How to Use Modern Security Tools Without Violating Residents’ Privacy Rights

Security technology has become increasingly accessible to homeowners’ associations. Video surveillance systems, door and gate cameras, automated license plate readers, and drones can help associations monitor common areas, investigate property damage, document maintenance conditions, and address legitimate security concerns.

But the ability to collect more information does not automatically mean an HOA should collect it. For California associations, security technology raises an important governance question: How can a board protect the community without unnecessarily intruding on residents’ privacy?

The answer begins with purpose, restraint, transparency, and clear policies. Security tools should address an identifiable association need, not create continuous surveillance simply because the technology is available. Boards also need to understand that different technologies can trigger different legal requirements.

As surveillance technology becomes more sophisticated, associations should establish their rules before installing equipment or collecting data.

Can an HOA Install Security Cameras in Common Areas?

Generally, California HOAs may install video surveillance cameras in common areas where individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras might appropriately monitor community entrances, parking areas, mail areas, pools, clubhouses, gates, or other common facilities when there is a legitimate security or operational reason for doing so.

The important distinction is where the camera is pointed and what it can capture.

California law protects people from certain forms of invasive recording in places where privacy can reasonably be expected. A camera should not be positioned to look into the interior of a residence or monitor private areas such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or similar locations. California Penal Code Section 647(j) specifically addresses the use of cameras, electronic devices, and unmanned aircraft systems to view certain private spaces with the intent to invade someone’s privacy.

For an HOA, good camera placement therefore involves more than finding the widest possible viewing angle. The association should determine exactly what needs to be monitored and configure cameras accordingly.

For example, a camera installed to monitor a community gate may have a legitimate security purpose. A camera that also provides a detailed view through the windows of a nearby residence creates a very different privacy issue.

Audio Recording Creates Additional Concerns

Boards should also distinguish between video surveillance and audio recording.

California has strong protections for confidential communications. Penal Code Section 632 generally prohibits intentionally recording confidential communication without the consent of all parties when the participants have an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is private.

This makes audio-enabled security cameras potentially more complicated than video-only systems.

Many modern cameras include microphones by default. Boards may purchase equipment believing they are installing a conventional security camera without realizing that the system can also record conversations.

Before activating any camera system, the association should determine whether audio recording is enabled, whether it is necessary, and whether its use complies with California law. In many situations, disabling unnecessary audio recording can significantly reduce privacy concerns.

What About Drones?

Drones introduce another layer of complexity because their operation is governed by federal aviation rules while their cameras can also raise state privacy concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration regulates drone operations in the national airspace. Importantly, the FAA distinguishes between recreational flights and non-recreational operations.

An HOA using a drone for roof inspections, maintenance documentation, property photography, enforcement activities, or other association business generally should not assume that the flight qualifies as recreational simply because the association is a nonprofit organization or because the operator is not being paid.

The FAA states that almost all non-recreational drone operations involving small drones fall under Part 107. Roof inspections are specifically identified by the FAA as an example of a non-recreational operation.

Part 107 operations can involve requirements concerning pilot certification, registration, airspace authorization, operating conditions, flights over people or moving vehicles, and other safety rules. Drones that are required to be registered generally must also comply with the FAA’s Remote ID requirements.

For this reason, associations considering drones for inspections or other business purposes should use properly qualified operators and confirm that vendors carry appropriate insurance.

Drone Compliance Does Not Eliminate Privacy Obligations

FAA compliance answers questions about whether and how a drone can legally operate in the airspace. It does not give an HOA unrestricted authority to photograph private activity.

The FAA itself notes that it does not regulate privacy and that state and local privacy laws may apply to drone operations.

California Civil Code Section 1708.8 creates potential liability when someone knowingly enters another person’s land or airspace without permission, or otherwise commits a trespass, to capture an image, recording, or other physical impression of a person engaged in private, personal, or family activity when the invasion would be offensive to a reasonable person.

This distinction is especially important when boards consider using drones for rule enforcement.

Using a drone to inspect an association-owned clubhouse roof is considerably different from sending a drone over private backyards to search for possible violations.

Even when an association has legitimate enforcement responsibilities, boards should consult association counsel before using aerial surveillance to investigate areas residents would reasonably consider private.

License Plate Readers Require Special Attention

Another technology becoming increasingly common in private communities is the automated license plate reader, often referred to as an ALPR. These systems can photograph license plates and create searchable records of vehicles entering or leaving a community. That capability can assist with security investigations, but it also creates a database of residents, visitors, vendors, and vehicle movements.

California law specifically regulates the collection and handling of ALPR information.

Associations using this technology may be required to implement reasonable security safeguards and maintain a written usage and privacy policy describing how the information is collected, accessed, protected, retained, shared, and eventually destroyed. This issue has become particularly relevant in 2026. Recent California litigation has reinforced the importance of complying with ALPR privacy-policy requirements, while communities are also confronting questions about where these cameras can legally be installed.

