There's no New Hampshire statute titled "selective enforcement," but the argument doesn't need one to work. RSA 356-B:15 requires the declarant, the board, every unit owner, and everyone entitled to occupy a unit to comply with "all lawful provisions of this chapter and all provisions of the condominium instruments," and it makes any lack of compliance grounds for a lawsuit — brought by the association, or by any aggrieved unit owner on their own behalf. If a board is enforcing a covenant against you while knowingly tolerating identical conduct from other owners, that inconsistency directly undercuts the claim that the charge is really about a "lawful provision" being applied evenly, rather than about singling you out. And because RSA 356-B:15(II) shifts costs and attorney's fees to whoever prevails, a documented pattern of uneven enforcement isn't just a moral argument — it's a financial one too, if the dispute ends up in court.
The same textual limit shows up elsewhere in the chapter. RSA 356-B:42's grant of architectural authority to the board or its committee is itself conditioned on "except to the extent prohibited by the condominium instruments, and subject to any restrictions and limitations specified therein" — meaning an architectural denial that can't be tied to a consistently applied recorded standard is vulnerable on the same textual ground as an uneven fine. Across the chapter, New Hampshire keeps returning to the same idea: the board's power is only as good as its grounding in the actual recorded documents, applied the way those documents actually say.
Building the record, and the honest gap for non-condo HOAs
Be realistic about what New Hampshire's records statute does and doesn't guarantee here. RSA 356-B:37-e gives you a real right to financial information and meeting minutes, but it doesn't specifically address whether you can obtain the association's enforcement history against other named owners — the statute is simply silent on that question rather than granting or denying it outright. That means your strongest evidence is probably going to be your own documentation: dated photographs of comparable, uncited violations elsewhere in the community, and your own account of what the board knew and when, rather than a records request that hands you the board's file on a specific neighbor.
If your community isn't a legal condominium, the statutory hook disappears along with everything else in this pillar. RSA 292:8-m addresses only the bylaw-amendment supermajority and dissolution-hearing rules, and it says nothing about enforcement consistency. A selective-enforcement argument in a non-condo HOA rests entirely on general contract-law principles applied to your recorded declaration — waiver, estoppel, and an inconsistent-application argument a court would evaluate under ordinary equitable doctrine, not on anything written into RSA Chapter 292 itself.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
RSA 356-B:15
Ties every condo enforcement action to the "lawful provisions" of the chapter and the condominium instruments, and shifts costs and fees to the prevailing party — the framework inconsistent enforcement runs against.
RSA 356-B:42
Conditions the board's or committee's architectural authority on the condominium instruments' own restrictions, reinforcing that off-script enforcement is vulnerable even without a dedicated selective-enforcement statute.
RSA 356-B:37-e
Gives owners financial and minutes disclosure that can help establish a pattern, though it doesn't specifically address obtaining the association's enforcement file against other owners.
RSA 292:8-m
Confirms New Hampshire's only HOA-specific statute addresses bylaw-amendment supermajorities and dissolution, not enforcement consistency — leaving non-condo owners with no statutory selective-enforcement hook.
Step by step
How to document and raise selective enforcement in New Hampshire
Build the evidentiary record that supports a selective-enforcement argument in a New Hampshire condo, or a contract-law argument in a non-condo HOA.
- 01
Pin down the exact provision at issue
Confirm the specific declaration or bylaws language the board says you violated, and that it was actually properly adopted (see the fines guide). Selective enforcement is provision-specific.
- 02
Document comparable violations yourself
Photograph and date-stamp the same violation elsewhere in the community, noting addresses or lot numbers rather than owner names. Don't count on a records request to hand you the board's enforcement file on a neighbor.
- 03
Request the financial and meeting records that exist
Use RSA 356-B:37-e and RSA 356-B:37 to pull minutes and financial records that might show the same issue was discussed, tolerated, or waived community-wide.
- 04
Raise the inconsistency in writing
Present your comparables before or during any dispute, citing RSA 356-B:15's "lawful provisions" language, and ask that the board's response be reflected in the minutes.
- 05
Weigh your options if the board won't budge
For a condo, RSA 356-B:15 lets you sue, with fee-shifting if you win. For a non-condo HOA, the same evidence supports an ordinary waiver or estoppel defense under general contract law, since RSA Chapter 292 has no dedicated statute to invoke.
Straight answers
Common questions
Does New Hampshire law recognize selective enforcement as a defense?
There's no statute by that name, but RSA 356-B:15 ties every condo enforcement action to the "lawful provisions" of the chapter and the condominium instruments — a framework that inconsistent, arbitrary enforcement runs directly against.
Can I get the association's enforcement records against my neighbor?
New Hampshire's disclosure statute, RSA 356-B:37-e, doesn't specifically address this either way. Build your own dated photographic documentation of comparable violations rather than relying on a records request.
What happens if I win a RSA 356-B:15 challenge over inconsistent enforcement?
The prevailing party is entitled to costs and attorney's fees under RSA 356-B:15(II) — a real incentive to document a solid case before fighting an enforcement action in court.
Does this work the same way for a non-condo HOA?
No. RSA Chapter 292 has no enforcement-consistency provision at all. A selective-enforcement argument there depends entirely on general contract-law principles like waiver and estoppel applied to your recorded declaration, not on any specific New Hampshire statute.