The Grass Isn’t Greener on the Other Side of AB 1572: How to Handle California’s Nonfunctional Turf Removal Mandate

Share this article:

In response to California’s persistent drought conditions, Assembly Bill 1572 (AB 1572) became law on January 1, 2024, placing new water conservation mandates on common interest developments (CIDs). Most notably, the bill prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf in common areas and requires CIDs to either convert those areas to drought-tolerant landscaping or transition to non-potable water sources. As legal counsel to numerous associations in Southern California, I’ve seen firsthand the confusion and urgency this law has introduced.

This article offers guidance to boards of directors navigating AB 1572’s requirements and outlines best practices to ensure legal compliance while maintaining aesthetic and functional community standards.

 

Understanding the Law

AB 1572 amends Section 10608.12 of the Water Code and adds Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 10608.14) to Part 2.55 of Division 6 to the Water Code. This law prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf in CIDs beginning January 1, 2029.  

AB 1572 defines nonfunctional turf as lawn areas not used for recreation or community purposes—typically decorative grass in medians, parkways, and buffer zones.  The law explicitly targets turf watered with potable water in these settings and compels CIDs to eliminate or retrofit such areas. Turf that is fenced or barricaded to permanently prohibit human access for recreation or assembly is nonfunctional turf. 

Importantly, the law does not ban turf entirely. Functional turf—such as lawns used for gatherings, sports, or playgrounds—remains permissible. Additionally, associations may still maintain turf irrigated with recycled or non-potable water. The key lies in how the space is used and the water source.

Additionally, CIDs with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area must certify to the State Water Resources Control Board commencing June 30, 2031, and every three years thereafter through 2040, that their property is in compliance with these requirements.  

Both the applicable public water agency and local government are authorized to enforce these new requirements, and CIDs that do not comply with the requirements of this new law can be subject to civil liabilities and penalties.

 

First Steps for Boards

      1. Inventory Turf Areas
        Begin by conducting a thorough assessment of all turf areas in the common areas. Work with landscape contractors or a landscape architect to identify which portions qualify as nonfunctional under AB 1572. This process should include mapping out irrigation systems and determining the source of water (potable vs. recycled).
      2. Review Your Governing Documents
        Before implementing any landscape changes, review your governing documents, including the CC&Rs and landscape guidelines. Some associations require member approval for major landscape modifications, while others delegate this authority to the board. Legal counsel should review whether proposed turf removal projects could be construed as a capital improvement or a material alteration requiring a vote of the membership.
      3. Prioritize Communication
        Clear communication with the membership is vital. Boards should proactively educate homeowners about the reasons behind the turf changes, the mandates of AB 1572, and how these efforts align with broader water conservation goals. Transparency will reduce resistance and build community support. To soften the blow, it may help to remind owners that water rates are increasing throughout the state; reducing potable water usage will eventually mean lower operating costs.

 

Legal and Financial Considerations

      1. Budgeting and Special Assessments
        Turf removal and landscape or irrigation conversion are not inexpensive. Boards must evaluate whether existing reserve funds can cover these costs or if a special assessment is necessary. Consider phasing the work over several fiscal years to ease financial strain. Engage legal counsel when considering special assessments or borrowing from reserves to ensure compliance with Civil Code §§ 5600 and 5510.
      2. Vendor Contracts
        Review existing landscaping contracts to determine if turf removal or irrigation modifications are covered services. If not, seek competitive bids and ensure new vendor agreements include warranties, insurance provisions, and performance benchmarks. Legal review of any significant contract is strongly recommended.
      3. Local Incentives
        Some municipalities and water districts offer turf replacement rebates or grants to encourage compliance with water conservation laws. Boards should consult with their legal or management team to research available programs and submit applications where appropriate. These rebates can significantly offset costs.
      4. Resident Safety

If your association converts spaces to recycled water, consider your local municipality’s recycled water rules and regulations. The association would also be required to post signs that read “RECYCLED WATER – DO NOT DRINK” and display the international “Do Not Drink” symbol or an alternative accepted by the State Water Board (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22).

 

Conclusion

AB 1572 presents both a challenge and an opportunity. While compliance may require upfront investment and some aesthetic adjustments, the long-term benefits—reduced water bills, improved drought resilience, and regulatory compliance—far outweigh the initial hurdles. Boards that approach this transition thoughtfully, with strong communication, legal guidance, and financial planning, can turn this mandate into a meaningful step toward sustainability and stewardship.

As always, consult with association legal counsel before taking action, particularly when modifying common area landscaping or seeking member contributions for these projects.

Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn.

