AB 2035 would cut the CC&R amendment threshold to 37% for large senior communities
AB 2035 would cut the CC&R amendment threshold to 37% for large senior communities
2026-09-09 · California · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
A bill that would lower the court-approved threshold for amending CC&Rs from a majority to 37 percent — but only for a narrowly defined group of very large senior communities — is awaiting the Governor's signature. AB 2035 is not law. It was enrolled and presented to Governor Gavin Newsom on September 4, 2026 at 4 p.m.1
The bill is authored by Assemblymember Diane Dixon and amends Civil Code section 4275. The Senate passed it 36–1 on August 27, after Senate Judiciary approved it 13–0 on July 1. It was last amended on April 22, 2026.
What section 4275 does now
Amending a declaration requires the approval percentage the declaration itself specifies, and in older California developments that figure is often high enough to be unreachable in practice. Section 4275 exists for that problem: it lets an association petition the superior court to reduce the required percentage where an amendment has failed for want of participation rather than opposition.
The statute's baseline is that the amendment must still have been approved by more than 50 percent of the votes cast in a single-class voting structure. AB 2035 does not change that baseline.2
The new 37 percent path
The bill creates an alternative threshold of more than 37 percent of the votes in a single-class voting structure, available only where all four of the following are true:
The development is a senior citizen housing development as defined in Civil Code section 51.3(b)(4); it contains more than 6,000 separate interests; more than 25 percent of the separate interests are occupied by tenants; and the declaration has not been amended in at least 35 years.
A petition would still require the governing documents, the text of the amendment, the notice materials, the rationale and supporting documentation, and the court must give members and relevant authorities at least 15 days' notice before ruling.
How narrow is narrow
Four stacked conditions, one of which is a 6,000-unit floor and another a 35-year amendment drought, describe a very small number of California communities. It is fair to read AB 2035 as targeted legislation, and worth saying so plainly rather than presenting it as a general change to Davis-Stirling amendment practice.
An April 2026 amendment removed an earlier criterion that would have required 25 percent of separate interests to have been owner-occupied for less than six months.
What it would change for boards and managers
For almost every California association, nothing. That is the most useful thing a board can be told about this bill, and the reason to read the four conditions carefully before concluding they apply. An association of 400 units, or a senior community whose declaration was restated in 2005, is outside it on the face of the statute.
For the communities inside it, the 35-year condition is the operative one. A declaration untouched since 1991 or earlier is likely to contain provisions that have been superseded by statute several times over — rental restrictions predating the section 4741 rental-cap rules, election provisions predating the 2019 election statutes, architectural provisions predating the solar and EV charging protections. The bill's premise is that these declarations are the hardest to fix and the most in need of fixing.
The tenant-occupancy condition cuts against the usual assumption. More than 25 percent tenant occupancy is a condition of eligibility, not a disqualifier. Tenants do not vote in association elections; a development where a quarter of the units are tenant-occupied has a structurally depressed participation rate, which is precisely the voter-apathy problem section 4275 addresses. The condition is doing analytical work, not just narrowing scope.
The petition remains a court proceeding. Nothing in AB 2035 makes the reduction automatic. The association still files, still bears the cost, still assembles the record, and the court still decides. A lower threshold changes what can be proved, not whether proof is required.
What the bill does not do
It does not lower the vote required to amend a declaration in the ordinary course — only the threshold a court may approve on a section 4275 petition. It does not create a new petition right for associations that are not senior citizen housing developments. And it does not change the requirement that the amendment be approved by a majority of votes cast in the ordinary case.
Boards reading a summary that describes this as “California lowers the CC&R amendment threshold to 37 percent” should treat that as wrong. The four conditions are conjunctive.
What to watch next
The Governor must act by September 30, 2026.3 The 2025–2026 two-year session has closed, so a veto ends the measure rather than returning it.
If it is signed, the interesting question is whether the four conditions get litigated. “Has not been amended in at least 35 years” is the kind of criterion that invites argument about what counts as an amendment — a restatement, a technical correction, an annexation of a phase. Nothing in the bill defines it, and the first petition filed under the new threshold will be where that is worked out.
Related California HOA Topics
- AB 2035, California Legislature — bill status and complete history (enrolled and presented to the Governor September 4, 2026) ↩
- AB 2035, California Legislature — bill text and Legislative Counsel's Digest (amending Civil Code § 4275) ↩
- 2026 Tentative Legislative Calendar, California State Senate (September 30 last day for the Governor to act) ↩
Stay on top of California HOA law
Every week: new California legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.