D.C. HOA Compliance
3. Compliance topics grid
1. Introduction
Consider the District of Columbia, where community association law runs through a condominium-centered framework. The primary common-interest statute is the District of Columbia Condominium Act, D.C. Code Title 42, Chapter 19, which contains general provisions, establishment rules, governance provisions, and registration and offering requirements for condominiums.1 The statute applies to all condominiums created in the District of Columbia, and it treats older "horizontal property regime" and "condominium project" terminology as corresponding to condominium terminology.2 Non-condominium associations that use nonprofit entities also draw on D.C. Code Title 29, Chapter 4, which covers nonprofit corporation membership, director, officer, record, report, and dissolution rules.3
Local civil disputes generally begin in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which holds general jurisdiction over nearly all local civil matters, and parties take appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District's highest local court.4,5 Here is something to note: the official resources for managers and consumers point to DLCP property-manager licensing and OAG consumer complaint channels, not to a standalone HOA complaint office.6,7
Recent District activity is targeted, with more movement in condominium meetings, condominium-relief legislation, and construction enforcement than in planned-community HOA regulation.8,9
2. Primary statute and key resources
- Non-condominium association entity law, D.C. Code Title 29, Chapter 4. Incorporated nonprofit associations use these nonprofit corporation provisions for entity governance where applicable.10
- District of Columbia Condominium Act, D.C. Code §§ 42-1901.01 through 42-1904.18. This statute serves as the main common-interest law for condominium associations in the District.11
- District of Columbia Courts. Civil association disputes start in Superior Court, and parties take local appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.12,13
- Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, Real Estate Commission. DLCP lists Property Manager as a licensing category under the District of Columbia Real Estate Commission.14
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. OAG's Consumer and Tenant Response program handles qualifying consumer and tenant complaints outside court.15
4. District of Columbia's recent regulatory landscape
Recent Legislation
The recent Council record relevant to associations stays limited and concentrates on condominium meeting authority, reverse-mortgage assistance, and relief for one distressed condominium project.16,17,18
Bill 25-767 · D.C. Law 25-195
Start with this one. The Council enacted this measure as D.C. Law 25-195. It temporarily amended the Condominium Act to authorize remote condominium association meetings, electronic voting up to seven days before a unit-owner meeting, and remote attendance counted for quorum. The law stated that it would expire 225 days after taking effect.[19]
| Property managers | Meeting notices, ballots, and attendance logs needed to reflect temporary remote-meeting authority while it stayed in effect. |
| HOA board members | Boards had a temporary statutory basis for remote meetings before the permanent 2025 amendment took effect. |
| Community association attorneys | Counsel had to distinguish temporary authority from permanent statutory authority when advising on governing documents. |
| Homeowners | Owners could participate remotely when association procedures satisfied the temporary statute. |
Bill 25-418 · D.C. Law 25-324
The Council enacted this measure as D.C. Law 25-324. For associations, it amended the Condominium Act to authorize virtual condominium meetings and clarified voting and quorum rules, and it added condominium fees and homeowners association fees as approved uses under the Reverse Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program.[20] Current D.C. Code § 42-1903.03(f) permits unit owners' association, executive board, and committee meetings by telephone, video, or similar electronic means; requires meeting access instructions in notices; and allows electronic voting up to seven days before a unit-owner meeting.[21]
| Property managers | Meeting templates should include electronic access instructions, ballot timing, and quorum treatment for remote participants. |
| HOA board members | Boards can use remote formats, but notice, agenda, minutes, owner-comment, and open-meeting rules still matter. |
| Community association attorneys | Counsel should check bylaws, rules, and meeting policies against the permanent statutory language. |
| Homeowners | Remote attendance and electronic voting now sit inside the condominium governance framework. |
Bill 25-784 · D.C. Law 25-217 · Subtitle N
The Council enacted this budget-support measure as D.C. Law 25-217, and Subtitle N created a site-specific relief framework for River East at Grandview condominium owners at 1262 Talbert Street SE.[22] The statute defines the affected property, identifies the River East at Grandview Condominium Association, authorizes DHCD to enter a grant agreement with NACA for permanent-housing assistance, and provides tax and loan relief for covered owners.[23]
| Property managers | The statute targets a specific project, but it shows the District's willingness to address failed condominium projects through targeted relief. |
| HOA board members | Boards facing structural distress should expect fact-specific public-law treatment, not a general bailout rule. |
| Community association attorneys | Counsel should separate site-specific relief statutes from rules that apply to all District associations. |
| Homeowners | Affected River East owners received a statutory relief path tied to housing, tax, and loan issues. |
Recent Court Rulings
Two recent District of Columbia Court of Appeals decisions sharpen what survives dismissal in condominium defect disputes — one on accrual and laches, one on duty timing and control.
