each successive owner, bears the cost of damage, maintenance, repair, replacement, restoration after removal, and electricity, and must disclose the station to prospective buyers.¹ Subdivision (f)(3) requires the owner to maintain a liability coverage policy at all times — the statute specifies no dollar amount, since the former $1 million umbrella requirement was removed in 2018 — and after SB 770 the owner no longer has to name the association as an additional insured.¹ Subdivision (f)(4) exempts an existing NEMA standard alternating-current power plug from the insurance requirement.¹ The station also has to meet applicable health, safety, zoning, land use, and building-code standards under subdivision (c).¹

Approval mechanics live in subdivision (e): where approval is required, the application gets processed like an architectural-modification application and can't be willfully avoided or delayed; approval or denial has to be in writing; and if the application isn't denied in writing within 60 days of receipt, it's deemed approved, unless the delay results from a reasonable request for more information.¹ For common-area installations — as opposed to exclusive use common area — subdivision (g) authorizes an exclusive-use common-area installation only if installation in the owner's designated space is impossible or unreasonably expensive, in which case the association must enter a license agreement. Subdivision (h) lets the association or owners install a station in the common area for all members, with terms of use, and subdivision (i) permits creating a new parking space to facilitate installation.¹ Enforcement provisions in subdivisions (j) and (k) make an association that willfully violates the section liable for actual damages and a civil penalty of up to $1,000, and they award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff homeowner.¹

Section 4745.1 extends comparable protections to EV-dedicated TOU meters, voiding governing-document provisions that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict their installation or use.² For TOU meters, "reasonable restrictions" get defined by reference to space, aesthetics, structural integrity, and equal access, and the association must try to find a reasonable way to accommodate the request unless doing so would mean incurring an expense. The section imposes no insurance requirement.²

2B. How the rest of Davis-Stirling bears on EV charging

Section 4745 doesn't displace the association's architectural function — it channels it. The statute itself requires the owner to comply with the association's architectural standards, under § 4745(f)(1)(A), while the general procedures for architectural review sit in Civil Code § 4765, which requires a fair, reasonable, and expeditious review process and a written decision.⁶ The two work together: an association may apply its standards and procedures, but a § 4745 EV application also runs against the 60-day deemed-approval clock in § 4745(e), which controls timing for EV requests.¹ On common-area governance, the general limit on granting exclusive use of common area in Civil Code § 4600 yields to § 4745 where a grant of exclusive use is needed to install and use a charging station that meets § 4745's terms, including reasonable access across common area for utility lines or meters.⁷ Before an EV dispute reaches court, Davis-Stirling's dispute-resolution provisions may apply: internal dispute resolution under § 5900 et seq. is available to either side, and alternative dispute resolution under § 5925 et seq. is a prerequisite to certain enforcement actions for declaratory or injunctive relief or to enforce the governing documents.^8,9 Section 4745 sits atop the general Davis-Stirling framework and controls wherever a general provision and the EV statute would conflict on charging.

2C. The role of governing documents and corporate law

The declaration, bylaws, and operating rules stay enforceable, but only as filtered through § 4745. They may impose reasonable restrictions on charging stations, yet any provision that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts installation or use is void by operation of § 4745(a), no matter how the document is styled.¹ The order of precedence runs from the non-variable Davis-Stirling provisions — including § 4745 — to governing documents consistent with the statute, to board-adopted rules, which under § 4205 must yield to both the statute and the higher governing documents.¹⁰ For associations incorporated as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations, the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law, Corporations Code § 7110 et seq., supplies corporate-formality scaffolding — board authority, meetings, member rights — but it grants no EV-specific authority and doesn't alter § 4745.¹¹ Where both the statute and the governing documents stay silent, ordinary contract and property doctrine fills the gaps, but it can't be used to reinstate a restriction that § 4745 voids.

Section 3: What HOAs can and cannot do regarding EV charging

Because California runs a single-framework state, these obligations apply across every CID type — condominiums, planned developments, stock cooperatives, and community apartment projects — unless the statute distinguishes them.

A. Installation rights and prohibitions

An association may not enforce any governing-document provision or covenant that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of a charging station within an owner's unit or in a designated parking space, including a deeded space or a space in an owner's exclusive use common area — such provisions are void and unenforceable under § 4745(a). This is a statutory mandate.¹ For a common area that isn't an exclusive use common area, an exclusive-use installation is authorized only if installation in the owner's designated space is impossible or unreasonably expensive, in which case the association must enter a license agreement, per § 4745(g). The association or owners may also install a shared station for all members with terms of use, per § 4745(h). These are statutory conditions on common-area use.¹ The line between a permitted reasonable restriction and a prohibited effective prohibition turns on § 4745(b): a restriction that doesn't significantly increase cost or decrease efficiency or performance is allowed; one that does, or that operates as a de facto ban, is void.¹

