New Mexico's casita bills were quietly amended to spare existing HOA covenants
New Mexico's casita bills were quietly amended to spare existing HOA covenants
2026-09-15 · New Mexico · Legislation · Did not pass
New Mexico has now failed twice to pass a statewide casita bill, and the more useful fact is what the surviving text said before it died: every HOA covenant already on the books would have been left standing. The narrowing came from the sponsor's own amendment in 2025 and was carried into the 2026 bill as introduced.1
What HB 554 said, and what the amendment did to it
House Bill 554 (2025), from Reps. Andrea Romero, Rebecca Dow and Cristina Parajón, would have required every county and municipality, including home-rule municipalities, to “accommodate as a permitted use the construction of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each lot within zoning districts that allow residential uses regardless of the size of the lot,” with caps on what a zoning authority could demand: no owner-occupancy requirement, no size cap below 1,000 square feet, no more than one parking space, and no stricter aesthetic review than for other residential construction.
As introduced, its association clause read: “A local ordinance, policy, regulation or neighborhood or homeowner association restriction shall not be a basis for a delay or a denial of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit.”
The House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs Committee amendment — offered by the sponsor and dated March 4, 2025 — did exactly two things:
“1. On page 6, line 10, strike 'local ordinance, policy, regulation or'. 2. On page 6, line 11, after 'restriction', insert 'implemented after the effective date of this 2025 act'.”
That is: local ordinances came out of the override entirely, and every covenant already recorded was grandfathered. Only new covenants would have been unenforceable against a casita.
The 2026 bill was introduced already narrowed
House Bill 17 (2026), from Rep. Andrea Romero and Sen. Heather Berghmans, was substantively the same bill plus a multifamily-near-transit section — and it carried the 2025 narrowing from the start:
“G. A local ordinance, policy, regulation or neighborhood or homeowner association restriction implemented after the effective date of this 2026 act shall not be a basis for a delay or a denial of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit.”
So both bills, in the form that actually moved, would have left an existing subdivision's recorded ADU prohibition fully enforceable.
How both died
HB 554 went to House Consumer & Public Affairs on February 20, 2025 and was reported Do Pass as amended on February 28; HGEIC reported it Do Pass as amended on March 7; it passed the House 50–10 on March 11, 2025 and went the same day to Senate Health & Public Affairs, which never heard it.
HB 17 was referred to House Commerce & Economic Development on January 26, 2026, dual-referred to HGEIC. HCEDC never reported it. It died at sine die on February 19, 2026. Its Senate-side companion, SB 131 (2026) — a broader upzoning bill from Sens. Antonio Maestas and Heather Berghmans that would have allowed apartments in commercial zones, duplexes and townhouses in residential zones, additional units in single-family districts, and banned minimum parking mandates — was ruled germane on January 26, 2026, went to Senate Health & Public Affairs, and died there.
Why they failed, and what that predicts
The opposition that killed both bills was about local control of zoning, not about homeowner associations. Legislators objected to losing municipal and county zoning authority and to one-size-fits-all mandates. Associations were not the obstacle; they were a clause that had already been bargained away.
That matters for 2027. Reporting indicates Sen. Berghmans and House Majority Leader Reena Szczepanski are exploring incentives for local governments to make casitas easier to build — a carrot replacing the preemption stick that local governments beat twice. An incentive bill aimed at municipalities has no reason to include a covenant-override clause at all.
What this means for a New Mexico board
Two things, both practical. First, a recorded covenant prohibiting or conditioning an accessory dwelling unit is enforceable in New Mexico today and was never going to be voided by either of these bills as amended. Second, the drafting pattern is now established: when a New Mexico housing bill touches covenants at all, the clause reaches only covenants adopted after the act. A board reading a future bill should go straight to that date qualifier before anything else.
The 2027 session convenes January 19; prefiling opens January 4, 2027.
Related New Mexico HOA Topics
Stay on top of New Mexico HOA law
Every week: new New Mexico legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.