Nicklin v. The Stonesdale Unit Owners' Association
Here is what the Court of Appeals did. The case came from Superior Court case 2020-CA-002486-B and involved claims against a condominium unit owners' association, its board, and individual unit owners.[24] The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of tort claims but reversed in part on contract, statutory-duty, and equitable-relief claims, holding that factual and laches issues required further proceedings.[25] The practical point: limitations, accrual, maintenance responsibility, and laches issues in condominium defect disputes can remain fact-sensitive.
| Property managers | Associations should preserve maintenance history, owner notices, repair timelines, and responsibility records before defects escalate. |
| HOA board members | Board decisions on repairs and responsibility allocation may later affect accrual and equitable defenses. |
| Community association attorneys | Counsel may find early dismissal difficult when accrual and responsibility questions depend on disputed facts. |
| Homeowners | Claims tied to common-element conditions may survive dismissal when timing and responsibility remain unresolved. |
May v. River East at Grandview
This appeal arose from claims by River East at Grandview purchasers against the District, developers, DHCD, and the River East at Grandview Condominium Unit Owners' Association.[26] The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that the CPPA did not apply to the District and held that the District acted as a merchant for that claim, while affirming dismissal of the remaining claims, including claims against the association.[27] The association-specific takeaway: condominium-act control and duty timing can determine whether claims against an association survive.
| Property managers | Associations should document transition records and control dates because duty timing can prove decisive. |
| HOA board members | Association liability may turn on whether the board held control over the relevant property condition. |
| Community association attorneys | Pleadings against associations should address statutory control, responsibility, and timing with precision. |
| Homeowners | Claims against developers, government actors, and associations may follow different duty and timing rules. |
Regulatory Developments
The District's recent regulatory signal comes from OAG, which announced a $400,000 settlement requiring a developer to fund repairs at an improperly constructed condominium building.
Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia
OAG announced that developer Steven Sushner would pay $400,000 to the building's HOA for structural reinforcements and other repairs at a Ward 4 condominium building that OAG described as improperly constructed and structurally unsafe.[28] The announcement stated that the settlement resolved multiple cases related to construction at the building and that the funds would cover repairs to protect unit owners and the community.[29]
| Property managers | Associations should track structural complaints and DOB orders in a single repair and enforcement file. |
| HOA board members | Boards at defective buildings may need to coordinate owner claims, agency enforcement, and settlement funds. |
| Community association attorneys | Public enforcement can intersect with private association remedies in serious construction-defect matters. |
| Homeowners | OAG action can create repair funding when construction defects present broader safety concerns. |
Active Policy Debates
Bill 26-545, the River East at Grandview Homeownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act of 2026, appeared on the May 5, 2026 Committee of the Whole agenda.30 The Office of the Chief Financial Officer issued an April 28, 2026 fiscal-impact statement for Bill 26-545 stating that funds were sufficient to implement the draft committee print. That confirms what we are seeing: active District policy work remains focused on targeted River East relief rather than on a broad HOA regulator or planned-community code.31
5. Closing note
HOA Weekly's District of Columbia coverage will grow as new Council bills, Court of Appeals rulings, agency actions, and enforcement matters create association-specific compliance issues. Federal frameworks may also affect District associations — including the Fair Housing Act, ADA Title III where public accommodations come into play, the FDCPA for covered debt collectors, the SCRA in covered servicemember matters, and the OTARD rule in covered antenna restrictions. Federal coverage will live at /federal/ once we build that section.32,33,34,35,36
Footnotes
- D.C. Code Title 42, Chapter 19, Condominiums ↩
- D.C. Code § 42-1901.01, Applicability of chapter; corresponding terms ↩
- D.C. Code Title 29, Chapter 4, Nonprofit Corporations ↩
- Superior Court of the District of Columbia ↩
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals, jurisdiction ↩
- DLCP Occupational and Professional License Categories ↩
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Consumer Protection ↩
- D.C. Law 25-324, Fairness and Stability in Housing Amendment Act of 2024 ↩
- May v. River East at Grandview, No. 21-CV-0612, D.C. Court of Appeals ↩
- D.C. Code Title 29, Chapter 4, Nonprofit Corporations ↩
- D.C. Code Title 42, Chapter 19, Condominiums ↩
- Superior Court of the District of Columbia ↩
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals, jurisdiction ↩
- DLCP Occupational and Professional License Categories ↩
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Consumer Protection ↩
- D.C. Law 25-195, Association Meeting Flexibility Temporary Amendment Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Law 25-324, Fairness and Stability in Housing Amendment Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Law 25-217, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Support Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Law 25-195, Association Meeting Flexibility Temporary Amendment Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Law 25-324, Fairness and Stability in Housing Amendment Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Code § 42-1903.03, Meetings; electronic notice ↩
- D.C. Law 25-217, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Support Act of 2024 ↩
- D.C. Law 25-217, Subtitle N, Relief for River East at Grandview Condominium Owners ↩
- Nicklin v. The Stonesdale Unit Owners' Association, No. 22-CV-0644, D.C. Court of Appeals ↩
- Nicklin v. The Stonesdale Unit Owners' Association, No. 22-CV-0644, D.C. Court of Appeals ↩
- May v. River East at Grandview, No. 21-CV-0612, D.C. Court of Appeals ↩
- May v. River East at Grandview, No. 21-CV-0612, D.C. Court of Appeals ↩
- OAG, Attorney General Schwalb Announces Developer Will Pay $400,000 to Fix Unsafe Construction at DC Condo Building ↩
- OAG, 4022 Georgia Avenue NW settlement announcement ↩
- Committee of the Whole Agenda, May 5, 2026, Bill 26-545 ↩
- Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Fiscal Impact Statement for Bill 26-545 ↩
- HUD, Housing Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act ↩
- ADA.gov, Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulations ↩
- Federal Trade Commission, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Text ↩
- U.S. Department of Justice, Guide to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ↩
- FCC, Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule ↩