Clear Money Guide
What this guide covers
A quick view of the questions and evidence developed below.
Updated August 3, 2026. Quick answer: the federal rule is an 80% rule, not a 100% rule. At least 80% of occupied units must have at least one resident aged 55 or over. That leaves real room, and it means several things people believe about these communities are simply not so.
The rule, from the regulation
Under the Fair Housing Act’s housing-for-older-persons exemption (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2)(C)) and 24 CFR 100.305(a): “In order for a housing facility or community to qualify as housing for older persons under 100.304, at least 80 percent of its occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.”
Only one occupant per unit needs to be 55 or older for that unit to count toward the 80 percent.
What that means in practice
- Not everyone must be 55 or older – up to 20 percent of occupied units may have no resident aged 55 or over.
- An under-55 spouse or family member sharing a unit with a 55-plus resident is not barred.
- Units occupied by under-55 staff performing substantial management or maintenance duties are expressly permitted.
- Occupants needed to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled resident are permitted.
- The federal exemption does not restrict resale of a unit at all – it governs the occupancy mix of the community, not transferability.
The last one is worth emphasising because it is assumed constantly: the federal exemption says nothing about who you can sell to. It governs the community’s occupancy mix. Any restriction on resale comes from the community’s own recorded documents, and that is where to look for it.
The 62-and-over exemption is a different rule
A separate and stricter exemption at 24 CFR 100.303 covers housing intended for, and SOLELY occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older. That one really does mean everyone. If a community describes itself as 62-plus, the answer to “can my younger spouse live here?” is genuinely different, and it is the one case where the strict reading applies.
How the age rule is actually enforced
The rule reaches any housing facility or community governed by a common set of rules – a condominium association, a cooperative, a property governed by a homeowners or resident association, a municipally zoned area, a mobile home park, or a manufactured housing community. Age status is established through the recorded governing documents and the community’s published age-verification policies, not by a single deed clause.
So the documents to read are the declaration and CC&Rs, the bylaws, and the community’s published age-verification policy — and a community must actually operate the verification process, not merely claim the status.
The money question underneath the age question
For most buyers the age rule is not the risk. The association is. Ask for the reserve study and the last few years of budgets before you ask anything about demographics.
Florida requires an association whose budget does not fully fund reserves to print this, in capitals, on each annual financial report (Fla. Stat. 720.303(6)(c)(1)):
THE BUDGET OF THE ASSOCIATION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR FULLY FUNDED RESERVE ACCOUNTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE THAT MAY RESULT IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS REGARDING THOSE ITEMS
That sentence exists because underfunded reserves become special assessments, and an extra charge beyond regular dues, usually because reserves were not funded for a capital repair. it arrives as a large, short-notice, non-optional charge. On a fixed income that is the risk that actually bites.
California takes the other approach and requires the study itself: California Civil Code 5550 requires a visual inspection of accessible major components at least every three years, reviewed annually by the board, identifying components with a remaining useful life under 30 years, estimating each one’s remaining life and replacement cost, and setting out a reserve funding plan.
California Civil Code 4525(a) requires a seller, before transfer of title, to give the buyer the governing documents, the association’s most recent annual disclosures including reserve disclosures, a written statement of current regular and special assessments and any unpaid assessments, fines or liens against the unit, any unresolved violation notices, and on request the last 12 months of board minutes.
Scope: ONLY California and Florida were verified. No claim about what ‘most states’ require is published. Ask your own state’s requirements rather than assuming either model applies.
Not published: Mortgage-underwriting and resale-financing treatment of age-restricted communities could NOT be verified from a primary source. No claim is published.
Related: renting or buying in one.
General information drawn from IRS, Medicare, HUD and state statute and regulation, not legal, tax or financial advice. Continuing-care law is state law and differs materially between states; every figure here is year-labelled and every source named so you can check it against your own contract. Read your own signed agreement before relying on any general description, including this one.
When the land is rented, not owned: lot rent increases in manufactured-home parks — what the park can raise, and what it cannot.
An assessment that the rules permit can still be wrong on its own terms. In Florida there is a defined route for challenging one.
