What the 2025 Update did not do

Proposals to expand ADU flexibility — attached ADUs, modified size and height allowances — were reversed, and the existing standards remain in place. Cottage development on smaller lots was rolled back to larger minimum lot sizes. Duplexes and townhouses were not broadly permitted in R-1 districts. Parking maximums that had been added for Activity Centers and Major Transit Corridors were removed. Council Bill O-26-2 passed 6–3.

That is the same direction of travel as the Legislature. Two consecutive statewide casita bills — HB 554 in 2025, which passed the House 50–10 before dying in a Senate committee, and HB 17 in 2026 — failed, on local-control objections rather than on anything to do with associations.

The two-key problem, and the twist

An Albuquerque owner building a casita answers to two design authorities. The City dictates size, setback, height relative to the primary structure, siting behind the rear wall, and façade colour. The association's architectural committee applies the declaration.

Neither displaces the other, and the code says so: the IDO “shall have no impact on the applicability or enforceability of any private agreement or restriction,” and the City “shall have no obligation to enforce any private covenant.”

Two failure modes follow, and both are common. A committee that approves a design the IDO forbids has approved nothing — the owner cannot build it, and the approval creates an expectation the association then has to withdraw. A committee that forbids what the IDO allows is still enforceable, because the declaration is a private contract and a City permit is not a defence to it.

What this means for a board

Decide the association's position before the first application. A declaration drafted before 2023 probably does not mention accessory dwelling units at all. Whether a casita is permitted then turns on general clauses — single-family use, one dwelling per lot, occupancy limits, rental restrictions — that were written for a different question. Reading them for the first time under the pressure of a pending application is how inconsistent decisions get made.

Note that the statewide bills would not have helped either way. Both casita bills, in the form that actually moved, would have overridden only covenants “implemented after the effective date” of the act. An existing recorded restriction would have survived. If a similar bill returns in 2027, that date qualifier is the first thing to look for.

Align the architectural standards with the code where they overlap. Where the declaration is silent on colour, the IDO already requires the same or similar colour to the primary building — so the committee's real decisions are the ones the City does not make: materials, roof form, window placement, landscaping and screening.

What to watch

The 2027 legislative session convenes January 19, with prefiling from January 4. Reporting indicates the next casita effort is likely to be an incentive to local governments rather than a preemption of them — and an incentive bill aimed at cities has no reason to include a covenant clause at all.