Home Leah Eklof

AI Tools in CIDS: User Beware

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

AI Tools in CIDs: User Beware

For better or worse, artificial intelligence has arrived in our industry. Both board members and homeowners alike across California are turning to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Claude to navigate the complicated world of community association governance. While convenient for some, the risks are real. If used carelessly, AI can expose confidential information, generate legally inaccurate advice and information, and arm adversarial homeowners with enough inaccurate (and lengthy) ammunition to keep a board busy and asking for legal intervention and interpretation. In this article we highlight the pitfalls of AI and provide tips on how to avoid them.

Preserving Executive Session Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege

Boards members must exercise serious cautious when using AI. The California Civil Code allows boards to hold executive sessions, also known as closed session, meetings to discuss specific sensitive matters like litigation, the formation of contracts, member discipline, personnel matters, and delinquencies. These sessions exist precisely because the California legislature recognized that the topics should remain confidential. What a board discusses in executive session cannot be disclosed to the general membership without board authority.

In light of that, when a board member copies and pastes executive session notes or details of pending litigation, for example, into a commercial AI tool to get a summary or draft a response, they may be unwittingly pushing that information into a system they do not control. Most consumer-facing LLMs retain conversation data to some degree and use inputs for training unless users opt out. The LLMs store information on servers governed by terms of service, not California law. As such, using LLMs for association purposes may unwittingly breach the confidentiality of executive session without board authorization.

This exposure is not hypothetical. Indeed, in the federal case of United States v. Heppner (2026), the court ruled that documents generated using a publicly available AI tool are not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In the case, Heppner used an AI tool for guidance on his legal case. Heppner created documents through the AI tools and shared them with his legal counsel. The court ruled that the documents created were not protected by attorney-client privilege. While the court limited the ruling, acknowledging that the outcome may differ with alternative facts – for example, if the attorney had used the AI tool – and this case is not direct precedence in California, this case is a warning for all boards. If you share what you consider confidential information with an LLM, there is little protection for the work product that results. Exposing confidential information and waiving attorney-client privilege without board authority could be seen as a breach of fiduciary duty to the association.

 

PRACTICE TIP:

Never input names, addresses, account balances, legal strategy, personnel matters, or any information discussed in executive session into a commercial AI tool. Use AI for structure and language – not processing content or asking for specific legal advice.

 

When Owners Use AI Against the Board

 We have recently seen in our practice an uptick in homeowners using AI tools strategically against the association. Homeowners who believe the board has violated their rights are armed with open-source summaries that have boards working overtime. Being informed about the applicable law is not inherently problematic. Informed homeowners will hopefully make for healthier communities. However, AI-generated content is not always accurate. This is because many AI tools are designed in a sycophantic nature; meaning these tools are designed to generate responses the system thinks the prompter wants, as to opposed to providing the most accurate and correct response.  The results produced are produced with such clarity that homeowners have been known to use legal misinformation with confidence and stubbornness. When boards attempt to correct the record or provide the necessary context, the perception of bad faith can spiral quickly.

In this upswing in AI usage, we have also received lengthy association record demands as the AI tools dramatically lower the effort required to generate formal-sounding demand letters and Public Records Act-style document requests. A single motivated homeowner can now produce a volume of written demands that would previously have required legal representation. Management companies are flooded with correspondence that is time-consuming to answer, even when meritless.

Conclusion

While it is unlikely that boards or owners will abandon AI tools, both sides should use them with clear-eyed awareness of the limitations. Boards may want to consider adopting an AI policy determining which tools are approved and how. Owners should treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final legal opinion. For both owners and boards, when a dispute may have serious consequences, reach out to legal counsel. It is worth the cost to double check the advice from AI and to be able to rely on attorney-client privilege to protect the advice given to the board.

Architectural Reviews and Approvals in Rebuilding

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Senior Attorney 

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

Considerations For Associations Dealing With Destruction Caused by Natural Disasters

*Article originally published in CACM The Law Journal, Summer 2025

California has been hit by wildfires and other natural disasters in recent years. In the aftermath of such disasters, associations and their members may be faced with having to reconstruct their communities. Some of the issues association boards and managers should consider when homes and condominiums (“Dwellings”) must be reconstructed are addressed below.

FACILITATING RECONSTRUCTION

The reconstruction process can take years to complete. By acting now to ensure the original construction plans are kept in a safe place, if there is a disaster, the association can compare owner submitted plans for reconstruction with the original construction plans, and more quickly identify and evaluate any differences that will impact the appearance of the new dwellings. A licensed architect should be retained to perform this comparison and assist the board or architectural committee (“AC”) in evaluating differences.