Special-assessment rules, by state (50 of 51 jurisdictions)
Each row is that state’s own quick answer, excerpted from its own detail page. How a board can approve a special assessment, and what notice or vote it owes owners first, varies by state and by whether the community is a condominium or an HOA.
| State | Special-assessment rules |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Quick answer:Alabama’s board sets the budget and funds special assessments through it, but unlike Alaska, Arizona, and Colorado, only owners actually present or by proxy count toward blocking it. |
| Alaska | Quick answer:In Alaska, the executive board adopts the budget, including special assessments, and owners can only reject it, not approve it, at a ratification meeting. |
| Arizona | Quick answer:Arizona’s board runs special assessments through the same owner-veto budget process as Alaska, but only guarantees a payment-plan offer once a delinquency reaches one year or $1,200. |
| Arkansas | Quick answer:Arkansas’s statute does not set a specific ownership-vote threshold for special assessments; it leaves the approval mechanism to the recorded master deed and bylaws, which by default statute must fix a co-owner decision threshold of at least 51%, and co-owners are personally bound to pay whatever expense is “lawfully agreed upon” under those governing documents. |
| California | Quick answer:California caps board-only special assessments at 5 percent of the association’s annual budgeted gross expenses; above that, a majority vote of a quorum of members is required. |
| Colorado | Quick answer:Colorado is the only one of these states with a statutory right to an 18-month payment plan before collections, and since July 1, 2024 an association with major shared components must obtain a reserve study, not merely adopt a policy. |
| Connecticut | Quick answer:Connecticut special assessments under 15% of the annual budget take effect automatically without a vote, while larger ones become effective unless a majority of owners vote to reject them. |
| Delaware | Quick answer:Delaware ratifies special assessments automatically at a required owner meeting unless a majority vote to reject them, and separately mandates minimum reserve funding tied to a current reserve study. |
| District of Columbia | Quick answer:D.C.’s Condominium Act sets no statutory owner-vote requirement for special assessments at all, leaving approval entirely to each building’s declaration and bylaws, while the statute does regulate the resulting lien and a non-judicial power-of-sale foreclosure. |
| Georgia | Quick answer:Under Georgia’s Condominium Act, the board can impose a special assessment on its own, but for any condominium instrument recorded on or after July 1, 2015, a special assessment above one-sixth of a unit’s annual budget needs “the approval of a majority of the unit owners”; Georgia’s separate Property Owners’ Association Act lets the board specially assess lot owners for shared expenses without any statutory ownership-vote cap at all. |
| Hawaii | Quick answer:Hawaii lets the board impose a special assessment alone unless it pushes spending over 20 percent above the adopted budget, which then requires majority owner approval except in a defined emergency. |
| Idaho | Quick answer:For an Idaho HOA, if the governing documents don’t already say how assessments get approved, state law defaults to requiring “the approval of a majority of the members of the homeowner’s association,” and unincorporated associations must adopt a bylaw stating that “no fees or assessments… may be increased unless a majority of all members… vote in favor of the increase.” Idaho’s much older Condominium Property Act, by contrast, sets no assessment-vote threshold at all and just requires the bylaws to spell out the process. |
| Illinois | Quick answer:Illinois lets the board adopt a special assessment alone unless it pushes yearly assessments above 115 percent of last year’s total, letting owners holding 20 percent of the vote petition to reject it. |
| Indiana | Quick answer:Indiana’s condominium law sets no statutory vote threshold for a special assessment, leaving approval entirely to the bylaws, while the state’s separate two-thirds/two-meeting HOA vote rule does not apply to condominiums at all. |
| Iowa | Quick answer:Iowa’s condominium statute sets no ownership-vote threshold for a special assessment at all; the bylaws must simply state the “Manner of collecting from the apartment owners their share of the common expenses” (Iowa Code § 499B.15(5)), and the only statutory default is that a meeting quorum is “a majority of apartment owners” unless the bylaws say otherwise (§ 499B.15(3)). |
| Kansas | Quick answer:In Kansas, the board decides on its own whether to levy a special assessment; K.S.A. 58-4620(b) lets “the board of directors, at any time,… propose a special assessment” with no ownership vote required, only notice and an owner comment opportunity; a true emergency assessment instead needs a two-thirds vote of the board itself, not the owners. |
