Illinois related & miscellaneous statutes
The Illinois community-association questions that no single statute answers — which Act governs your community and the condition most summaries drop, the four different records regimes and the two deadlines between them, the ten-odd places a declaration is void whatever it says, the two Acts on this page set that are scheduled to expire, and where the same rule appears twice with different numbers.
Illinois is unusual: every statute its HOA readers need has a page of its own on this site, and the Acts cross-reference each other rather than scattering into the rest of the Code. What is left over is not a pile of orphan statutes — it is the seams between the eight Acts, where the same question gets two answers depending on which kind of community you live in. Each card states the rule, the Act it comes from, and the limit that goes with it.
Start with what the property is, not with what the association calls itself. The Condominium Property Act applies “to all condominiums in this State” (§ 605/2.1). The Common Interest Community Association Act applies “to all common interest community associations” (§ 160/1-10) — and a “common interest community” is defined as “real estate other than a condominium or cooperative” (§ 160/1-5). The two do not overlap: a property is one or the other — unless it is a cooperative, which § 1-5 puts outside both definitions.
A master association is outside CICAA — but not outside regulation. The same § 1-5 says a common interest community “does not include a master association”. It is squarely inside the Condominium Property Act instead: § 605/2(u) defines it, and § 605/18.5(b) requires the governing documents to include subsections (c) through (h) of that section — budgets, open meetings, records, fines, standing and developer control — enforced by the void-and-deemed-incorporated rule in § 605/18.5(i). The Ombudsperson Act treats a condominium master association as a condominium association (§ 615/15).
Then, if it is a common interest community, ask whether it is exempt — and read the whole test. Section 160/1-75(a) exempts an association “organized under the General Not for Profit Corporation Act of 1986 and having either (i) 10 units or less or (ii) annual budgeted assessments of $100,000 or less”, unless it affirmatively elects in by a majority of its directors or members.
The first condition is the one that gets dropped, and it decides real cases. An unincorporated common interest community is not exempt under § 1-75(a) at any size. The size test alone is not the rule. And the measure is annual budgeted assessments — not what the association actually collects.
There is a second, partial exemption people miss entirely. Section 160/1-75(b) switches off only § 1-30(a), § 1-40(a) and (b) and § 1-55, for an association whose instruments bar it from using courts or arbitration to collect, or that has 10 units or less, or annual budgeted assessments of $50,000 or less — and even then it must still give members meeting notice in a manner and time that lets them participate.
The question can I see the association’s records? has three different answers in Illinois, and which one applies depends on the kind of community and the kind of record.
In a condominium, § 605/19 lists ten categories that must be kept at the principal office. For most of them a member inspects on a written request stating the records with particularity, and failure to produce within 10 business days is deemed a denial. A member who prevails “shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs”. But for the member list and the ballots, inspection is only for a purpose relating to the association, the board may demand a written certification against commercial purpose, and fees are recoverable only if the court finds the board acted in bad faith.
In a common interest community, § 160/1-30(i) has its own list, requires production at convenient hours of weekdays, and failure to provide or respond within 30 days is the denial. Fees are recoverable only if the member prevails and the court finds the failure was due to the board’s acts or omissions.
In an incorporated association of either kind, § 105/107.75 adds a corporate layer: a voting member may examine the books, records of account and minutes “but only for a proper purpose”, on a written demand stating the records and the purpose. And the burden of proof switches: for books or records of account the member must establish a proper purpose; for minutes the corporation must establish that the member does not have one.
The layers are not alternatives. Section 160/1-30(i)(v) expressly pulls the corporate records in as a further category a CIC member may inspect on a proper-purpose statement — so a member of an incorporated common interest community can be inside two regimes at once for different records.
Illinois voids conflicting governing documents in at least ten separate places, and four of them go further than voiding. A --grep for “void as against public policy” returns seven sections of the Condominium Property Act alone — §§ 605/2.1, 18, 18.4, 18.5, 18.9, 19 and 30 — and § 605/8, § 165/20(c) and § 5/3-105 void conflicting terms in their own words. One of them, § 605/18.9, can be overridden: a provision otherwise void may be enforced if approved by 75% of the unit owners.