The board should also adopt clear and detailed guidelines with the help of an architect, addressing the information and documentation needed to review owner reconstruction applications. These guidelines, which can be adopted through the rule adoption procedures in Civil Code § 4360 (or as emergency rules, if necessary), should address whether any changes in the dimensions or locations of the reconstructed dwellings will be considered, as well as whether any other modifications will be considered or required. Providing this information up front can save owners time and money in planning for their reconstruction, reduce owner frustration and expedite the reconstruction.

Because building code requirements may have changed since the initial construction of the dwellings, the board or AC should work with an architect or general contractor to identify any such changes that will impact the appearance of the reconstructed dwellings, preferably before applications to reconstruct are submitted. This will further facilitate the application review process.

REQUESTS TO CHANGE DIMENSIONS OR LOCATIONS OF RECONSTRUCTED DWELLINGS

While the association is generally responsible for the reconstruction of the buildings in a condominium complex, there are instances where condominiums are built as single family detached dwellings or duplexes, for example, and the CC&Rs assign responsibility for reconstruction to the owners. In such instances, it is generally not possible for the board or AC to approve changes to the dimensions or locations of units and buildings because the dimensions and locations of the units and buildings are dictated by the condominium plan. To approve such changes, the condominium plan must be amended.

When it comes to planned developments, the board or AC may generally approve alterations to reconstructed dwellings, subject to any size, set back or other construction requirements and restrictions contained in the CC&Rs and rules. It may be possible for a board to grant variances to requirements set forth in the CC&Rs, if appropriate, depending on the precise wording of the CC&Rs. Upon a vote of the members, it may also be possible to amend the CC&Rs to revise these requirements as the board deems appropriate.

In the event construction requirements and restrictions are contained solely in the rules, the board or, in some instances, the AC, may amend the rules.

REQUESTS FOR OTHER CHANGES TO RECONSTRUCTED DWELLINGS

For aspects of construction which may not be specified in the CC&Rs (e.g., color schemes, exterior finishes), an association can be more flexible in approving modifications to the originally constructed dwellings. However, as quickly as feasible, the board or AC should meet with an architect to determine what kinds of changes should and should not be permitted to ensure the reconstructed dwellings are in harmony with any surviving structures. If necessary to expedite approvals to avoid risk of substantial economic loss to the association, these changes can be adopted as emergency rules pursuant to Civil Code § 4360(d) so owners have this information when planning their reconstruction.

A board may also want to consider amending the CC&Rs or rules to allow or require nonflammable roofs, fire-resistant landscaping or other changes, to better protect the community from future disasters.

TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSTRUCTION

The governing documents may impose time limits on when owners must start and complete their reconstruction. It is important for the board to promptly review any time limits and evaluate whether these limits are reasonable given the extent of the damage to the community and surrounding area, as well as related environmental challenges (e.g. issues related to the removal and disposal of construction debris), the availability of architects and contractors to prepare plans and perform reconstruction, possible permitting and inspection delays, materials shortages and delays in the processing of insurance claims.

If the governing documents mandate a shorter reconstruction timeline than is reasonable under the circumstances, the board should amend the timeline. If the governing documents do not impose time limits on reconstruction, the board may want to amend the governing documents to include a reasonable time limit to help ensure owners diligently pursue the reconstruction of their dwellings.

On a related note, if the governing documents do not impose a reasonable deadline for clearing properties within the community of any construction rubble and other debris, the governing documents should be amended, or an emergency rule adopted, to impose a deadline since the existence of these materials may pose a health and safety hazard for the community. Additionally, it may take years for owners to rebuild and some owners may not be able to rebuild. Removing the rubble and debris will help improve the appearance of the community until the community can be fully reconstructed.

THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, PORTA-POTTIES, LIVE-IN TRAILERS, RVS, ETC. DURING RECONSTRUCTION

If the governing documents prohibit construction trailers, RVs or porta-potties, the board should consider amending the governing documents, or granting variances, if permitted by the governing documents, to temporarily lift this prohibition in the event of significant destruction. The amendment can and should limit the use of these items to specified periods of time and purposes, such as for construction supervision and meetings.

COMMUNICATIONS

Communicating with displaced owners can be especially challenging. Providing the CC&Rs, architectural/construction rules and the architectural application form on the association’s website and proactively requesting updated contact information can help facilitate the reconstruction process and enable the association to timely address any reconstruction issues.

PRACTICE TIPS

          • Many CC&Rs contain an article that expressly addresses destruction of the community. Reviewing and, if appropriate, amending this article to address reconstruction issues more fully before a disaster occurs could help accelerate the reconstruction process.
          • Proactively establishing an easy process for owners to submit updated contact information to the management company, such as through a website or portal, and periodically notifying owners of this process can help to re-establish communications with owners after a disaster.

