New Jersey HOA Political Signs

Section 1: Overview — How political signs are regulated in New Jersey HOAs

New Jersey stands as the leading state in which the state constitution, rather than a statute, bars a homeowners association from prohibiting political signs, under Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner rules. In Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482, 46 A.3d 507 (2012), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an association's near-total ban on residential signs (all signs barred except "For Sale" signs) violated the free-speech clause of the New Jersey Constitution as applied to a homeowner who posted campaign signs inside his own townhouse while running for local office.¹ The precision point that defines this page: the source of the protection is the New Jersey Constitution (Article I, Paragraph 6), and the federal First Amendment still doesn't bind an association, because an association is a private party and there's no state action.² A separate statute, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1, bars associations from prohibiting the United States flag and signs supporting United States troops, but that statute covers flags and troop-support displays, not candidate or ballot-question signs, and isn't the source of campaign-sign protection.³ Nationally, New Jersey stands as the leading state-constitutional-protection jurisdiction for political signs, in contrast to the protective-statute states (such as California, Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, and Montana), where a statute supplies the protection, and the CC&R-primary states, where covenants control absent a statute; California has also applied state constitutional speech principles to associations in limited circumstances.⁴ The sections ahead set out the statutory framework, the constitutional analysis at the center of the topic, the operational rules for boards and managers, and recent legislative and judicial activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for political signs

2A. The statutory framework, and the absence of a campaign-sign statute

New Jersey has no statute that protects campaign or candidate signs from association regulation. The protection for political signs is constitutional, and it comes from the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Mazdabrook, addressed in 2B. The statutes that govern associations address governance, disclosure, and dispute resolution, not the content of an owner's political expression. The Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (PREDFDA), N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq., which took effect in 1978 and was significantly amended by the Radburn Law (P.L. 2017, c. 106, effective July 13, 2017), governs common-interest-community governance, confirms that all unit owners are members of the association, sets election-participation and board-election procedures, addresses bylaw amendments and meeting notice, and requires associations to provide alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for housing-related disputes.^5,6 The Department of Community Affairs enforces PREDFDA, and the implementing regulations appear at N.J.A.C. 5:26. The New Jersey Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 et seq., originally enacted in 1969, governs condominium association powers, duties, liens, and bylaws, and it contains a parallel ADR requirement.⁷ Many associations also organize under the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Act, N.J.S.A. 15A:1-1 et seq.⁸ A separate statute, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1, bars an association — whether managing a condominium, a private community including retirement communities, or a cooperative — from adopting or enforcing a rule or bylaw that limits or prohibits the display of the United States flag or yellow ribbons and signs supporting United States troops, or that charges a fee for such display; any such rule is null and void, subject to a public-safety and maintenance exception in subsection b.³ That statute covers the flag and troop-support signs. It doesn't cover candidate or ballot-question signs, and it isn't the source of campaign-sign protection. For campaign signs, the operative law is the state constitution, not PREDFDA, the Condominium Act, the Nonprofit Corporation Act, or Section 45:22A-48.1.

2B. The New Jersey Constitution and Mazdabrook v. Khan

The federal baseline comes first, because it makes the New Jersey rule easier to see. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution limits government, not private parties. An association is a private entity, not a state actor, so the federal First Amendment doesn't bind an association and doesn't, by itself, prevent an association from restricting an owner's signs. That principle remains true in New Jersey.

What's different in New Jersey is the state constitution. The free-speech clause of the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 6, provides that "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects," and that "No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."² New Jersey courts read that clause more broadly than the federal First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has explained, in New Jersey an individual's affirmative right to speak freely is protected not only from abridgment by government, but also from unreasonably restrictive or oppressive conduct by private entities in certain situations. To decide when the state clause reaches private conduct, the courts apply the three-part test from State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 (1980): (1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of the private property; (2) the extent and nature of the public's invitation to use that property; and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity in relation to the private and public use of the property.⁹ In New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326 (1994), the Court added a general balancing of expressional rights against private property rights on top of the Schmid factors.¹⁰

Mazdabrook applied that framework to a homeowners association. Wasim Khan owned a townhouse in Mazdabrook Commons, a planned community of 194 townhomes in Parsippany-Troy Hills that's enclosed but not gated and has no public through-streets. In 2005 he ran for Parsippany Town Council and posted two signs supporting his candidacy at his own residence, one inside his front window and one inside his front door, visible through the glass. The association's rules banned all residential signs except "For Sale" signs; the board's letter cited the sign prohibition in the Declaration and assessed a $25 fine, and Khan complied and removed the signs.¹ He later raised a free-speech counterclaim in separate litigation between him and the association. The trial court (Superior Court, Law Division) ruled for the association, relying on Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Ass'n, 192 N.J. 344 (2007). A divided Appellate Division reversed on the free-speech claim, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division 5-1, with Chief Justice Rabner writing for the majority and Judge Wefing the lone dissenter.² Applying a modified Schmid analysis that placed more weight on the third factor and on the Coalition balancing, the Court held: "[b]alancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrook's private property interest against Khan's free speech right to post political signs on his own property, we conclude that the sign policy in question violates the free speech clause of the State Constitution."¹

