Nevada committee hears bill to limit HOA bans on licensed home-based childcare

Assemblymember Natha Anderson presented Assembly Bill 185 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, seeking to limit homeowners associations' ability to bar licensed home‑based child care. The bill, Anderson said, would "prevent Homeowners Associations or HOAs from prohibiting the operation of licensed home based childcare services unless they are an HOA for over 50 years of age." The committee heard several hours of testimony both for and against the measure and took no final vote.

Supporters told the committee that Nevada faces widespread shortages in early‑childhood care and that home‑based providers are a cost‑effective way to expand capacity. Denise Tonada of the Children's Cabinet said Nevada remains a "child care desert," reporting that licensed care meets only about 36% of demand for children ages 0–5 in families where all parents work and that the state experienced a 55% decrease in family home child‑care providers from 2018 to 2024. Detra Stewart, a licensed home provider who testified in support, described being blocked by her HOA despite meeting state licensing, saying her family "lost income, and the families I served lost their childcare provider" before she convinced her HOA to allow her to continue.

Tonada and other witnesses outlined licensing requirements that must still apply under AB185: providers must meet health and safety inspections, zoning or special‑use requirements as applicable, fire safety inspections, maintain liability insurance and complete continuing education. Testifiers described programs and funding used to support home providers, including federal American Rescue Plan Act funds, Child Care and Development funds, and the state's Care Nevada program which buys and renovates homes for group family child care. Anderson told the committee the bill focuses on licensed family child care and group family child care (12 children maximum for group family care) and said the bill allows counties to set closer outdoor‑space requirements than the draft's one‑mile maximum.

Committee members pressed several questions about local land‑use authority, zoning, and homeowner expectations. Assemblymember Gurr asked whether AB185 would force local governments to revise zoning; Anderson responded the bill targets HOAs, not municipal zoning, and would not require cities or counties to review all zonal codes proactively. Assemblymember Golding asked about applying the bill to multifamily units; Denise Tonada said state licensing already requires minimum indoor and outdoor space, and that apartments would likely be limited to smaller family child care (under six children). Several legislative members and municipal officials sought clearer definitions and measures to preserve local planning authority.

Municipal governments formally characterized their positions as concerns rather than wholesale opposition. Representatives from the cities of Reno, Henderson and Las Vegas and Clark County said they were working with the sponsor to clarify definitions and preserve local land‑use review processes. Reno's government affairs manager said the city uses a discretionary process to evaluate in‑home child care locations and had not denied applicants for city reasons; Clark County staff said family day care under six children is permitted by right while larger operations require special use review.

Supporters included family providers and statewide and local advocacy groups: the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, the Children's Advocacy Alliance, the Nevada Association for the Education of Young Children, providers who described personal hardship when HOAs blocked licensed operations, and providers who praised the Care Nevada purchase/renovation model. Testimony in support emphasized access for shift workers and rural residents, the lower cost of home‑based care compared with centers, and the role of home settings in both proximity and nontraditional hours.

No formal vote was recorded. Anderson said she and stakeholders are working on a conceptual amendment to address municipal concerns and a question raised in Clark County; she described the sponsor's goal as balancing HOA restrictions against families' need for affordable local care. The committee opened a public comment and testimony period and then closed the hearing on AB185 without action.

Ending: The committee did not take a final vote on AB185; staff and the sponsor indicated they would continue negotiating a conceptual amendment to the bill text and definitions with municipal governments and proponents. The hearing record includes written exhibits and multiple public witnesses who may submit additional written testimony within 24 hours.