What the adopted text actually says

Section 2 of the July 1, 2026 draft — the operative version taken to the September hearing — works in two directions. Subsection 1 lists the conduct that does qualify:³

“(a) A failure to exercise reasonable care; (b) Intentional, willful or malicious interference with the use or enjoyment of a dwelling or a common element; (c) Willful or grossly negligent destruction or damage of any real or personal property located in a dwelling or common element; (d) A violation of a housing or health code, law or regulation concerning the health, safety, sanitation or fitness for habitation of a dwelling unit; or (e) The commission of any other act which is substantially similar to the conduct described in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, in a manner that directly, immediately or actually endangers a unit's owner, a resident of the common-interest community or an invitee of a unit's owner or a tenant.”

Read the closing clause first. Every item on the list is qualified by it: the conduct has to endanger someone directly, immediately or actually. A failure to exercise reasonable care that endangers nobody is not on this list.

The four safe harbours, which are the real news

Subsection 2 names conduct a board may not treat as a health-and-safety violation when that conduct is the sole basis for the charge:

“(a) Uses foul, profane or abusive language in a manner that does not constitute hostile environment harassment as described in 24 C.F.R. 100.600(a)(2); (b) Voices opposition to or support for any matter that affects the common-interest community; (c) Constitutes a nuisance under the governing documents of the association but does not constitute a public nuisance under the laws of this State or a violation of an ordinance, rule or regulation that designates such conduct as a public nuisance; or (d) Is a violation of the governing documents of the association but is otherwise lawful under the laws of this State.”

Paragraph (d) is the broadest line in the regulation. A great many CC&R violations — the wrong paint colour, an unapproved shed, a boat in the driveway — are violations of the governing documents and otherwise perfectly lawful. On the face of the text, none of those can carry an uncapped fine once this rule is in force.

Paragraph (b) is narrower but sharper. Speaking for or against something that affects the community cannot itself be a health-and-safety violation. Paragraph (a) does not protect abusive language outright — it borrows the federal fair-housing definition of hostile-environment harassment at 24 C.F.R. 100.600(a)(2) as the dividing line.

What it does not do: there is still no ceiling

The statute told the Commission to adopt criteria and “limitations on the amounts of the fines.” Section 2 as adopted does the first and not the second. There is no dollar figure anywhere in it. Its only provision on amount is permissive:

“3. When determining the amount of a fine to be imposed in accordance with the procedures set forth in NRS 116.31031, an executive board may consult with any appropriate professional for assistance in evaluating the nature, context, severity, scope, frequency or duration of the violation or any other factor relevant to the determination of the executive board.”

So once a violation clears the subsection 1 test, the fine is whatever the board decides is commensurate. That matters more in Nevada than it would elsewhere, because an unpaid health-and-safety fine is collectible through the association's lien, and an ordinary capped fine's consequences are far smaller.

Why it is not law today, and what has to happen

A Nevada agency regulation is not effective when the agency adopts it. It goes to the Legislative Commission for review and is then filed with the Secretary of State. As of the date of this article the register carries the initial agency draft, the LCB proposed draft, and two revised proposed drafts — and no adopted version. The Division's own “approved regulations” page for NAC 116 still lists R129-21, effective December 29, 2022, as the most recent change.⁴

Practical consequence for a board reading this today: nothing in R091-25 binds you yet, and the safe harbours cannot yet be invoked by an owner disputing a fine. Equally, a board that has been designating ordinary covenant violations as health-and-safety matters is doing something the adopted text will squarely forbid, and the change is coming with no transition period written into it.

What to watch

• The register. An adopted file (the “A” suffix on the R091-25 series) appearing at leg.state.nv.us is the moment this becomes real.
• The September 8–10, 2026 minutes. They will be presented for approval at the Commission's December 8–10, 2026 meeting and will record the adoption vote and any amendments made from the floor.⁵
• Your own violation letters. Any letter that designates a violation as a health-and-safety matter is the document this rule is about.