Colorado legislators are once again advancing legislation they say will address the state’s need for affordable housing. With an abundance of vacant and underutilized land currently restricted from use for residential developments, lawmakers argue that reducing local zoning barriers will expand the availability of housing across the state.

Arguments in Favor of the Proposed Legislation:

House Bill 26-1001 (“HB26-1001”) aims to allow construction of residential developments on qualifying properties, subject to a simplified administrative approval process. Introduced on the first day of the legislative session, HB26-1001 represents legislators’ continued commitment to securing its passage after last year’s proposal (“HB25-1169”) was unsuccessful.

As proposed this session, qualifying properties include property that is no larger than five acres and is owned by:

  1. a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing or providing public transit;
  2. a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property;
  3. a school district;
  4. a state college or university;
  5. a housing authority; or
  6. a transit authority serving one or more counties.

This notable shift from HB25-1169, which focused on eligibility for faith-based organizations, schools, and universities, represents an effort to expand the scope of qualifying properties while reducing the potential for political opposition.

According to the Democrats in support of HB26-1001, local zoning ordinances often prevent housing from being developed on vacant land by requiring an extensive rezoning process that adds unnecessary costs and uncertainty to affordable housing projects. Pursuant to the language of HB26-1001, local governments must allow qualifying properties to proceed with their residential development after an administrative review with objective criteria instead of requiring developers to go through the typical rezoning approval procedures, which generally include public hearings and discretionary approval standards from planning commissions.

At the House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee (“Committee”) hearing on February 3, 2026, Democrats argued that public participation in residential rezoning processes is overwhelmingly oppositional and that such community opposition and restrictive land use regulations limit the overall housing supply as developers are more likely to abandon projects that are subject to a discretionary review process.

Opposition and Concerns:

HB26-1001 highlights the tension between a local government’s authority to regulate land use and the state’s authority to preempt such regulations.

The Colorado Municipal League (“CML”) argues that local governments are best suited to meet the unique land use needs of their community through a transparent public process, and that by requiring a local government to ignore its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, the Colorado legislature ignores the importance of community engagement in local governance.

At the Committee hearing, CML argued that a developer’s ability to construct housing that is inconsistent with the uses of the surrounding area could constitute impermissible spot zoning. Further, opponents worry that the legislature’s attempt to preempt local control by allowing developers to bypass local zoning requirements could potentially violate the powers reserved to municipal governments under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.

Legislative Status:

HB26-1001 passed in the House of Representatives on the Third Reading with a 35-24 vote on February 6, 2026.

Although HB26-1001 could lead to an expansion of Colorado’s housing supply, it faces steep challenges as it heads to the Senate Local Government & Housing Committee on March 4, 2026, where further debate and amendments will likely occur.

Track the progress of HB26-1001 here.

On January 20, 2026, the White House issued an Executive Order titled Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers that aims to address concerns about large institutional investors acquiring single-family homes.

The order lays out a clear policy objective: to preserve the supply of single-family homes for families and individual owner-occupants, reframing the federal government’s role in the housing market accordingly. That statement resonates with a long-standing public concern—particularly among first-time homebuyers—about competition in the marketplace for the limited supply of homes. However, the statement also raises legitimate concerns among investors that changes to governmental policies could negatively impact existing investments and deprive them of new investment opportunities.

A few elements of the order bear watching from a real estate perspective:

  • Definitions will matter. The Treasury Secretary is required to define “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” within 30 days. How these terms are drafted will shape the scope of any implementing guidance. How those terms are drafted could determine whether the order meaningfully affects only a small number of large, national portfolios or instead reaches a much broader swath of investment activity, including regional and mid-sized operators.
  • The order’s immediate effect is procedural, not prescriptive. Much of Section 3 directs federal agencies to issue guidance on how their programs and activities will align with the policy—specifically, to discourage federal support (e.g., financing, guarantees, or asset disposition) that could facilitate institutional purchases of homes that might otherwise be available to individual buyers. At this stage, there are no direct prohibitions on private market transactions between buyers and sellers.
  • There are carve-outs and nuances. The text explicitly contemplates exceptions for build-to-rent properties developed as rental communities, which suggests that new construction targeted at the rental market may be treated differently than acquisitions in the existing housing stock.
  • Beyond guidance: antitrust and legislative steps. The order also directs reviews by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission of large institutional investor activity for potential anti-competitive effects, and it tasks White House staff with preparing legislative recommendations to codify the underlying policy.