Summary by

Share this article

Joseph A. Sammartino, Esq.
Shareholder

Attorney represented
Defendant and Respondent

Emily A. Long, Esq.
Senior Attorney

The Haidets filed a lawsuit against the association alleging nuisance and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board. The trial court partially dismissed the complaint after sustaining the association’s demurrer. Part of the demurrer ruling was with leave to amend, and part was without leave to amend.

When the Haidets amended their complaint, they completely omitted the association as a defendant. Accordingly, the association requested to be dismissed from the case. The court granted the association’s request for dismissal with prejudice.

The Haidets argued that the decision not to include the association in the amended complaint was a voluntary dismissal and should have been without prejudice in case the Haidets wanted to add the association back in to the lawsuit later.

The court clarified that the code allows a plaintiff to dismiss parties without prejudice before trial. But after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, and the plaintiff has already amended the complaint without including that defendant, the plaintiff cannot later request a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

TAKEAWAY: Parties must be very careful with amending pleadings and naming parties; failing to do so may mean losing out on the right to pursue particular remedies against a party.

Dubac v. Itkoff (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 540

Summary by

Share this article

Dubac sued Itkoff and Diamond, claiming that they had sent defamatory emails accusing Dubac of various wrongdoings, including being a pathological liar, committing perjury, and causing problems within the association. These emails were shared with other members of the community, adding to the allegedly public nature of the conflict. In response, Itkoff and Diamond filed a motion to strike the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

In analyzing the anti-SLAPP issue, the court evaluated whether the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond were part of a public issue or a matter of public interest. The trial court ruled that some statements were connected to a public issue and others were not. Thus, Dubac’s lawsuit continued.

On appeal, the court agreed that the majority of the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond did not meet the criteria for being protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that while some statements involved matters of interest to the association, and therefore were public, not all personal disputes within a private organization rise to the level of public concern, particularly when the number of people affected in an intrabuilding dispute were “minute.”

TAKEAWAY:  Defamation claims can be very complex, particularly in the context of community association disputes. The anti-SLAPP statute has limitations when it comes to distinguishing between public and private matters.

Morris v. W. Hayden Ests. First Addition Homeowners Ass’n (2024) 104 F.4th 1128

Summary by

Share this article

The Morrises hosted a public multi-day Christmas festival to raise money for charity at their home in the association. They had previously hosted a similar festival at a prior home before purchasing in this community. The Morrises informed the board prior to purchase of their intent to host a similar large Christmas festival.

At the festival, they had 30 staffed volunteers and a very elaborate decorations display, including an estimated 200,000 Christmas lights and a live nativity scene. A reported 1,000 visitors attended the event.

After two years of hosting the Christmas festival with no enforcement taken by the association, the Morrises filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing their association of discriminating against them because of their Christian faith by discouraging them from purchasing a home in the community, interfering with their practice of faith by opposing the Christmas festival, and selectively enforcing the HOA’s rules, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631). The association countersued against the Morrises asking the court to enjoin the Morrises from holding their Christmas program again.

A 2015 letter from the association became a key piece of evidence related to efforts made by the Morrises prior to purchasing their property, wherein the Morrises met proactively with the association’s board several times in January-February 2015 to discuss the plan for their Christmas event. The association responded in writing to the Morrises stating that the Christmas program would likely violate the HOA’s rules.  The association’s 2015 letter stated in relevant part, “some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up…,” among other statements. There was also an earlier version of the draft letter exchanged via email between board members with more specific comments concerning the rights of atheists and non-Christians in the community.

The court found under Sections 3604(b) and (c) of the FHA, that there was no unlawful discrimination, seeing as how the association took no enforcement action against the Morrises and the Morrises could not point to a concrete adverse impact suffered because of the association’s conduct. Similarly, the court of appeal found that the association was not responsible for any neighbor-to-neighbor harassment that occurred against the Morrises.

However, the court found evidence of “coercion, intimidation, or interference” with a person’s rights protected by the Section 3617 of the FHA, in that the Morrises’ right to purchase and enjoy their home free from religious discrimination was affected by the board’s actions (in the form of the 2015 letter written by the board and other actions taken by the board). The court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury verdict concluding that the board interfered with the Morrises’ right to purchase and enjoy their home, at least in part, because of their religious expression, despite the evidence of significant nuisance activity at the Morris home.

TAKEAWAY:  Courts scrutinize how associations, as housing providers, handle discrimination claims. Be very careful in written communications that touch on any owner’s right to purchase and enjoy their home free from unlawful discrimination based on a protected class. Associations should also avoid meeting with prospective purchasers or providing an opinion as to the enforcement of governing documents with individuals who are not yet owners.