1. The general rule. “Any provisions of a condominium instrument that contains provisions inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are void as against public policy and ineffective” (§ 605/2.1). Note the word: instrument, which § 605/2(l) defines as the declaration, bylaws and plat. Not just the declaration.
2 and 3. Board powers and records — where the Act writes the term in for you. Sections 605/18.4 and 605/19 each repeat the void rule and then add a sentence § 2.1 does not have: an instrument that fails to contain the provisions those sections require “shall be deemed to incorporate such provisions by operation of law”. A silent declaration is treated as if it said the right thing.
4. Solar. “Any provision of a homeowners’ common interest community or condominium unit owners’ declaration or energy policy statement that conflicts with this Act shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy” (§ 165/20(c)).
5. Discriminatory covenants — void, and inserting one is itself a violation. Every provision in an oral agreement or written instrument that “purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or lease” of real property on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin is void, as is any condition or restriction — including a right of entry or possibility of reverter — that directly or indirectly limits use or occupancy on those grounds (§ 5/3-105). Note the narrower list here than the nineteen bases § 3-102 uses.
And one that is not a void clause but functions like one. A condominium board’s rules may never “impair any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment… including, but not limited to, the free exercise of religion”, and “[n]o rule or regulation shall prohibit any reasonable accommodation for religious practices, including the attachment of religiously mandated objects to the front-door area of a condominium unit” (§ 605/18.4(h)).
The Ombudsperson Act ends 1 January 2029, and it says so itself. “This Act is repealed on January 1, 2029” (§ 615/70), sourced to Public Acts 103-563 and 104-377, effective 15 August 2025. The sunset has been moved more than once, so it is live law with a date on it rather than law that will certainly lapse.
Two more sections expire with it, one in each community Act. Section 605/35 and § 160/1-90 — both headed Compliance with the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act — each close with the same repeal date. So the duty to comply disappears from the community Acts on the same day.
They are not written the same way, and the difference matters to small communities. Section 605/35 binds every unit owners’ association with no exception. Section 160/1-90 binds every common interest community association “except for those exempt from this Act under Section 1-75”. A small exempt CIC is outside the Ombudsperson Act too; a small condominium is not.
Manager licensing is on a different clock and a different mechanism. Forty-four of the CAM Act’s fifty sections carry the marker Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2027. But that date is not in the Act: § 427/170, its own repealer, was itself repealed in 2022, and “2027” never appears in the Act as statutory text. It comes from 5 ILCS 80/4.37, a section of the general Regulatory Sunset Act that lists the Acts falling that day and names this one: “The following are repealed on January 1, 2027:… The Community Association Manager Licensing and Disciplinary Act”. Contrast the Ombudsperson Act, whose repealer sits in its own § 615/70. Two sunsets, two mechanisms — and the sunset-Act one has been amended eight times, so check the current position before relying on the date.
The 30-unit trigger people quote is only one of three, and a condominium hits an earlier one.
Condominium, at 6 units: “An association with 6 or more dwelling units must obtain and maintain a fidelity bond covering persons, including the managing agent and its employees who control or disburse funds of the association, for the maximum amount of coverage available to protect funds in the custody or control of the association, plus the association reserve fund” (§ 605/12(a)(3)(A)). A six-unit condominium already owes cover.
Condominium, at 30 units: a second and separate requirement — fidelity insurance covering persons who control or disburse association funds, “for the maximum amount of coverage available to protect funds in the custody or control of the association plus the association reserve fund” (§ 605/18(g)).
Condominium manager, at 6 units: where a manager or the manager’s firm would “solely and exclusively have access to and disburse” association funds, § 605/18.7(d) requires a bond “in an amount not less than all monies of that association in the custody or control of the community association manager” — and “[t]he community association shall secure and pay for the bond”.
Common interest community: the same 30-unit trigger, but the measure is “the maximum amount of coverage that is commercially available or reasonably required to protect funds in the custody or control of the association” (§ 160/1-55) — a softer standard, and with no express add-on for the reserve fund.
Both Acts also reach the management company: “All management companies which are responsible for the funds held or administered by the association shall maintain and furnish to the association a fidelity bond”.
