The two cases that prompted it, in the Legislature's own recitals

House Resolution 335, adopted 91–1 on June 1, 2026, recites the case law that made the question urgent:

“WHEREAS, the issue was recently litigated in the La. Supreme Court case McCormick v. Ford (La. 5/9/2025), 408 So.3d 932 … WHEREAS, the La. Supreme Court sided with the property owners and held that the violation of the subdivision regulations occurred when the property owners filed the deed in the conveyance records of the parish and that any action to enforce the subdivision regulations had prescribed and as such the property enjoyed a non-conforming status by operation of R.S. 9:5625;”

“WHEREAS, the issue of prescription was also litigated in the La. Second Circuit Court of Appeal case Bossier Parish Policy Jury v. Hicks, (La. App. 2 Cir., 11/19/2025), 425 So.3d 252 … WHEREAS, the court held that the prescriptive period set forth in R.S. 9:5625 was applicable to the case as the ordinance at issue was a building restriction and that the first act constituting the commission of the violation was the original construction of the driveway in 1979 without a permit and thus the driveway enjoyed nonconforming status;”

Read together: a recorded deed, and a driveway poured in 1979, each started a clock that had long since run. Local governments lost both. HB 1255 was the response, and it died.²

What the resolution does instead

“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby direct the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the prescription of actions to enforce zoning restrictions, building restrictions, and subdivision regulations by parishes and municipalities and to submit recommendations for proposed legislation to the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2027.”

Note the wording: “by parishes and municipalities.” The assignment is public-enforcement prescription. It is not a review of Civil Code article 781.

The clock that actually governs a Louisiana association

Which is Civil Code article 781, and it was sharpened in 2025 in a way that matters far more to a board than HB 1255 would have.

In Harbor Crossing Homeowners' Association v. Niquiporo, No. 2024 CA 1289 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/30/2025), an owner in a Prairieville subdivision began fence work in February 2022; the management company first noticed the non-conforming fence on June 30, 2022; suit was filed March 14, 2024. The trial court sustained an exception of prescription and dismissed with prejudice. The First Circuit reversed and remanded, holding on the article 781 question:

“For the purpose of Article 781's two-year prescriptive period, some activity that is noticeable and apparent must occur on the lot, and at that point, the prescriptive period commences.”

“Until the fence is erected and the height is known, there is no noticeable violation, and the two-year prescriptive period does not begin to run.”

The court also placed the burden: “The record does not contain sufficient evidence submitted by Niquiporo to carry his burden of proving that the Association's claim was prescribed.” Nothing was decided about whether the fence violated the covenant; the merits are open on remand.

We could not reach the court's own slip opinion — the First Circuit's opinion library does not render to an automated request — so these quotations come from a commercial reproduction of the opinion, re-extracted on a second independent pass with identical results. Verify against the slip opinion before relying on the exact wording. Whether rehearing was sought or a writ application filed is not established.³

What all of this means for a board

• Two years, from noticeability. Article 781 is the association's deadline, and it starts when the violation becomes noticeable and apparent on the lot — not when a permit issued, not when a deed was recorded, and not when the first shovel went in.
• Document the date you noticed. In Harbor Crossing the management company's June 30, 2022 observation is what the timeline turned on.
• Do not cite R.S. 9:5625 for your own enforcement. It is not your statute, and an owner who raises its five-year period against a covenant claim is raising the wrong provision.
• Remember article 782 as well. Louisiana's abandonment rule for building restrictions is a separate five-year concept and belongs in the same analysis.

What to watch next

March 1, 2027 for the Law Institute's report to the House. And Harbor Crossing on remand, where the merits — whether an eight-foot fence violates a six-foot front-facing cap in a covenant requiring prior written architectural approval — remain to be decided.