Be honest about what's on the books: Arizona's Planned Communities Act and Condominium Act don't have a section labeled "selective enforcement." What they do have is a notice-and-hearing framework, §§ 33-1803 (HOA) and 33-1242 (condo), that ties any monetary penalty to a "reasonable" exercise of the board's power after notice and a chance to be heard, and both statutes require the board's own written explanation to name the specific date of the violation and the first and last name of the person who observed it. That last requirement is a quiet gift to an inconsistency argument: if the same observer, or the same board, walked past an identical condition elsewhere in the community without writing a notice, you're not guessing about a pattern, you're pointing at the association's own paper trail.
Arizona courts, like courts in most states, have long recognized equitable defenses to covenant enforcement, including waiver and inconsistent or selective enforcement, when an association lets violations slide broadly across a community or singles out one owner while tolerating identical conduct elsewhere. That doctrine sits alongside the statutory notice framework, not instead of it, and either way, your case rises or falls on documentation.
Building the record
Use your records right under §§ 33-1805 (HOA) or 33-1258 (condo) to request the association's own violation history, prior notices, correspondence, minutes discussing enforcement, and see whether the same condition was cited elsewhere or quietly dropped for other lots or units. Photograph and date comparable violations by address, lot, or unit number, not by your neighbor's name; the goal is to document the association's inconsistency, not to put a target on anyone else.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Ties HOA penalties to a "reasonable" exercise of enforcement power after notice and a hearing, and requires the board's own written explanation to name the observer and the violation date, the paper trail an inconsistency argument relies on.
A.R.S. § 33-1242
The condominium parallel, with the same reasonableness standard and required observer-and-date disclosure.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Records access that lets you pull the association's own enforcement history to document a pattern of inconsistent citations; § 33-1258 is the condo parallel.
Step by step
How to document and raise selective enforcement in Arizona
Build the evidentiary record that supports an inconsistency or waiver defense to an Arizona HOA or condo fine.
- 01
Identify the exact rule and confirm the notice was proper
Pin down the specific declaration provision or rule you allegedly violated, and confirm the notice met the requirements of § 33-1803 (HOA) or § 33-1242 (condo).
- 02
Pull the observer's name and violation date from your own notice
Arizona's statute requires the board to put both in writing in its response to you. Keep that document; it's your baseline for comparison.
- 03
Photograph and date comparable, uncited violations
Document other lots or units with the same condition that were never cited. Use addresses or lot and unit numbers, not the names of the people living there.
- 04
Request the association's own records
Use §§ 33-1805 or 33-1258 to ask for minutes, correspondence, and prior violation notices that might show the same condition was raised and dropped elsewhere, or that the same observer only ever flags certain properties.
- 05
Raise the pattern in writing, and escalate if needed
Present your comparables in your certified-mail response, and if the board won't budge, consider a Department of Real Estate petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 or preserve the record for court.
Straight answers
Common questions
Is selective enforcement a real defense in Arizona?
It can be. Arizona courts, like courts in most states, recognize equitable defenses to covenant enforcement, including waiver and inconsistent enforcement, and the "reasonable" enforcement standard in §§ 33-1803 and 33-1242 reinforces that arbitrary enforcement sits outside what the statute authorizes.
What makes an Arizona violation notice useful for this defense?
Sections 33-1803 and 33-1242 require the association's written explanation to name the specific date of the violation and the person who observed it. That disclosure requirement makes it easier to compare your case to others the same observer or board didn't cite.
What evidence do I actually need?
Dated photographs of comparable, uncited violations, and the association's own records under §§ 33-1805 or 33-1258 if they show a pattern of inconsistent enforcement. A documented pattern carries the argument, not a single example.
Should I name the neighbors who weren't cited?
No. Document the properties by address, lot, or unit number, not by the names of the people living there. Keep the focus on the association's own inconsistent conduct.