The document that reconciles all three

The three statements are not fully reconcilable with each other, and the reconciliation is not in any city code. It is in HB24-1152 (2024), which added subsection (4) to C.R.S. 38-33.3-106.5 — CCIOA's section on provisions contrary to public policy. The operative text, from the signed act:

“In a subject jurisdiction or an accessory dwelling unit supportive jurisdiction, no provision of a declaration, bylaw, or rule of an association that is adopted on or after the effective date of this subsection (4) may restrict the creation of an accessory dwelling unit as an accessory use to any single-unit detached dwelling in any way that is prohibited by section 29-35-103, and any provision of a declaration, bylaw, or rule that includes such a restriction is void as a matter of public policy.” Paragraph (b) applies the same rule to provisions adopted before the effective date.

Paragraph (c) is the limit that Colorado Springs' phrasing tracks: those rules “do not apply to reasonable restrictions on accessory dwelling units,” and a “reasonable restriction” means “a substantive condition or requirement that does not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit.”

The act was effective May 13, 2024, with a local-compliance deadline of June 30, 2025 — which is why the 2025 wave of Colorado city ADU rewrites happened when it did. It also added C.R.S. 24-67-105(5.3), doing the parallel job for planned unit developments.

Three limits on that preemption, all load-bearing

It is geographic. It bites only in a “subject jurisdiction” or a certified accessory-dwelling-unit-supportive jurisdiction, as defined at C.R.S. 29-35-102(21) and (3). Outside those, an association's ADU ban stands.

It is about detached single-unit dwellings. The operative phrase is “as an accessory use to any single-unit detached dwelling.” Condominium and shared-wall townhome communities are not the target. The Community Associations Institute's Rocky Mountain chapter reached the same reading in a February 2025 analysis, noting the law “excludes condominiums and townhomes with shared walls, affecting only detached single-unit dwelling communities in applicable areas.”

Reasonable restrictions survive. Architectural, placement and materials standards remain available so long as they do not unreasonably raise cost, effectively prohibit, or extinguish the ability to build.

So who is right?

All three, about different things.

Arvada is right that a city permit is not permission under a declaration. A permit is a public-law approval. It has never spoken to a private contract, and a Colorado owner who builds on a permit alone in a covenanted community is in breach of the declaration if the declaration says no.

Denver is right that it does not enforce covenants. Its permit counter will not ask, and will not refuse.

Colorado Springs is right that in a designated jurisdiction, a detached-home association's ADU ban is void by statute — not because the city says so, but because C.R.S. 38-33.3-106.5(4) says so.

The apparent contradiction dissolves once you see that Arvada and Denver are describing the permit, and Colorado Springs is describing the declaration. What no city page tells an owner is which of the three situations they are actually in, because that depends on whether their jurisdiction is a subject jurisdiction and whether their home is a detached single-unit dwelling.

What a board can publish to its members

Answer the jurisdiction question first, in writing. Whether the community sits in a subject jurisdiction or a certified supportive jurisdiction is the threshold fact, and it determines whether the association's ADU provision is enforceable at all.

Then answer the housing-type question. Detached single-unit homes are inside the preemption. Attached and stacked product is largely outside it.

Then move the association's rule into the reasonable-restriction lane if the preemption applies. A ban is the one thing that is void. Placement, materials and architectural compatibility standards that do not unreasonably raise cost or effectively prohibit construction are what the statute leaves.

And tell owners plainly that a city permit is not board approval. Arvada's sentence is the one worth borrowing, in every Colorado community, whatever the jurisdiction: an approval and permit issued by the city does not overrule HOA approval.

Whether any particular association restriction is a permitted “reasonable restriction” is a fact question, and it is not one we answer for an individual dispute.

Two further cities, briefly

Boulder dropped its ADU owner-occupancy requirement by Ordinance 8650, adopted February 2025 and applying to any ADU proposed on or after March 8, 2025: “As of March 8, 2025, ADUs are no longer required to be owner occupied, in accordance with recent state legislation.” Its page acknowledges that some associations may prohibit ADU construction, that the city lacks authority to override that, and that recent state legislation “does address HOA restrictions on ADUs.” One correction: Boulder's page cites the bill as “HB24-1154.” The ADU bill is HB24-1152. Cite the correct number rather than repeating the city's.

For Boulder associations, the practical effect of dropping owner-occupancy: an ADU may now be rented while the owner lives elsewhere, so a covenanted street can carry two rental households on a lot that used to house one owner. For boards relying on leasing caps rather than ADU bans, the leasing provisions do the work.

Aurora is the outlier and is covered separately: its council voted 6–2 on June 9, 2025 to turn back the state-alignment ordinances, which does not repeal the state statute.