As a threshold matter, it bears noting that an Executive Order does not itself create binding law; its practical impact depends on subsequent agency rulemaking, enforcement posture, and—where necessary—congressional action. Taken together, these provisions underscore that the real test will come in the implementation—in definitions, agency guidance, and whether legislative action follows. For practitioners and investors, the early takeaway is that this Executive Order signals a shift in federal housing policy emphasis, but the concrete effects on markets and transactions are still unfolding.

On October 1, 2025, House Bill 25-1043 (the “House Bill”) went into effect.  The House Bill is a comprehensive bill that requires most owners’ associations (“HOAs”) that are subject to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to update their governing documents, adjust collection policies and provide certain additional information to the Division of Real Estate (“DRE”) upon the HOA’s registration or renewal.  This post is a brief overview of the House Bill; for more information on the House Bill, please contact Otten Johnson, or visit the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies HOA Information.

Pursuant to C.R.S Section 38-33.3-117(1.5)(c), all HOAs created in Colorado must have a policy concerning the collection of unpaid assessments.  The House Bill requires additional information to be added to the HOA’s unpaid assessment collection policies. 

The House Bill mandates that at least 30 days prior to initiating a foreclosure action to recover money owed to the HOA, the HOA must send the applicable unit owner notice (in written and electronic format) that includes the following information:

  1. An advisement that the unit owner may request a copy of the HOA’s ledger verifying the amount owed, together with the name and contact information for the individual the unit owner may contact to request such a copy.  The notice must also advise that, if requested, a copy of the ledger must be sent to the unit owner no later than seven business days after the request.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to provide a copy of the ledger within seven business days of a unit owner’s request.
  2. An advisement that action is required to cure the delinquency and that failure to cure the delinquency within 30 days could result in the HOA filing a lien and instituting foreclosure action which could result in the sale of the unit at auction and the unit owner losing some or all of the unit owner’s equity in the unit.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to inform unit owners that their unit could be sold at auction.
  3. An advisement on the availability of, and instructions on how to access, free online information through the HOA Information and Resource Center created in C.R.S. Section 12-10-801(1) relating to the collection of assessments by an HOA and the availability of online information from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning credit counseling before foreclosure that may be accessed through a link on the Colorado Department of Local Affairs website.  The notice must also include information on what credit counseling may entail for the unit owner and the kind of services that credit counseling could include.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to provide this information on credit counseling.

Notably, prior to the House Bill, HOAs were required only to substantially comply with CCIOA’s assessment and foreclosure requirements in order to avail itself of remedies against delinquent owners.  Now, after the House Bill, HOAs are required to strictly comply with CCIOA’s assessment and foreclosure requirements.  This means that HOAs need to be particularly careful in drafting their governing documents and initiating action against a unit owner for unpaid amounts.  If a court finds that the HOA has not strictly complied with CCIOA, the HOA risks a court staying foreclosure proceedings to allow the HOA to come into strict compliance and/or not granting the HOA certain remedies available to it under CCIOA.  During the stay period, the HOA is not permitted to assess or accrue late fees, interests, or other delinquency charges against a unit owner.

The House Bill also requires that, as a part of an HOA’s annual registration, an HOA must submit the following information:

  1. The number of unit owners that are six or more months delinquent in the payment of assessments during the preceding 12-month period;
  2. The number of judgements obtained against unit owners; and
  3. The number of foreclosure actions filed by the HOA.

Otten Johnson attorneys have assisted several HOAs with updating their governing documents and are happy to discuss the House Bill in more detail.

To address the housing shortage in Colorado, Governor Jared Polis signed Executive Order D 2025 005 (“EO”). This EO, among other things, directs state agencies to determine whether Local Governments are compliant with recently passed strategic growth laws when awarding certain discretionary funding opportunities. To learn more about the EO, visit our recent blog post here.

On June 30, 2025, the Department of Local Affairs (“DOLA”) published their Compliance Guidelines. The guidelines provide the framework and criteria that will be used to determine each Local Government’s compliance status with HB24-1007, HB24-1152, HB24-1304, HB24-1313, SB24-174, HB25-1273, and SB25-002 (collectively, the “Strategic Growth Legislation”). As directed by the EO, DOLA published a comprehensive list (the “Compliance Dashboard”) on October 6, 2025, categorizing the Local Governments subject to the Strategic Growth Legislation as compliant, compliance-in-progress, or non-compliant with respect to each of the bills. In addition, $58 million was appropriated by the General Assembly to assist local governments in their efforts to become compliant.