And the licensing Act adds a fifth, with no unit threshold of its own. Under § 427/55 a designated community association manager or the firm employing one “shall not have access to and disburse community association funds” unless fidelity insurance is in place against loss or theft, in the maximum amount of coverage available, covering the designated manager, the firm and all community association managers. Note the limit: § 427/10 defines a designated manager as a licensed one, and § 427/20(a)(2) requires no licence for an association of 10 units or less — so in the smallest associations this provision may never bite. Segregation of accounts is required of a firm managing more than one association (§ 427/55(b)).
Both community Acts let owners force a vote on a budget or special assessment that grows too fast, on the same threshold and different deadlines.
In each, the trigger is an adopted budget or separate assessment that would make the sum of all regular and separate assessments for the current fiscal year exceed 115% of the sum for the preceding year. In each, the petition needs owners or members holding 20% of the votes. In each, the board must then call a meeting within 30 days, and unless a majority of the total votes are cast to reject it, the budget or assessment is ratified.
The petition clock is one difference. Under the Condominium Property Act the petition must be delivered within 21 days of the board’s action. Under CICAA it is within 14 days. A week less, for the same remedy.
It is not the only difference. The emergency carve-out is defined differently in each Act — the condominium version turns on an “immediate danger” (§ 605/18(a)(8)(iv)), CICAA’s on “a danger to or a compromise of” structural integrity or common facilities (§ 160/1-45(e)). And an assessment for additions and alterations needs two-thirds of the total votes in a condominium (§ 605/18(a)(8)(v)) but a simple majority of the total members in a common interest community (§ 160/1-45(f)).
Two condominium carve-outs run in opposite directions. A separate assessment for an emergency — defined as “an immediate danger to the structural integrity of the common elements or to the life, health, safety or property of the unit owners” — or one mandated by law is adopted with no owner approval and no 115% test at all. Going the other way, assessments for additions and alterations not in the adopted budget need two-thirds of the total votes of all unit owners.
Illinois answers this question twice, and the two statutes do different jobs. Read them together.
The Human Rights Act supplies the violation in two places, and the narrower one is the one usually cited. The general hook is § 5/3-102.1(C)(2): a civil rights violation “to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling”. That is the provision an emotional-support-animal request runs on, and it is limited neither to dogs nor to physical disability.
Section 5/3-104.1 is the narrower one: a civil rights violation for the owner or agent of a housing accommodation to refuse to sell or rent to, or to discriminate in the terms, conditions, privileges, services or facilities offered to, a blind or hearing-impaired person or a person with a physical disability because that person has a guide, hearing, or support dog — or to require an extra charge because of it, “other than for actual damage done to the premises by the dog”. It does not reach an emotional support animal, a non-dog animal, or a mental impairment.
The Assistance Animal Integrity Act supplies the procedure, and it names community associations: a “housing provider” expressly includes a “condominium board, condominium association, cooperative, or related entity” (§ 120/5).
The rule most boards get wrong: documentation may be required “only if the disability or disability-related need is not readily apparent or known to the housing provider” (§ 120/10(a)). There is no general right to demand paperwork.
The rule most owners get wrong: a “therapeutic relationship” “does not include an entity that issues a certificate, license, or similar document that purports to confirm, without conducting a meaningful assessment” of the disability or the need (§ 120/5). An online certificate bought without an assessment does not satisfy the Act.
And the money rule is absolute: no pet deposit, pet fee or pet assessment, “even if the housing provider allows pets and requires pet owners to pay such costs”, and no requirement to buy special liability insurance (§ 120/10(f)). Actual damage may still be charged, on the same terms as any other resident’s.
The Environmental Barriers Act is a building-code statute, and it names your building type. “Multi-story housing” is defined as “any building of 4 or more stories containing 10 or more dwelling units constructed to be held out for sale or lease by any person to the public”, and the definition “includes, but is not limited to… apartment buildings, condominium buildings, convents, housing for the elderly, and monasteries” (§ 410 ILCS 25/3).