| Kentucky | Quick answer:Kentucky needs only a board-adopted budget for routine assessments, but an emergency special assessment requires a licensed engineer or architect’s sealed opinion plus a majority owner or 75% board vote. |
| Louisiana | Quick answer:Louisiana treats special assessments as a board power under the declaration, with no statutory vote threshold, and its only notice requirement is a post-adoption 10-day payment notice, not a pre-vote notice. |
| Maine | Quick answer:Maine requires unit owners to ratify most special assessments through a majority-can-reject vote, but the board can act alone in an emergency assessment capped at two months’ common charges. |
| Maryland | Quick answer:Maryland requires a special meeting with at least 10 days’ notice before a special assessment exceeding 15% of budget, and separately phases in a mandatory reserve study by county starting 2020-2022. |
| Massachusetts | Quick answer:Massachusetts lets trustees set special assessments through the annual budget without an owner vote, except for utility sub-metering charges, and requires 60-day delinquency notice before suing to enforce its lien. |
| Michigan | Quick answer:Michigan’s Condominium Act sets no owner-ratification vote or notice requirement for special assessments at all; approval is governed entirely by each association’s bylaws. |
| Minnesota | Quick answer:Minnesota requires no owner-ratification vote for a special assessment; instead the declaration must authorize it and the purpose is statutorily limited to four categories, like emergencies or underfunded reserves. |
| Mississippi | Quick answer:Under the Mississippi Condominium Law, special assessments are levied by the condominium’s “management body” using whatever assessment and notice method the recorded declaration of restrictions sets out; the statute itself does not mandate an ownership vote or a specific vote threshold to impose a special assessment. Mississippi has no comparable statewide statute for non-condominium HOAs, so those associations are governed purely by their own declarations and bylaws. |
| Missouri | Quick answer:Missouri’s Condominium Act has no ratification vote specific to special assessments; only the general annual-budget process, which owners can reject by majority vote, provides any check on the board. |
| Montana | Quick answer:For Montana condominiums, the Unit Ownership Act does not itself set a required ownership vote or threshold for special assessments; it simply requires each condo’s bylaws to spell out “the manner of collecting from the unit owners their share of the common expenses” (Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-308(6)), so the approval mechanism is whatever the individual declaration and bylaws say. For non-condo homeowners’ associations, Montana has no comparable assessment statute at all; assessment authority comes entirely from the association’s own declaration and bylaws. |
| Nebraska | Quick answer:Nebraska’s board sets and levies assessments once the association begins assessing, and state law gives owners no vote to reject a special assessment, unlike neighboring UCIOA states. |
| Nevada | Quick answer:Nevada splits approval by purpose: regular budgets are approved unless a majority of owners vote them down, but the board can impose reserve-funding assessments without any owner vote at all. |
| New Hampshire | Quick answer:New Hampshire lets the board propose a special assessment, but owners can block it if two-thirds reject it at a ratification meeting, unless it’s handled through the faster emergency track. |
| New Jersey | Quick answer:New Jersey lets bylaws control ordinary special assessments, but its 2023 structural-safety law lets the board impose a corrective-maintenance assessment without any owner vote when an engineer confirms a hazard. |
| New Mexico | Quick answer:In New Mexico condominiums, the executive board sets assessments (including special assessments) as part of the annual budget, but unit owners can vote the budget down: a majority of all unit owners (or a larger share if the declaration says so) can reject it at a ratification meeting. In non-condo HOAs, the statute leaves it to the community documents whether the board or the lot owners adopt the budget, so the vote threshold, if any, comes from the CC&Rs, not a fixed statewide number. |
| New York | Quick answer:New York’s Condominium Act does not itself specify who may impose a special assessment or require any particular ownership vote; it only requires that each condominium’s own by-laws address the “determination and collection of the common charges” (RPL § 339-v(1)(f)), so whether the board can act alone or owners must vote, and at what threshold, is set entirely by the individual building’s declaration and by-laws. New York also has no comparable statewide statute for non-condominium homeowners’ associations at all. |
