SB 770 makes any covenant, governing‑document provision, or deed restriction that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle (EV) charging station in a common interest development (CID) void and unenforceable. The bill defines what counts as a reasonable restriction, requires compliance with building, safety, and local land‑use rules, and specifies who pays for, maintains, insures, and discloses EV charging equipment.
The statute creates a predictable administrative track for installations: applications are processed like architectural modifications and are deemed approved if the association does not deny them in writing within 60 days (subject to reasonable requests for more information). It also allows associations to install shared chargers, to create new parking spaces to facilitate chargers, and establishes remedies — damages, attorney’s fees for prevailing homeowners, and a civil penalty up to $1,000 for willful violations.
For property managers, HOAs, EV owners, and contractors, the bill replaces uncertain HOA practices with specific timelines, insurance and disclosure requirements, and a clear allocation of costs and liabilities.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 770 nullifies restrictive HOA covenants that effectively block EV charging stations, sets a 60‑day clock for approval decisions, and requires owners seeking to install chargers in common or exclusive‑use areas to follow contractor, insurance, and cost‑allocation rules. Associations may also install shared chargers or create new parking to accommodate charging.
Who It Affects
Owners and prospective buyers in homeowners associations and condominiums, HOA boards and property managers responsible for processing modification requests, licensed electrical contractors who install charging equipment, and local permitting authorities that enforce building and land‑use standards.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a patchwork of HOA decisions into a uniform legal framework that lowers procedural barriers to home charging while placing most direct installation and operation costs on the installing owner. This matters for EV adoption rates among residents who lack single‑family driveways and for boards needing a clear compliance path.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 770 starts with a blunt rule: any deed restriction, covenant, or governing‑document provision that effectively bans or unreasonably restricts an owner from installing or using an EV charging station in their unit or designated parking is void. The statute preserves an association’s ability to impose ‘‘reasonable restrictions,’’ but it narrows what reasonableness means — restrictions may not substantially increase the cost or materially reduce the charger’s efficiency or performance.
When an owner must seek approval, the bill puts the request on the same administrative track as routine architectural modifications. The association must provide written approval or denial; if it fails to deny an application in writing within 60 days (unless it reasonably requests more information), the application is deemed approved.
The law requires installations to comply with state and local building, health, safety, zoning, and land‑use rules, and it adopts a technical definition of an EV charging station tied to the California Building Standards Code.If the charger sits in common area or an exclusive use common area, the owner must obtain the association’s approval and sign to meet specific conditions: follow the association’s architectural standards, hire a licensed contractor, provide a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval and annually thereafter, and pay for installation and electricity. The bill assigns to the installing owner (and successive owners) responsibility for damage, maintenance, replacement, restoration after removal, and disclosure of the charger to future buyers.
Associations, alternatively, may install shared chargers for all members and must set terms of use when they do so. The statute also allows an association to create a new parking space where none existed to make charging feasible.Enforcement for associations that willfully violate the law includes liability for actual damages, a civil penalty capped at $1,000, and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing homeowners in enforcement actions.
Those remedies are intended to provide both deterrence and a practical path for owners to obtain charging access without requiring an open‑ended cost shift to the association or other owners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids any covenant or governing‑document provision that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts installing or using an EV charging station in a CID.
Approval requests are processed like architectural modifications and are deemed approved if the association does not deny them in writing within 60 days, unless additional information is reasonably requested.
Owners installing chargers in common or exclusive‑use areas must hire a licensed contractor, provide a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval (and annually thereafter), and pay for installation, electricity, maintenance, and damage caused by the charger.
Associations may install shared charging stations for all members or create new parking spaces to accommodate charging; association‑installed stations must have terms of use developed by the association.
Enforcement remedies include actual damages, attorney’s fees for a prevailing homeowner, and a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for willful violations by an association.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Invalidation of prohibitive or unreasonably restrictive HOA rules
This subsection makes any deed restriction, covenant, or governing‑document clause that effectively blocks or unreasonably limits an owner’s ability to install or use an EV charger void and unenforceable. Practically, boards cannot rely on a generic parking or aesthetics provision to deny a charging request if that denial functions as a ban or imposes unreasonable barriers.
State policy and definition of reasonable restrictions
The bill states that California policy favors removing obstacles to EV charging, but it preserves the association’s ability to impose ‘‘reasonable restrictions.’’ It narrowly defines those as limits that do not significantly increase cost or significantly decrease charger efficiency or performance — language that will require boards to justify any restriction with a clear cost or performance rationale.
Compliance with codes and technical definition of charging station
Installations must meet applicable health, safety, building, zoning, and land‑use requirements. The statute ties the charger definition to the California Building Standards Code and contemplates multi‑point stations and related equipment, so both single‑point home chargers and larger shared systems fall within scope but must meet technical and permit requirements enforced by local authorities.