The Court preserved important limits. Mazdabrook doesn't create an unlimited right. The Court confirmed that associations may adopt and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and it retained the Schmid and Coalition principles, so owners don't have a completely unfettered right to speech displayed outside their homes. The distinction the Court drew from Twin Rivers illustrates the line: Twin Rivers upheld a policy that allowed one sign per window and one sign in a flower bed near the residence, because that was a minor restriction, while Mazdabrook's near-complete ban suppressed political expression entirely and lacked written standards to guide the board's discretion.¹¹

The precision point bears repeating. The protection rests on the New Jersey Constitution, not the federal First Amendment, and the federal First Amendment still doesn't bind associations. Two federal cases sometimes cited in sign disputes, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), and City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022), concern government (municipal) sign codes and federal First Amendment content-neutrality. They aren't the basis for the New Jersey protection, which arises from Schmid, Coalition, and Mazdabrook under the state constitution.

2C. How the constitutional protection interacts with CC&Rs and governance

The order of precedence runs straightforward. A covenant, rule, or bylaw that bans political signs on or in an owner's own property is unenforceable to the extent it violates the owner's free-speech right under the New Jersey Constitution as applied in Mazdabrook. The Court in Mazdabrook rejected the argument that an owner waives that right by buying into a community with a recorded sign restriction, so the presence of the restriction in the declaration or rules doesn't save it.¹

What an association may still do: adopt and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions consistent with Schmid, Coalition, and Mazdabrook, balancing one owner's rights against the rights of other members. Reasonable limits on the number, size, placement, or duration of signs can survive, provided they don't suppress the political expression itself and rest on written standards rather than unguided board discretion.

The governance and dispute-resolution overlay comes from PREDFDA and the governing documents. PREDFDA and the Condominium Act require associations to provide a fair and efficient ADR procedure for housing-related disputes as an alternative to litigation, and the board must participate if an owner requests ADR over a board action or inaction.⁷ The Department of Community Affairs, through its Bureau of Homeowner Protection and Association Regulation Unit, enforces the ADR, open-meeting, and records-access obligations and accepts homeowner complaints, though it doesn't adjudicate constitutional sign questions or order boards to rescind specific actions.¹² Before imposing a penalty, an association must follow its own governing documents and fair procedures, including notice and a chance to be heard; New Jersey sets no statutory maximum fine amount, so a fine must be authorized by the governing documents and reasonable. The operational takeaway: in New Jersey, an association can't ban political signs on or in an owner's own property, but it may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner rules, and disputes commonly run through ADR or the courts.

Section 3: Operational rules for New Jersey associations

A. What an association may not do

An association may not adopt or enforce a covenant, rule, or bylaw that bans political signs on or in an owner's own property, or that amounts to a near-total sign ban suppressing political expression, because such a restriction violates the free-speech clause of the New Jersey Constitution as applied in Mazdabrook.¹ This applies whether the community is a condominium, a planned community, or a cooperative. An association may not enforce sign rules selectively or by viewpoint; Mazdabrook faulted the association for allowing signs by board consent without written standards, and Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners, Inc. confirms that a board can't let some speakers use a channel of communication while barring their opponents.¹³ Separately, under N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1, an association may not prohibit the United States flag or signs supporting United States troops, but that statutory bar stays distinct from the constitutional protection for campaign signs.³

B. What an association may regulate

An association may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions consistent with Schmid, Coalition, and Mazdabrook. Examples include reasonable limits on the number of signs, their size, their placement, and how long they may remain, so long as the rule doesn't suppress the expression and rests on written, objective standards. Twin Rivers upheld a limit of one sign per window and one sign in an adjacent flower bed as a permissible minor restriction, which marks the kind of rule that survives.¹¹

C. Enforcement and fining constraints

PREDFDA and the Condominium Act require the association to provide ADR for housing-related disputes, and the board must participate when an owner requests ADR over a board action.⁷ Before imposing a fine, the association must follow its governing documents and fair procedures, including written notice of the specific violation and a chance to cure or be heard. New Jersey imposes no statutory dollar cap on association fines, so any fine must be authorized by the governing documents and reasonable in amount; a fine for a violation not covered by the documents, or in an amount not in the adopted schedule, isn't properly authorized.⁵ The Department of Community Affairs accepts homeowner complaints about ADR, open-meeting, and records obligations.¹² Given the constitutional protection, self-help removal of an owner's political sign carries litigation risk and should be avoided.

