Community associations look like ordinary nonprofit corporations until something goes wrong. Then the layered structure — declaration, bylaws, rules, state statute, federal overlay, and the personalities of an elected board — comes into sharp focus. This is the working map of how it all fits together.
The three forms
Most planned communities in the United States are organized as one of three legal entities. Condominium associations manage developments where owners hold individual units plus an undivided interest in common elements. Homeowners' associations (HOAs) manage planned communities where owners hold full lots subject to a shared declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Master associations sit above one or both, governing a larger development that contains multiple subordinate associations.
The legal sources for each are different. Condominium associations live under detailed condominium acts in most states. HOAs are governed by separate (and usually less detailed) HOA acts. Master associations operate under their own declarations and the general nonprofit-corporation law of the state. The same person can sit on more than one of these boards in a single development, and confusion about which document or statute applies to a particular question is a frequent source of dispute.
The governing-document hierarchy
For any specific question, the governing-document hierarchy controls. From highest to lowest authority:
- Federal law — Fair Housing Act, ADA, federal communications law (e.g., satellite-dish rules), and the Constitution where state action is implicated.
- State statute — the relevant condo, HOA, or co-op act, plus general nonprofit corporation law.
- The declaration — the recorded document that creates the community and binds successors in interest.
- Bylaws — internal procedural rules for the association as a corporation.
- Rules and regulations — adopted by the board within the authority delegated by the declaration and bylaws.
- Board resolutions — specific applications of authority to specific facts.
A board action consistent with a lower-tier source but inconsistent with a higher-tier one is invalid. Most enforcement disputes turn on whether the rule the board is enforcing is actually authorized by the declaration, or whether the procedure used to adopt or amend it complied with the bylaws.
The two state regimes most relevant to Yates Anderson clients
Alabama takes a relatively light regulatory approach. The Alabama Uniform Condominium Act (Ala. Code Title 35, Chapter 8A), adopted in 1991, governs condominiums created on or after January 1, 1991. The Alabama Homeowners' Association Act (Ala. Code Title 35, Chapter 20), effective January 1, 2016, governs HOAs formed on or after that date. Both supply default rules, recording requirements, and minimal procedural protections, but most disputes are resolved through the governing documents and the courts. There is no statewide ombudsman or arbitration system.
Florida is the opposite. Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes governs condominiums in extensive detail; Chapter 719 governs cooperatives; Chapter 720 governs HOAs. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) administers regulatory oversight. Recent legislative attention — including House Bill 1021 in 2024 and House Bill 913 in 2025 — has added director education requirements, structural integrity reserve studies, online DBPR account obligations, capital repair thresholds, and updated meeting-procedure rules. The Florida environment requires substantially more procedural compliance work than Alabama, but it also provides more state-side enforcement infrastructure when a board needs to act.
The actors
Several roles recur in association work and shape every engagement.
The board
Elected by the unit owners under the bylaws. Volunteer in most communities. Holds fiduciary duties to the association as a whole, not to individual owners. Acts by majority vote at properly noticed meetings.
The community manager or management company
Typically an outside firm engaged under a management contract. Florida regulates community-association managers (CAMs) under Chapter 468; Alabama does not separately license them. Many disputes turn on the scope of the manager's contractual authority.
Owners and members
The principals. Have rights to vote, inspect records, run for the board, raise objections at meetings, and (in Florida) demand certain procedural protections under statute.
The developer
Until turnover, controls the association. Often the source of the original declaration's quirks. Frequently the defendant in post-turnover construction-defect, reserve-shortfall, and self-dealing-vendor-contract litigation.
Third parties
Insurers, vendors, mortgage holders, regulatory agencies, neighbors. Each shows up in disputes with their own interests and their own counsel.
The recurring disputes
Most association engagements cluster around six recurring patterns:
- Assessment collection. Owners who don't pay. The most common and most procedurally demanding workstream.
- Covenant and rule enforcement. Architectural-review committee disputes, short-term rentals, pets, parking, landscape, fining schedules.
- Governance disputes. Election challenges, recall petitions, meeting-procedure objections, records-inspection demands.
- Director-officer fiduciary defense. Derivative suits and selective-enforcement claims by individual owners against the board.
- Developer turnover litigation. Post-control audit findings — defects, reserve shortfalls, vendor self-dealing.
- Insurance and casualty. Storm damage, structural failures, fidelity claims, D&O coverage disputes.
The work pattern
The associations that handle these patterns well share a few habits: clear governing documents, board minutes that record the action and the rationale, an outside counsel who knows the documents intimately, and a willingness to seek pre-litigation resolution where the law and the facts allow it. The associations that handle them poorly share the opposite habits and end up paying more in legal fees and judgments than they would have on a competent retainer.
Talk to Yates Anderson
Community-association work rewards counsel who knows your documents and your community before the dispute walks in the door. Request a case evaluation and a Yates Anderson attorney will respond within one business day.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between a condominium and an HOA?
Condominium owners hold an individual unit plus an undivided interest in common elements (hallways, roofs, lobbies, amenities). HOA owners hold a full lot, with shared elements typically owned by the association as a separate corporate entity. Condos generally have more detailed common-element governance because the shared property is more intertwined with daily use; HOAs typically have lighter governance touches but stronger architectural controls.
Does my association need outside counsel year-round?
Most active associations benefit from a flat-fee or capped retainer relationship that handles routine work — collections, covenant enforcement, document review, board questions — without putting an hourly meter on every call. Associations without retainer relationships tend to call counsel only when something has gone wrong, by which point the cost of fixing it usually exceeds the cost of the retainer that would have prevented it.
Who actually runs the association — the manager or the board?
The board has legal authority and fiduciary responsibility. The manager executes the board's decisions and handles day-to-day operations under the management agreement. Disputes about the boundary are common and often litigated. The clearest engagements have a written management agreement that specifies what the manager can do without board approval and what requires the board's authorization.
Can rules and regulations override the declaration?
No. Rules and regulations operate within the authority the declaration delegates to the board. They can address procedural matters and operational details, but cannot impose new substantive restrictions on use that the declaration does not support. Where boards try to do otherwise, the rule is vulnerable to challenge.
Is community-association law similar across states?
There are common patterns — declaration-based governance, board-elected representation, assessment-based funding — but the specific statutes vary substantially. Florida's Chapter 718/719/720 regime is among the most detailed in the country; Alabama's Title 35 Chapter 8A and Chapter 20 framework is among the lightest. Counsel licensed in both states (and ideally with active practice in both) is the safest path for associations operating near the state line.