Two New Jersey bills on 55-plus resales point in opposite directions
Two New Jersey bills on 55-plus resales point in opposite directions
2026-09-15 · New Jersey · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
New Jersey's Legislature is currently considering two bills that would amend the same age-restricted-housing statute in incompatible directions, and neither has been heard.
A3466: sell to anyone
A3466, introduced January 13, 2026 by Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez and referred to the Assembly Housing Committee, would expressly require an age-restricted common interest community association to permit an owner to sell or grant a unit regardless of the buyer's or grantee's age, provided enforceable commitments keep the occupants compliant with the age restriction.1
The sponsor's statement frames it as preventing associations "from unnecessarily restricting who owners may sell their homes to," and walks through the federal housing-for-older-persons framework under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: 100 percent of occupants aged 62 or over in a 62-and-over community, or at least 80 percent of occupied units with one resident aged 55 or over in a 55-and-over community.
S1843: lock the resale
S1843, introduced the same day by Senator Latham Tiver and referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs, goes the other way. It would require that units in an age-restricted community transferred by resale remain occupied by households that keep the community qualified as housing for older persons.
It also clarifies the definition of "resale" in P.L.2008, c.71 to include mortgage and tax foreclosure sales, execution sales, and bankruptcy sales — the transfers most likely to put a non-qualifying household into an age-restricted unit without anyone's consent.
Both are reintroductions
A3466 is the reintroduction of A2271, which died with the 221st Legislature; its chain runs back through A4106 and S2537. S1843 is the reintroduction of S595, whose chain runs back to S86 and A270. Neither has a companion bill in the other chamber this session.
The distinction both bills turn on
The federal exemption is about occupancy, not ownership. Nothing in the Fair Housing Act requires an owner of a unit in a 55-and-over community to be 55. What it requires is that at least 80 percent of occupied units have at least one occupant aged 55 or over, together with published policies and age verification.
That distinction has already been tested in New Jersey. In New Jersey REALTORS v. Township of Berkeley, decided by the Appellate Division on July 31, 2024, a municipal ordinance requiring owners in age-restricted communities to be 55 or over was invalidated as preempted by the federal Fair Housing Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
That decision is about a municipal ordinance, not about association governing documents, and it is the legal engine under both 2026 bills. Community-association counsel in New Jersey have since been advising that ownership-based age restrictions in governing documents rest on shaky ground while occupancy-based restrictions do not.
Why A3466 is more contested than it looks
On its face A3466 codifies what federal law already implies. The opposition is not really about the legal theory; it is about who buys.
Organised opposition has come from Ocean County senior communities, which frame the bills as opening 55-and-over housing stock to investors. A Toms River-based petition, "Save NJ Senior Housing," argues the measures would let "special interest groups and private equity investors" profit, and opponents have cited municipal resolutions and petition counts — figures that come from the campaign's own materials and that we could not independently confirm.
That fight is not new. Jersey Shore Online covered the 2019 version of the same measure, and the 2022 version drew sixty-plus residents to a Manchester Coordinating Council meeting at Crestwood Village V. The named communities recur: Holiday City South, Silver Ridge Park East, the Berkeley and Manchester developments.
What a board in a 55-plus community should actually be doing
Whatever happens to either bill, the operative compliance work is the same and it is overdue in a lot of New Jersey communities: a published policy stating intent to operate as housing for older persons, an age-verification procedure that actually runs, and a biennial survey that documents the 80 percent figure. The federal exemption is not self-executing. A community that loses it does not become a 55-plus community with a technical problem; it becomes an ordinary community that has been discriminating on the basis of familial status.
S1843's foreclosure clarification points at the real operational gap. A sheriff's sale does not consult the association's occupancy policy, and the unit it produces counts against the 80 percent the same as any other.
Status
Neither bill has a hearing, a committee statement or a vote. A3466 sits in Assembly Housing; S1843 in Senate Community and Urban Affairs. We found no 2025 or 2026 press coverage of A3466 at all — the only voices on the record are the petition and law-firm commentary.
Related New Jersey HOA Topics
- A3466 (222nd Legislature), introduced bill text and sponsor's statement ↩
- S1843 (222nd Legislature), introduced bill text ↩
- Jersey Shore Online, “Senate Bill Impacting 55+ Communities Changed,” Chris Lundy, October 25, 2019 ↩
- Jersey Shore Online, “New Bills Worry Senior Communities,” Bob Vosseller, October 18, 2022 ↩
Stay on top of New Jersey HOA law
Every week: new New Jersey legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.