D. Rule adoption and disclosure

To be enforceable, sign rules must be adopted and disclosed in the manner required by the governing documents and PREDFDA, and they must be reduced to writing with standards that guide their application.⁵ A rule that bans political signs is unenforceable under Mazdabrook regardless of how properly it was adopted, because the defect is constitutional, not procedural.¹ Boards revising sign policies should replace any outright ban with written time, place, and manner standards that apply evenly to all owners.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No New Jersey bill enacted or pending in the past 24 months specifically regulates political or campaign signs in community associations. Two broader community-association governance bills were introduced in the 2024-2025 session and are relevant context, though neither addresses political signs or free expression.

B. Recent rulings

No New Jersey Supreme Court or Appellate Division decision in the past 36 months has applied, distinguished, or displaced Mazdabrook in the context of enforcing sign or display rules in a community association. The controlling law remains Mazdabrook, reinforced by Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners, Inc., 220 N.J. 71 (2014), in which the Supreme Court held that a cooperative's "House Rule" barring a resident of the Mediterranean Towers South co-op in Fort Lee from distributing campaign leaflets violated the free-speech guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, while confirming that boards may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.¹³ Both decisions predate the recent-activity window and sit in the controlling-authority discussion above.

C. Active legislative debates

New Jersey's active community-association legislation in recent sessions has centered on governance, DCA oversight, structural-integrity inspections, and reserve studies rather than on political signs; no pending proposal would change the state's political-sign or display rules, which remain governed by the constitution under Mazdabrook.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

New Jersey stands as the leading state-constitutional-protection jurisdiction for political signs, and Mazdabrook is the decision most often cited nationally for the proposition that a state constitution can reach an association's sign ban, with California having applied state constitutional speech principles to associations in limited circumstances. That places New Jersey apart from the protective-statute states, where a statute supplies the protection (California, Civil Code Section 4710; Arizona, A.R.S. Sections 33-1808 and 33-1261; Maryland, Md. Code, Real Property Sections 11-111.2 and 11B-111.2; Nevada, NRS 116.325; Montana, Mont. Code Ann. Section 70-1-522), and from the CC&R-primary states, where covenants control absent a statute.⁴ New Jersey owners are therefore protected by the state constitution, not a statute, and the federal First Amendment isn't the source of that protection. For a multi-state operator, the practical implication is direct: a political-sign ban is unenforceable in New Jersey under Mazdabrook, but reasonable time, place, and manner rules survive.

HOA Weekly's New Jersey Political Signs coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature and the New Jersey courts act. Other federal frameworks — the FHA, ADA, FDCPA, SCRA, and OTARD rules — apply to New Jersey associations regardless of the state framework, but the federal First Amendment doesn't supply the basis for the New Jersey protection; the state constitution does.

Footnotes

1. Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482, 46 A.3d 507 (2012) (facts, $25 fine, holding quoted, and rejection of waiver) — New Jersey Judiciary, Court Opinions ↩
2. New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 6 (free-speech clause; broader than the federal First Amendment; Mazdabrook affirmed 5-1, Rabner, C.J.) — New Jersey Legislature ↩
3. N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.1 (P.L. 2003, c. 209) — U.S. flag, yellow ribbons, and troop-support signs; public-safety and maintenance exception — New Jersey Legislature (enacted law) ↩
4. Contrast with protective-statute states, e.g., Nevada, NRS 116.325 (right to exhibit political signs) — Nevada Legislature (Chapter 116, Common-Interest Ownership Act) ↩
5. Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq. — New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (statute text) ↩
6. PREDFDA as amended by the Radburn Law (P.L. 2017, c. 106, eff. July 13, 2017); N.J.A.C. 5:26 regulations — New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Association Regulation Initiative ↩
7. Mandatory ADR for housing-related disputes under PREDFDA (N.J.S.A. 45:22A-44) and the Condominium Act (N.J.S.A. 46:8B-14(k)); board must participate — New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Association Regulation Information Packet ↩
8. Statutory framework for New Jersey associations (Condominium Act, PREDFDA, Nonprofit Corporation Act) — New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Homeowner Protection ↩
9. State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 (1980) (three-part test for free-speech rights on private property) — New Jersey Judiciary, Court Opinions ↩
10. New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326 (1994) (balancing of expressional and private property rights) — New Jersey Judiciary, Court Opinions ↩
11. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Ass'n, 192 N.J. 344 (2007) (minor sign restrictions upheld: one sign per window and one in an adjacent flower bed) — New Jersey Judiciary, Court Opinions ↩
12. Bureau of Homeowner Protection and Association Regulation Unit: enforcement of ADR, open-meeting, and records obligations; complaint intake — New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ↩
13. Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners, Inc., 220 N.J. 71 (2014) (co-op leaflet ban violated the New Jersey Constitution's free-speech guarantee; reasonable time, place, and manner rules permitted) — New Jersey Judiciary, Court Opinions ↩
14. Senate Bill 1524 (2024-2025), "Owners' Rights and Obligations in Shared Ownership Communities Act" — New Jersey Legislature (bill text) ↩
15. Assembly Bill 3467 (2024-2025), concerning common interest communities (DCA oversight, ombudsman, advisory council, trust fund) — New Jersey Legislature (bill text) ↩