DOLA has since reported a high rate of compliance and compliance-in-progress among Local Governments. In particular, 60% of Local Governments are in compliance, and 9% are in compliance-in-progress with HB24-1313 (incentivizing housing in transit-oriented communities). According to DOLA, the status of compliance-in-progress indicates that while the Local Government may not have met all the requirements of the Strategic Growth Legislation, a good faith effort to comply in a timely manner was made. In assessing whether a good faith effort has been made, DOLA considers the following factors: whether Local Governments have made use of DOLA guidance and templates; whether they are engaging with DOLA staff in receiving such guidance; and whether they have or are in the process of establishing mutually acceptable alternative timelines to meet the compliance standards.

Although compliance with SB24-174 (comprehensive plan to address sustainable affordable housing) is not due until December 31, 2026, sixty-seven Local Governments are already in compliance. Twenty-eight of those are in compliance by voluntarily participation, meaning that they are not subject to the requirements of SB24-174 but have chosen to follow the Compliance Guidelines in an effort to receive priority for funding programs that support local strategic growth work.

In contrast, DOLA saw the lowest levels of compliance with the requirements of HB24-1152 (accessory dwelling units). With only 9% of Local Governments currently listed as compliant and 73% listed as compliance-in-progress, there is still work to be done, but the high levels of participation indicate a willingness to work with DOLA in achieving satisfactory compliance.

There are currently 34 funding opportunities across multiple agencies that may be impacted by a Local Government’s compliance status. Notably, non-compliance with the Strategic Growth Legislation does not expressly prevent Local Governments from being eligible for these funding opportunities. Rather, Polis has stated that DOLA’s determinations will serve as a factor in grant prioritization.

DOLA’s Compliance Dashboard can be found here and will be updated quarterly in accordance with the requirements of the EO.

After several years of high sublease activity, Denver’s office market is showing signs of stabilization.  According to Cushman & Wakefield’s Q3 2025 Denver Office MarketBeat, total sublease availability in Metro Denver in Q3 2025 declined by 2.5% from Q2 and 5.4% year-over-year.  While overall vacancy remains high at 26%, this represents a meaningful slowdown in sublease listings since 2022.  The slowdown reflects a combination of expiring leases, direct leases replacing sublet space, and a modest return of corporate office demand.

Nationally, similar patterns are emerging.  Microsoft’s recent decision to pull approximately 480,000 square feet off the sublease market near its Redmond, Washington, campus after implementing a stricter in-office work policy highlights a potential reversal among large tenants.[1]  Similar mandates at Amazon, Google, and Salesforce, reflect a broad reassessment of workplace strategy that could ripple through markets like Denver.

For Denver landlords, this shift presents an opportunity to refine lease provisions that define who truly controls the space when corporate needs shift.

  1. Recapture Rights.  Recapture rights remain one of the most effective tools for landlords managing sublease requests.  By maintaining the ability to reclaim all or part of the space proposed for sublease, landlords can re-lease directly to a new tenant at current market rates, protect overall building value, and prevent below-market sublease deals from setting unfavorable comparables.
  2. Renewal Options.  Landlords should structure renewal options to ensure they are personal to the original tenant and do not automatically transfer to a subtenant or assignee without landlord’s consent.  As tenants sublease or reorganize portions of their space, these renewal clauses can become points of contention.  Limiting renewal rights to the original tenant allows landlords to reassess creditworthiness, market rent, and space utilization before committing to another term.
  3. Early Termination.  Landlords should take a close look at early termination provisions.  As hybrid work policies continue to evolve, tenants increasingly request termination flexibility, but these clauses must be drafted with precision.  Clear notice periods, termination fees, and restoration requirements help ensure that landlords are compensated for lost rent and that returned premises are in marketable condition.

Collectively, these three provisions can significantly influence a landlord’s ability to manage risk and capture upside in a changing leasing environment.  As Denver’s office market moves from contraction toward gradual stabilization, landlords who approach lease negotiations with this strategic mindset will be better positioned to protect asset value and respond quickly to the next market shift.

[1] https://www.costar.com/article/1777421789/microsoft-pulls-sublease-listings-as-it-ramps-up-office-requirements