We explain HOA law in plain English, but we are not your lawyer and this is not legal advice. Here is why that matters.

Utah bars a board from amending its own declaration

Utah · Legislation

Utah bars a board from amending its own declaration

Utah Code § 57-8a-104 now sets one route for amending a declaration and closes another. The amendment passes by majority vote at a meeting where at least 51% of the voting interests are present — and the board cannot do it alone.

The change came in House Bill 217 of the 2025 session, effective May 7, 2025, and it reads:1

“An amendment to the declaration after the period of administrative control may be adopted by a majority vote of voters, or a greater percentage if required in the declaration, at a meeting where at least 51% of the voting interests are present.…The board may not amend the declaration.”

Two numbers doing different jobs

The 51% is a quorum, not an approval threshold. The approval threshold is a majority of the voters present, or whatever higher figure the declaration itself demands. A community whose declaration requires 67% keeps 67%; the statute supplies a floor and a procedure, not a ceiling.

✓ Your Utah State Pass is active — the full analysis below is unlocked

Why the last sentence matters most

The five-word prohibition is the part that changes behaviour. Plenty of Utah declarations contain a clause reserving to the board a power to amend for scrivener's errors, to conform to lender requirements, or to correct legal descriptions. Section 57-8a-104(5) makes the section date-blind — “This section applies to an association regardless of when the association is created.” — so a reserved board power in an older document does not survive it.

The state's advisory opinions have been applying the amendment provisions since. In Advisory Opinion 2026-05 (Weirich v. Hill Farms Subdivision Homeowner Association, February 13, 2026), an owner's proposed amendment to repeal a chicken ban drew 68% of the votes cast but the declaration required 67% of all homeowners. The office concluded that the association “complied with Utah law by distributing the full text of Ms. Weirich's proposed amendment and correctly applying the CC&Rs' requirement for approval by 67% of all homeowners within the Association. Because the proposed amendment did not reach the required 67% approval from all homeowners, the Association was correct in determining that the measure had failed.”2

The distinction between votes cast and voting interests existing is the one that decides most Utah amendment fights, and the statute does not soften it.

Where an amendment was held invalid

Advisory Opinion 2026-07 (Johnston v. Red Pine Community Association, March 13, 2026) is the other side. There the office found three separate problems with how a condominium's management committee handled bylaw changes: “The Committee violated Utah law by failing to give proper notice and by holding a closed session to vote on Bylaw updates, which must be conducted in an open meeting,” and “because the proposed changes never received the required 66.66% homeowner approval, the amendments were never legally adopted or valid.”3

Notice in that case had gone out by email where the bylaws required personal delivery or registered mail. The office treated the governing document's own service requirement as controlling.

The declarant's window, and when it closes

None of this applies during the period of administrative control, when the declarant runs the association. H.B. 217 moved that boundary too, raising the conveyance trigger for termination from 75% to 80% of lots and adding a tail period. Section 57-8a-502(4)(a) then takes over: “Upon termination of the period of administrative control, the lot owners shall elect a board consisting of an odd number of at least three members, a majority of whom shall be lot owners.”

S.B. 122 of the 2026 session added declarant duties for that window at § 57-8a-502(5) — “use reasonable care and prudence in managing and maintaining the common areas” and “establish a sound fiscal basis…by imposing and collecting assessments and establishing reserves” — and allowed a 300-day extension of the period for large master planned developments to complete turnover.4 Our Utah board elections page covers the turnover process and what has to happen at it.

What the board still controls

Rules and design criteria remain board business, subject to § 57-8a-217: 15 days' notice before the meeting, an open forum at it, a copy of the change to owners within 15 days after, and a 60-day window in which 51% of all allocated voting interests can disapprove the action. An action challenged for failing those requirements has to be brought “no later than 18 months after the day on which the board took the challenged action.”

The line H.B. 217 drew is between the instrument owners took title subject to and the rules the board writes underneath it. Our Utah governing statute page sets out the hierarchy.

What to watch next

The 2026 session left § 57-8a-104 alone but rewrote § 57-8a-212, the section governing what a declaration may contain, adding a list of subjects a declaration or an amendment to one may not reach. The two provisions now work together: a harder procedure to amend, and a shorter list of things an amendment is allowed to say.

Related Utah HOA Topics

← All Utah HOA Topics

  1. H.B. 217, Homeowners' Association Amendments, 2025 General Session (enrolled copy) ↩
  2. Advisory Opinion 2026-05, Weirich v. Hill Farms Subdivision Homeowner Association (Feb. 13, 2026) ↩
  3. Advisory Opinion 2026-07, Johnston v. Red Pine Community Association (Mar. 13, 2026) ↩
  4. S.B. 122, HOA Amendments, 2026 General Session (enrolled copy) ↩

Stay on top of Utah HOA law

Every week: new Utah legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.

Check your inbox to complete your sign up.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.