Connecticut's 2026 ADU bill lost its power over association covenants, then died anyway
Connecticut's 2026 ADU bill lost its power over association covenants, then died anyway
2026-09-09 · Connecticut · Legislation · Did not pass
Connecticut's 2026 accessory dwelling unit bill was raised with language that would have overridden covenants in common interest communities. That language was stripped before the bill advanced, and the bill then died on the House calendar anyway.1
Both halves of that sentence matter to Connecticut associations, and the second half should not be allowed to obscure the first.
What the bill would have done
House Bill 5507, “An Act Promoting the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units,” would have renamed the “accessory apartment” statute to “accessory dwelling unit” throughout, repealed the municipal opt-out, and extended as-of-right ADUs to every municipality — including those that opted out before January 1, 2023 and those zoning under a special act. It would have voided non-conforming local regulations, limited what restrictions municipalities could impose, and directed the Department of Housing to create a pre-approved ADU plan programme. The proposed effective date was October 1, 2026.2
The association provision that came out
The Community Associations Institute's Connecticut chapter states that in its original form the bill “would have negated covenants in common interest communities regarding the construction of ADUs on association property,” and that the language was stricken before the bill advanced. The chapter's position moved from oppose to neutral as a result.3
That account comes from the organisation that lobbied for the change rather than from a legislative document, and it should be read as such. What can be confirmed independently is the outcome: the bill that emerged from Planning and Development on March 13, 2026 as a joint favourable substitute is a municipal zoning measure, and Connecticut association covenants on ADUs are untouched by anything that happened in the 2026 session.
How it died
Referred to Planning and Development March 5, 2026; public hearing March 11; joint favourable substitute March 13; File No. 258 and House Calendar 214 on March 30. Referred by the House to Appropriations April 7, joint favourable April 13, no new file April 15, tabled for the House calendar. Never called. Dead at adjournment on May 6, 2026.1
The distinction that decides everything for a board
Connecticut ADU law operates on two separate tracks, and conflating them is the most common mistake in this area.
Zoning determines whether a municipality will permit an ADU. That is what HB 5507 was about, and what the existing as-of-right statute with its municipal opt-out governs.
The declaration determines whether the association will. A covenant restricting the number of dwelling units, prohibiting separate kitchens, limiting occupancy, or requiring architectural approval operates independently of the zoning code. A municipality that permits an ADU as of right has not authorised an owner to build one in breach of the declaration.
The stripped provision would have collapsed that distinction in one direction. Its removal leaves the two tracks running separately, which is the current Connecticut position.
Where a board actually stands
Read the declaration for the real constraint. Most Connecticut declarations do not mention accessory dwelling units, because they predate the term. The operative restrictions are usually elsewhere: single-family use clauses, occupancy limits, restrictions on subdividing a unit, and architectural approval requirements.
Do not assume a general residential-use clause is a total prohibition. The Appellate Court's February 2026 decision in Casner v. Roberts reversed a trial court for reading a residential covenant as barring all commercial use where the same covenant contemplated an in-residence office. The same reasoning applies to a declaration whose text is less absolute than a board's reading of it.
Enforce the approval process. Casner's other holding is the more useful one here: an owner who builds without submitting plans forfeits the argument that approval was unreasonably withheld. Where an ADU is added without an application, the association's position is procedural and strong.
One ADU measure did pass
The 2026 session was not empty on this subject. House Bill 5288, a narrower measure concerning utility connections for accessory dwelling units, passed both chambers and became Public Act 26-7.4 It does not reach association covenants.
What to watch next
Two things, in order of likelihood.
The first is that a statewide ADU bill returns in the 2027 long session. Connecticut has run one in successive sessions, and the underlying housing-supply politics have not changed.
The second, and the one specific to associations, is whether a future version carries the covenant-override language again. It was in the 2026 bill as raised. It came out in committee. Nothing about its removal was a legislative judgement on the merits recorded in a vote — the bill never received one — so the question is unresolved rather than settled.
If it returns and survives, it would be the first Connecticut statute to subordinate a recorded declaration to a state housing-supply objective. That is a considerably larger development than the ADU rules themselves.
Related Connecticut HOA Topics
- HB 5507 (2026) bill status and complete history, Connecticut General Assembly — tabled for the House calendar April 15, 2026; never called ↩
- OLR Bill Analysis, sHB 5507 (File No. 258), Office of Legislative Research ↩
- 2026 Connecticut End of Legislative Session Report, CAI Advocacy (June 11, 2026) — the account of the stricken covenant language ↩
- HB 5288 (2026), utility connections for accessory dwelling units — enacted as Public Act No. 26-7 ↩
Stay on top of Connecticut HOA law
Every week: new Connecticut legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.