2026 Condominium Legislation Update

“While legislation is obviously political, we now have allowed regulation to become politicized, which we believe will likely lead to some bad outcomes.”

- Jamie Dimon

It's that time of year again when bills in the New Hampshire Legislature flourish like spring bulbs. Unlike the bulbs, most bills die before ever coming to life as laws, but here are a few in various stages of the Legislative process.

HB 1351. This bill would establish state-wide standards for home-based businesses. Many, perhaps most, condominium associations allow for home-based work, so long as the business creates no problems at the Association, such as illegal additions, parking issues from having multiple employees, flashing signs, and more.

HB 1351 proposes to create “no-impact” home-based businesses. The business has to look like other homes in the Association. I guess that means you can't change the exterior of the unit to look like a business, but that's odd because units, far and away, end at the interior walls, so no one is allowed change the exterior of a Unit without permission of the board of directors or the association itself, anyway.

It then seemingly contradicts itself. It is marketed as a “no-impact” home business bill, but the language of the HB1351 allows for up to 4 non-resident employees to work there. That, of course will have an impact on parking. So the Bill notes on street parking is allowed unless the association has language that prohibits parking on association streets. Few associations have such a prohibition, so it means up to four extra cars on the road, times the number of other businesses in the association with employees driving on the roads, leading to, at a minimum, an impact.

I can see the fight coming when the road has to have potholes fixed and be paved, with non-business owners angrily arguing that those who have employees helped wear and tear the road, so they should pay more. Doesn't seem like the Bill is “no impact.

. Also customers will be allowed to be serviced for fourteen hours a day, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (There's no limitation on days they can be served, so it could be everyday.) Up to twenty customers will be allowed to visit during this time which many not seen like a lot, but if you have 40 units in your association and only 5 have such businesses, that mean up to 100 more cars entering and exiting your residential neighborhood each day.

One sign, not to exceed six square feet, is allowed so long as non-illuminated.

And, I love this, the owner would be allowed an outdoor storage shed of up to 200 s.f., i.e. 10' x 20'. So I can see business owners putting up a number of storage sheds that an association would normally not allow, will now be allowed, causing more friction. This requirement is allowed regardless of how much, or how little, land there is outside a unit.

On the positive side, the proposed law does specifically note an association can create its own, more restrictive provisions regarding traffic, employees, types of businesses, signage and service to customers. That just means more work for boards of directors to create finely honed rules, and fights with owners about them.

But don't worry; it's “non-impact.”

HB 1343. This one sought to address an issue with the passage of language in 2016 that allowed associations to amend documents to allow for remote meetings, to help make it easier for owners, especially in the winter, to appear at meetings. Unlike many other other provisions of the Condominium Act which automatically grant rights, see HB 1351, in 2016 the Legislature noted one could hold remote meetings of the board or the owners only if documents were amended to allow for same.

That takes 67% of the voting interests and is hard to do. I have, for example, two associations that have not amended their documents, and the owners who have voted against the amendments; complain about the lack of meetings; and attack the boards of directors for not having more meetings. This is a bit odd when the owners live off site and in far flung states as each of these two associations are largely vacation second homes.

Seemed like an easy fix to a solution as the proposed amendment did not require remote meetings, only made it an option.

I was asked by one of the sponsors to testify on behalf of this Bill, and did so. My first time doing so. Clearly they could not find anyone else. It was an enjoyable experience, but I did notice that about half of the committee members were not even paying attention, looking down and clearly interacting with their phone instead of with any of the three speakers.

I was later told it was killed upon party lines, failing to advance out of the committee with all Republicans being told to vote against it because it was introduced by two (2) Democrats. I was told it also works the other way now, i.e. too many pieces of legislation introduced by Republicans are killed by Democrats. Neither of which occurs based upon the substance of the proposals, but because they were told to do so by their party leaders. (Since that is the case, to be considerate, they should tell the other side not to bother having to inconvenience speakers to come if the outcome is realistically already decided.)

SB 415. Currently, if a developer wants to create a condominium with no more than 10 units, it does not need to submit an application to the Attorney General's Office and have that Office review the documents and look over the finances of the developer to ensure the project will be completed.

This Senate bill would raise that exemption to 50 units, with no check to make sure the Declaration or Bylaws have proper language in them about boards of directors, reserves, meetings, and more. Further, there will be no check on the finances of the developer. In turn, that means so the association could be started and then left uncompleted if there is a downturn in the economy, and the developer with files for bankruptcy (see above about reviewing finances) or just decides because the economy is faltering, it is not financially worth it to continue. Of course, such a decision would leave open Lots with half finished foundations, amenities not built, and roads left uncompleted.

Now, I'm not one for over regulating, but it seems more than a bit risky to let any developer create up to fifty units without any input from the Consumer Protection Bureau. It would seem fair to balance the developers need to make money with the need of owners to have a finished project.

There are a number of very good developers out there. Unfortunately, I've seen many unscrupulous ones as well and to give them the unchecked power to build more units, by a factor of five, without anyone checking their finances, is just a bad idea, especially when the vast majority of the condominium associations in the state are less than 50 Units. And the smart, but unscrupulous developers will simply cap their developments at 50, meaning the vast majority of condominium developments will have no oversight to protect the consumer buying them.

At least the legislators didn't call this one a “no impact” bill.

For more tales, tips and advice, check out my book:

https://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Parallel-Place-Advice-Condos/dp/B0DLV2F7P7

And thanks for reading!