What it requires of new construction. For multi-story housing begun after 1 May 1988, “[t]wenty percent of the dwelling units in the multi-story housing shall be adaptable and the adaptable units shall be distributed throughout the multi-story housing to provide a variety of sizes and locations” — and “all common and public use spaces shall be in compliance with the Code” (§ 25/5(a)(2)). On alteration, “[n]o alteration shall be undertaken that decreases or has the effect of decreasing accessibility or usability” below the new-construction requirement (§ 25/5(b)).
It is not advisory. The Act with the Illinois Accessibility Code “has the force of a building code and as such is law in the State of Illinois”, and “[a]ny violation of the Code is deemed a violation of this Act” (§ 25/5(a)(5)). Enforcement runs through the Attorney General, who may investigate, issue subpoenas, and bring an action for an injunction to halt construction or compel compliance (§ 25/6). And § 25/8 makes these minimum requirements — a municipality, including a home rule unit, may demand more.
Where it sits next to the rest. This is a design-and-construction duty on the building, not an accommodation duty on the board. Your board’s accommodation duties are § 5/3-102.1(C)(2) of the Human Rights Act, § 605/18.4(q) and § 605/18.12 of the Condominium Property Act, and the Assistance Animal Integrity Act for animals.
It depends entirely on which kind of community you are. The Condominium Property Act has no size exemption at all — it applies “to all condominiums in this State”. A two-unit condominium is inside it in full.
Only CICAA has a size exemption, and even there the association must also be organized under the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986 for § 1-75(a) to apply. An unincorporated common interest community is not exempt at any size.
No. Where a request qualifies, the Ombudsperson “shall… confer with the interested parties and assist in efforts to resolve the dispute by mutual agreement of the parties” — and then, in terms, “The Ombudsperson shall assist only opposing parties who mutually agree to participate in dispute resolution”.
This is facilitation, not adjudication. If the association declines to take part, the Ombudsperson Act gives no power to compel it, decide the dispute or enforce anything, and § 615/65 preserves State immunity. The route also opens only after you have used your association’s own § 35 complaint policy and received a decision marked “final”.
Check whether a licence is required first. Under § 427/20(a) no licence is needed by a director or officer serving without compensation, or by any person providing manager services “to a community association of 10 units or less”, or by a lawyer acting incident to practice.
And if a licence is required, the remedy is a complaint to the Department, not a lawsuit: “Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed to grant to any person a private right of action to enforce the provisions of this Act or the rules adopted under this Act” (§ 427/162). The Act does expressly provide one court route: where a person manages without a valid licence, § 427/90(b) lets “any licensee, any interested party, or any person injured thereby” petition for an injunction alongside the Secretary. See the CAM Act page.
Illinois protects more. A real estate transaction is protected against “unlawful discrimination, familial status, immigration status, source of income, or an arrest record” (§ 5/3-102) — and “unlawful discrimination” is defined to cover a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, order of protection status, disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, reproductive health decisions, or unfavorable discharge from military service.
“Source of income” — defined as “the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents” — is the one that comes up most, and it has no counterpart in the federal list. Check the federal statute directly before relying on that comparison. See the Human Rights Act page.
In a condominium, yes by default — every budget adopted since 1 July 1990 must provide “reasonable reserves for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance”, weighing five listed factors. But an association whose instruments carry no reserve requirement may waive them in whole or part by a vote of two-thirds of the total votes, and a waiver must then be disclosed in the financial statements and, highlighted in bold print, in the § 22.1 resale disclosure.
In a common interest community there is no such requirement at all. CICAA requires the budget to show what is intended for reserves and requires any reserve study to be kept — but nothing in it requires reserves to be funded.
Not in Illinois, on at least five separate provisions. A condominium instrument inconsistent with the Condominium Property Act is “void as against public policy and ineffective” — and “instrument” includes the bylaws and plat, not just the declaration.
On board powers and on records the Act goes further still: an instrument that omits what §§ 18.4 and 19 require “shall be deemed to incorporate such provisions by operation of law”. A declaration that conflicts with the solar Act is void too (§ 165/20(c)), and a covenant restricting occupancy by race, color, religion or national origin is void under § 5/3-105.
General information, not legal advice. Statutory references are to the Illinois Compiled Statutes as published by the Illinois General Assembly and may not reflect the most recent amendments.