The Nevada Supreme Court adopted §6.7 and §6.9 of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) and held that restrictions on construction (including architectural review committees) are only valid if owners are on notice of them and they exercise their powers “reasonably.” Moretto Trustee of the Jerome F. Moretto 2006 Trust, v. ELK Point Country Club Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 507 P.3d 199 (Nev. 2022). Those sections state that no homeowners association has implied power to regulate the architecture of individual units unless the governing documents (the declaration that establishes the association) explicitly confers that power on the association, and even then, the exercise of that power must be reasonable.

In this case, the governing bylaws required owners to get board approval before building any structure on their property. After purchasing a lot subject to the bylaws, the executive board created an architectural review committee and some architectural guidelines. One of the owners who bought a lot prior to the creation of the committee sued to have it declared beyond the powers of the association. The Nevada Supreme Court found, to the contrary, that the bylaw provision requiring consent before construction implied that the association had the power to regulate architectural decisions. Therefore the requirement in §6.9 was met that architectural control powers are valid only if contained in the original declaration. However, it remanded so that the trial court could determine whether the architectural guidelines were reasonable, as required by §6.9.