Where each jurisdiction stands

Compliance is uneven, and in two cases it has broken down publicly.

Denver is processing individual zone map amendments through 2026 as part of its compliance work, including a Southwest rezoning package and an Evans Station-area rezoning. Those 2026 map amendment applications exist on the city's site; an adopted citywide compliance ordinance was not confirmed. Treat Denver as in progress.

Lakewood's compliance package was repealed by voters on April 7, 2026, by roughly sixty-four percent across four ballot questions. The city remains on the list with the December 31 report still due.

Aurora rejected its parking-alignment ordinance 6–2 on June 9, 2025 and is a plaintiff against the law.

Arvada, Westminster, Greenwood Village, Glendale and Lafayette are plaintiffs in the same suit — six home-rule cities that filed in Denver District Court on May 19, 2025 challenging HB24-1313 and HB24-1304 on the ground that land use and zoning are matters of exclusive local concern under Article XX, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, and asking the court to declare that the two laws “have neither force nor effect in the Cities.” They also challenge Governor Jared Polis's executive order of May 16, 2025 conditioning certain state transportation and energy grant funding on compliance. No final ruling has been located.

Arapahoe County maintains a public Transit-Oriented Communities Initiative page.

The distinction the lawsuit makes clear

The six-city complaint challenges HB24-1313 and HB24-1304. It does not challenge HB24-1152 — the accessory dwelling unit bill, which is the one in the 2024 package that reaches into declarations by adding subsection (4) to C.R.S. 38-33.3-106.5.

That is not an oversight; it is the architecture. A statute that tells a city what zoning capacity it must provide is a mandate on the city. A statute that voids a provision of a declaration is a mandate on the association. The cities are litigating the first category. Boards fielding questions about “the state overriding our covenants” are usually asking about the second, and the two should not be blurred.

What a board in a transit-oriented community should actually do

Find out whether the community's own land is inside a transit center. That is a map question, and it determines whether the jurisdiction's rezoning touches the association's parcels or only its neighbours'. An association whose common elements or undeveloped land sit inside a transit area has a direct interest in the map amendment.

Participate as a landowner, not as a regulator. An association is a property owner in its jurisdiction and can comment on a zone map amendment on that footing. It has no authority over the rezoning and no covenant remedy against it.

Tell members plainly what will and will not change. The declaration's setbacks, height limits, use restrictions and architectural standards are unaffected by a rezoning of adjacent land. What may change is traffic, parking pressure and what is visible from the community — and, in the medium term, the character of the neighbourhood the community sits in.

And read the parking implications with the other Colorado parking rules. HB24-1304 removes local minimum parking requirements for new multi-unit development near transit. Separately, C.R.S. 38-33.3-106.5(1)(d.5), added by HB22-1139, already bars an association from regulating use of public rights-of-way running through its community — including parking — regardless of what the governing documents say. A board expecting to manage spillover parking on a public street inside its boundaries is already outside its authority, and less off-street supply nearby makes that a live problem rather than a theoretical one.

What to watch next

December 31, 2026: the reports are due to the Department of Local Affairs. Whether jurisdictions that repealed or refused their compliance ordinances file anything, and what the state does about a “nonqualified” designation, is the immediate story.

The Denver District Court case: if the cities prevail, the transit-density rezonings that would put multifamily into and beside existing covenanted subdivisions in Arvada, Westminster, Greenwood Village and Aurora may not proceed on the state's timetable. If they lose, the December 31 deadline governs.

Either way, the association's governing documents are not the instrument in play, and no outcome of that litigation amends them.