| North Carolina | Quick answer:North Carolina has no special-assessment ratification vote; owners’ only check is the annual-budget process, where a majority can reject the budget at a meeting held 10 to 60 days after notice. |
| North Dakota | Quick answer:North Dakota’s statute does not itself set who may impose a special assessment or require any ownership vote; it delegates that entirely to each project’s declaration and bylaws, which the unit owners or their administrative body adopt and record. The Century Code fixes no statewide board-vs-vote rule or approval threshold. |
| Ohio | Quick answer:Ohio requires the board to budget enough reserves to avoid needing special assessments, waivable only by majority owner vote, but sets no separate vote requirement to approve an actual special assessment. |
| Oklahoma | Quick answer:For condos, Oklahoma’s statute leaves the collection method to the bylaws and defaults general decisions to a majority vote of unit owners; for subdivision HOAs, the statute simply hands the association a levy-and-lien power with no vote requirement at all, so the real approval rule comes from each community’s own declaration or bylaws. |
| Oregon | Quick answer:Oregon’s Condominium Act sets no owner-vote threshold for special assessments at all, leaving approval entirely to each association’s declaration and bylaws while the board sets the annual budget. |
| Pennsylvania | Quick answer:Pennsylvania’s Uniform Condominium Act puts the assessment-and-budget power in the board with no unit-owner vote requirement, but it does cap the interest rate on unpaid assessments at 15% per year. |
| Rhode Island | Quick answer:Rhode Island uses a negative-option model: the executive board adopts the budget and any special assessment, and owners can only defeat it by a majority vote to reject at a ratification meeting. |
| South Carolina | Quick answer:South Carolina’s HOA Act doesn’t set a statewide vote threshold for a special assessment; its main statutory control is a 48-hour advance notice rule tied to any board decision to raise the annual budget, and that rule doesn’t even apply to HOAs organized as nonprofit corporations. The condo act likewise leaves special-assessment approval to the bylaws, defaulting only to a general 51% majority for co-owner decisions. |
| South Dakota | Quick answer:South Dakota’s condominium chapter contains no provision at all on special assessments, vote thresholds, notice, interest, late fees, or reserves; approval and payment terms for a special assessment in a South Dakota condo or subdivision HOA come entirely from the recorded declaration/CC&Rs, not from a dedicated statute. |
| Tennessee | Quick answer:Tennessee’s Condominium Act gives the board unilateral authority to levy special assessments to preserve the building’s physical integrity or meet legal requirements, with no statutory owner vote or veto at all. |
| Texas | Quick answer:Neither Texas statute imposes a state-law vote requirement for a special assessment: under the Uniform Condominium Act the board itself may adopt budgets and “collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners” unless the declaration says otherwise, and Chapter 209 defines a “special assessment” for subdivision HOAs but sets no approval threshold, leaving that entirely to each declaration. |
| Utah | Quick answer:Utah uses a negative-option model, letting owners override the board’s budget only with a 51% vote within 45 days, and separately requires a reserve analysis at least every six years. |
| Vermont | Quick answer:Vermont assessments are ratified by owner non-rejection: the board proposes a special assessment, and it takes effect unless a majority of all owners vote it down at a called meeting. |
| Virginia | Quick answer:Virginia lets the board impose special assessments without an owner vote, and any limited common element cost must be specially assessed only to the units it serves. |
| Washington | Quick answer:Washington ratifies special assessments the same way Vermont does, by owner non-rejection, but it’s the only one of these five states whose statute lets the board set up installment payments for a special assessment. |
| West Virginia | Quick answer:West Virginia caps special-assessment interest at 18% per year directly in the statute, the only one of these five states with a specific numeric rate written into the assessments law itself. |
| Wisconsin | Quick answer:Wisconsin’s statute doesn’t create a separate special-assessment procedure at all; special assessments default to the same majority-vote rule and reserve-funding process as any other common-expense assessment. |
| Wyoming | Quick answer:Wyoming’s condo statute is only four sections long and doesn’t itself give a board or association the power to levy a special assessment; it just confirms that whatever assessment obligations a declaration imposes run with the land, so the approval mechanism, if any vote is required at all, is entirely a creature of each project’s declaration. |
Coverage, stated honestly: 50 of 51 jurisdictions; Florida is not yet covered.