Approval process and 60‑day deemed approval rule
An owner seeking to install a charger follows the same approval track as architectural modifications; associations must respond in writing. If an association does not deny the application in writing within 60 days, the application is deemed approved unless the delay is due to a reasonable request for more information. This creates a firm timeline associations must manage and a default approval mechanism to prevent stalling.
Owner obligations for chargers in common or exclusive‑use areas
When a charger sits in common or exclusive‑use common area, the association must approve installation if the owner agrees in writing to follow architectural standards, use a licensed contractor, provide required insurance within 14 days, and pay installation and electricity costs. The provision centralizes responsibilities on the installing owner and requires an upfront commitment to standards and insurance to protect the association and other owners.
Ongoing owner responsibilities, insurance, and disclosure
The bill makes the installing owner and successive owners responsible for damages, maintenance, replacement, restoration after removal, electricity costs, and disclosure of the charger to prospective buyers. It requires continuous liability coverage with a certificate provided annually. There is an express carve‑out that owners need not carry liability insurance for an existing standard AC power plug, limiting insurance burdens to more formal charging equipment.
Common‑area licensing, association‑installed stations, and creating parking
If installation in the owner’s designated parking is impossible or unreasonably expensive, the association must enter a license agreement allowing the owner to use a common‑area space under the rules in subsection (f). Alternatively, associations may install and manage chargers for shared use and must set terms of use. The statute also authorizes associations to create new parking spaces where none existed to facilitate charging, giving boards a clear statutory power to reconfigure parking for electrification goals.
Enforcement, damages, penalty, and attorney’s fees
An association that willfully violates the statute is liable for actual damages and a civil penalty up to $1,000. Homeowners who sue to enforce the provision and prevail are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. These remedies provide a legal avenue for owners to obtain relief and create a monetary deterrent against willful noncompliance, though the civil penalty cap is modest relative to potential litigation costs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners and residents in condominiums and planned developments who drive EVs or plan to buy them — they gain a clearer, enforceable path to install chargers in designated parking, exclusive‑use areas, or approved common‑area spaces.
- Prospective buyers of units with installed chargers — buyers receive mandatory disclosure about existing charging equipment and the related obligations, which reduces hidden liabilities and improves transactional transparency.
- Licensed electrical contractors and EV equipment vendors — clearer approval timelines and owner commitments to hire licensed professionals reduce uncertainty and can increase demand for installations in CIDs.
- Municipalities and the state’s electrification goals — by removing common legal barriers within CIDs, the bill supports wider residential charging access, a critical element of EV adoption strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual owners who choose to install chargers — the bill explicitly requires the installing owner (and successors) to pay installation, electricity, maintenance, repair, replacement, and restoration costs, plus maintain liability insurance for the equipment.
- HOA boards and property managers — they must administer the 60‑day approval timeline, evaluate technical compliance, review insurance certificates, and potentially manage license agreements or association‑level projects, which creates administrative and oversight burdens.
- Other homeowners in the CID — while the installing owner pays direct costs, common electrical upgrades (panel capacity, transformer upgrades) or reconfigured parking may create collective decisions and potential assessments or tradeoffs that affect all owners.
- Associations facing enforcement exposure — boards that willfully refuse compliant installations risk actual damages, penalties, and attorney’s fees, creating potential legal costs and governance risks if the association’s processes are not updated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating access to home and shared EV charging (a public‑policy objective) and preserving the long‑standing private governance model of CIDs that allocates costs, aesthetics, and safety controls among owners. The bill pushes charging costs and many liabilities onto individual installers while constraining HOA gatekeeping, which advances installation access but transfers practical and financial burdens into the hands of owners and boards without fully resolving how shared infrastructure upgrades should be paid for or governed.
The statute reduces one set of legal obstacles (restrictive covenants) but leaves a number of open implementation questions that could trigger litigation or require detailed guidance. ‘‘Unreasonably restricts’’ and the phrase ‘‘significantly increase the cost’’ are fact‑specific standards without numerical thresholds, so disputes will center on what counts as a material cost increase or a meaningful efficiency loss. Associations and installers will need rules or examples from regulators or case law to anchor those standards.
Another source of complexity is electrical infrastructure upgrades. The bill assigns installation and operating costs to the installing owner, but physical constraints—such as building electrical capacity, transformer limits, or need for trenching—may force shared solutions or association‑level upgrades.
The law allows associations to create new parking spaces or install shared chargers, but it does not prescribe how the capital costs for collective electrical upgrades are allocated, which may spark disagreements among owners and boards. Finally, the enforcement regime provides remedies but caps the civil penalty at $1,000; that cap could under‑deter deliberate noncompliance where litigation costs exceed the penalty, meaning some owners may pursue private litigation primarily for attorney’s fees and actual damages rather than relying on the statutory penalty alone.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.