B. Conditions an association may impose

The association may require the owner to comply with its architectural standards and to engage a licensed contractor, per § 4745(f)(1)(A)-(B), and it may require compliance with health, safety, zoning, and building-code requirements, per § 4745(c) — permitted association options within the statute.¹ It may require the owner to maintain a liability coverage policy and to provide a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval and annually thereafter, per § 4745(f)(3); after SB 770, it may no longer require the owner to name the association as an additional insured, and the statute sets no dollar amount.^1,5 It may impose reasonable aesthetic and location conditions, but only within the § 4745(b) limit.¹ On timing, a denial must be in writing and delivered within 60 days of receipt, or the application is deemed approved, unless the delay results from a reasonable request for more information, per § 4745(e) — a statutory mandate carrying financial consequences for willful violations under § 4745(j)-(k).¹

C. Cost, metering, and maintenance allocation

The owner, and each successive owner, bears the cost of installation, electricity, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, restoration, and damage, per § 4745(f)(1)(D), (f)(2) — a statutory allocation, not a discretionary board choice.¹ An owner may separately meter charging through an EV-dedicated TOU meter under § 4745.1, which the association generally must accommodate subject to reasonable restrictions and without an insurance requirement.² On the utility side, the California Public Utilities Commission regulates utilities and EV rate schedules, but an owner charging on a private or EV-dedicated meter is generally paying the utility for the owner's own consumption, not reselling utility service — nothing in § 4745 or § 4745.1 characterizes it as resale.²

D. Dispute resolution and enforcement

Before litigation, internal dispute resolution under § 5900 et seq. is available to either side, and alternative dispute resolution under § 5925 et seq. is a prerequisite to certain enforcement actions, with a certificate of compliance required to file.^8,9 Trial-level EV disputes proceed in the California Superior Court, with appeals to the California Court of Appeal for the district where the CID sits, and discretionary review by the California Supreme Court. A homeowner who prevails in an action to enforce § 4745 recovers reasonable attorney's fees; the association doesn't recover fees even if it wins, per § 4745(k).¹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No other bill enacted in the past 24 months amended § 4745 or § 4745.1. SB 770 stands as the current operative amendment.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No published California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court opinion interprets or applies Civil Code § 4745 or § 4745.1. As of July 18, 2026, the statutes have generated no binding appellate authority — disputes have settled at the trial level, in arbitration, or before litigation ever starts, consistent with the statute's one-way fee provision and $1,000 civil penalty. Treat any purported appellate decision construing § 4745 with skepticism until it's verified on courts.ca.gov.

C. Active legislative debates

No pending bill turns up as of July 18, 2026 that would further amend § 4745 or § 4745.1. The Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of SB 770 stated "Pending Legislation: None known," and noted that the bill was author-sponsored, supported by ChargePoint, Inc., and opposed by the Community Associations Institute – California Legislative Action Committee.⁵

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

California is the model owner-protective EV-charging state. Its combination of a void-and-unenforceable rule, a 60-day deemed-approval clock, cost-shifting to the owner, and one-way attorney-fee exposure gives owners stronger installation rights than most states provide. It sits alongside other mandate states such as Colorado, whose Common Interest Ownership Act bars unreasonable restrictions on Level 1 and Level 2 charging systems — C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.8, enacted by SB 13-126 effective May 3, 2013 and expanded by HB 23-1233 effective May 23, 2023.¹² Nationally, three broad categories emerge: mandate states like California and Colorado that void effective prohibitions; states that address EV charging more narrowly or only for rentals; and states with no EV-charging-specific statute, where the declaration controls and a board may lawfully say no. For a multi-state operator, that means a California playbook doesn't transfer to silent states, where the governing documents — not a statute — set the ceiling on owner rights. Since § 4745 gets amended periodically, this page is re-verified against current statutory text each quarter.

HOA Weekly's California EV Charging coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and courts act, and we re-verify § 4745 against current text each cycle. Federal incentives such as the Section 30C refueling-property credit may affect installation economics, but no federal law mandates HOA EV charging access. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, P.L. 119-21, changed the § 30C termination date from December 31, 2032 to June 30, 2026, so the credit no longer applies to property placed in service after that date.¹³

Footnotes

1. Cal. Civil Code § 4745 (current text, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
2. Cal. Civil Code § 4745.1 (current text, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
3. Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civil Code § 4000 et seq. (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
4. SB 1016 (Allen), Stats. 2018, Ch. 376 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
5. SB 770 (Allen), Stats. 2025, Ch. 525 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
6. Cal. Civil Code § 4765 (architectural review) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
7. Cal. Civil Code § 4600 (grant of exclusive use of common area) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
8. Cal. Civil Code § 5900 (internal dispute resolution) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
9. Cal. Civil Code § 5930 (ADR prerequisite to civil action) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
10. Cal. Civil Code § 4205 (operating rules; board rules must be consistent with governing documents and law) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
11. Cal. Corporations Code § 7110 (Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law) (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) ↩
12. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.8 (Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act) ↩
13. IRS, Instructions for Form 8911, Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit (Section 30C) ↩