Tragedy as a Turning Point

Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

How Recent Tragedies are Reshaping the Standard of Care for
California Community Associations and Impacting the Future

*Article originally published in CACM The Law Journal, Summer 2025

This article explores three significant and unfortunate events that are having a lasting impact on California community associations — (1) The 2015 Berkeley, California balcony collapse; (2) the 2021 condominium building collapse in Surfside, Florida and (3) the skyrocketing cost of property insurance in large part due to recent California wildfires. This article also discusses ways to proactively plan for the outcomes stemming from these events. It is crucial for board members and community managers to understand how these developments impact their communities.

The Berkeley Balcony Collapse and the “Balcony Bill”: A New Era of Exterior Elevated Element Inspections

In 2015, six young people tragically lost their lives when a balcony collapsed in Berkeley, California. The aftermath revealed severe dry rot that had compromised the balcony’s structural integrity. The Berkley balcony incident led directly to the California legislature enacting the “Balcony Bill”1 that mandates regular inspections of wooden Exterior Elevated Elements (EEEs) in multifamily buildings with three or more units. The Balcony Bill was codified as Civil Code § 5551.2

As a result, community associations in California are now required to conduct visual inspections of EEEs — including balconies, decks, stairways and walkways — at least every nine years by a licensed structural engineer or architect. The first deadline for compliance was January 1, 2025, and many associations are still scrambling to meet the legal requirements and determine how to fund necessary repairs identified during inspections.

The Balcony Bill mandates proactive compliance. Failure to inspect and maintain EEE’s could expose an association to significant liability, including personal injury claims and fines. Boards should consult with professionals, such as legal counsel and reserve analysts, to review the association’s governing documents and reserve studies to ensure that adequate funding is available for inspections and repairs.

The Surfside Condominium Collapse: A Wake-Up Call on Reserve Funding and Deferred Maintenance

In June 2021, the Champlain Towers South condominium in Surfside, Florida partially collapsed, killing 98 people and drawing national attention to the importance of building maintenance, reserve funding and structural oversight. The lessons from Surfside resonate throughout the country, including here in California.

Following the tragedy, many states began reevaluating how community associations manage reserve funds and capital repair planning. There is growing momentum toward stricter enforcement of reserve study requirements, and it would not be surprising if the California legislature introduced minimum reserve fund requirements in the future. Boards, working with consultants, must now take a harder look at deferred maintenance and determine whether they are meeting their fiduciary duties to maintain the common areas in a safe and habitable condition.

Lenders and insurers are also becoming more cautious about deferred maintenance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have issued updated lender guidance requiring more information on building conditions and deferred maintenance. For community associations, this translates into increased scrutiny during real estate transactions and the potential for financing delays if documentation is not up to date.

Wildfires and the Soaring Cost of Property Insurance

Wildfires have become a constant threat in many parts of California, and the insurance market has responded accordingly. Community associations across the state — particularly those located in or near designated fire risk zones — are experiencing dramatic increases in property insurance premiums. Some associations cannot obtain insurance coverage at all.

In some cases, insurance premiums have doubled or tripled. In other cases, insurance carriers have completely withdrawn from the market, forcing communities to seek coverage through the excess and surplus lines market, which often offers reduced coverage at a higher cost.

Rising insurance costs put enormous strain on association budgets and raise important questions about adequate reserve funding, regular assessment increases and special assessments. Boards must navigate insurance issues carefully, ensuring transparent communication with members and obtain expert advice on risk management.

Some associations are exploring self-insurance, risk pooling or higher deductibles to manage costs. Insurance, reserve and legal professionals should be involved in evaluating options to ensure compliance with governing documents and statutory requirements. In some cases, a community association’s governing documents may need to be amended to accommodate necessary changes to insurance coverage.

Moreover, the sheer volume of wildfires, including the massive fallout from the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires suggests that building material costs will also rise as communities strive to rebuild.

Conclusion: A Call for Proactive Governance and Consulting with Professionals

These three major events — a balcony failure, a condominium collapse, and persistent wildfire risk — underscore a shared lesson: reactive governance not sufficient. California community associations must adopt a proactive and informed approach to building safety, financial planning, and risk management.

What are some specific steps you can take now?

          • Schedule required Exterior Elevated Elements (EEE) inspections in compliance with Civil Code § 5551;
          • Consult with your reserve analyst and spend more time and effort to help prepare a more detailed and accurate reserve study and reserve funding plan;
          • Engage insurance professionals early in the budgeting process and schedule an annual meeting to review insurance coverage with your insurance agent or broker;
          • Communicate openly with members about risks, funding needs and legal obligations;
          • Consider levying regular, special, or emergency assessments where necessary to defray costs and plan for the future financial needs of your association; and
          • Update maintenance policies to reflect current best practices. In this evolving landscape, community association boards that proactively prioritize diligence and professional guidance will be better positioned to protect their communities and fulfill their fiduciary duties.

In this evolving landscape, community association boards that proactively prioritize diligence and professional guidance will be better positioned to protect their communities and fulfill their fiduciary duties.

[1] California Senate Bill No. 326
[2] Civil Code § 5551 is part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act