The practical lesson for HOA boards is straightforward: a license plate reader should not be treated as just another security camera. Before installation, the board should have legal counsel review the proposed system, installation location, vendor agreement, data-storage practices, access permissions, retention period, and required privacy policy.

Security Data Needs Its Own Governance

Installing the equipment is only the beginning. Boards also need to decide what happens to the information the equipment collects.

Without a written policy, associations can quickly encounter difficult questions:

• Who is permitted to view recorded footage?
• Can individual directors access recordings from their phones?
• Can management personnel search recordings?
• When can homeowners request footage?
• When should footage be provided to law enforcement?
• How long should recordings be retained?
• Who can download or copy a recording?
• Where is surveillance data stored?
• Does the security vendor have access to the information?
• What happens to stored data when the vendor contract ends?

These questions should be answered before an incident occurs.

Security recordings can also become relevant evidence in litigation. Associations should therefore avoid informal practices in which directors, committee members, residents, or employees casually browse surveillance footage. Access should be limited to people with an appropriate reason to view the information.

Avoid Collecting More Information Than the HOA Needs

A useful principle for HOA boards is data minimization. If the association needs a camera to monitor vehicles entering a gate, it does not necessarily need facial recognition, continuous audio recording, long-term cloud storage, or unrestricted searching capabilities.

If a drone is needed to inspect a roof, the flight can be planned around the roof inspection rather than capturing extensive footage of surrounding private property. If security footage only needs to be retained for a reasonable period, storing years of recordings may create unnecessary privacy, cybersecurity, storage, and legal exposure.

More data does not always produce better security. Sometimes it simply creates more information that the association must protect.

Residents Should Know What the Association Is Doing

Transparency can prevent many disputes surrounding surveillance.

Even where signage or advance consent may not be legally required for ordinary video surveillance in common areas, notifying residents can still be a sound governance practice. Residents should not discover unexpectedly that their association has been recording a community entrance for six months or collecting license plate information.

Boards should clearly explain:

1. Why the technology is being installed.
2. What areas will be monitored.
3. What information will be collected.
4. Whether audio is recorded.
5. Who can access the information.
6. How long information will be retained.
7. Under what circumstances information may be shared.
8. How residents can raise privacy or security concerns.

Clear communication helps residents understand that the association has established boundaries around the technology rather than creating an open-ended surveillance program.

Personal Cameras and Drones Can Also Become HOA Issues

Privacy concerns do not only involve association-owned equipment. Homeowners increasingly have doorbell cameras, exterior security systems, vehicle cameras, and personal drones. These devices can create disputes when they capture neighboring property, common areas, private conversations, or activity inside another residence.

Associations should avoid becoming the automatic referee for every disagreement involving a homeowner’s camera. The board’s authority depends on the governing documents, applicable law, the location of the equipment, and the specific circumstances. However, communities may benefit from reasonable rules addressing exterior equipment, installation standards, common-area attachments, nuisance concerns, and recreational drone use.

Any new rule should be reviewed by association counsel to ensure that it falls within the HOA’s authority and does not conflict with federal, state, or local law.

Security Technology Should Not Create a False Promise of Safety

Another concern is the expectation created by surveillance systems. Installing cameras does not mean the association can guarantee residents’ personal security. Cameras can malfunction, fail to capture an incident, provide an obstructed image, or simply record an event without preventing it.

Associations should avoid making statements suggesting that common-area surveillance guarantees protection.

The purpose of a security system should be clearly defined. Depending on the community, cameras may deter some activity, document incidents, assist investigations, or help management monitor association property. They are one component of a broader risk-management strategy, not a substitute for reasonable personal precautions or law enforcement.

Boards should also maintain the equipment they install. A camera that has been inoperative for months provides little value and can create confusion about the security measures residents believe are in place.

A Practical Approach for HOA Boards

Before adopting new surveillance technology, boards should slow the process down enough to answer several basic questions.

First, identify the problem. Is the community experiencing repeated vandalism, vehicle theft, gate damage, trespassing, package theft, or another documented concern?

Second, determine whether the proposed technology actually addresses that problem.

Third, evaluate what information the system collects beyond what the association needs.

Fourth, determine which federal, California, and local requirements apply. This is particularly important with drones and automated license plate readers.

Fifth, review the vendor. The board should understand licensing or certification requirements, insurance coverage, cybersecurity protections, data ownership, subcontractors, cloud storage, retention practices, and what happens to the association’s information when the contract ends.

Finally, establish written policies governing access, retention, disclosure, maintenance, and acceptable use before the technology becomes operational.

Finding the Balance Between Security and Privacy

Residents have legitimate expectations that their HOA will reasonably protect common property and respond to security concerns. They also have legitimate expectations that the association will not unnecessarily monitor their private lives. Those responsibilities do not have to conflict.

The most effective approach is not maximum surveillance. It is appropriate surveillance, used for a clearly defined purpose, limited to what the association actually needs, protected from unauthorized access, and governed by written policies. As cameras, drones, license plate readers, and other monitoring technologies continue to advance, HOA boards will face increasingly sophisticated choices. The technology itself should not make those decisions for the community.

A knowledgeable HOA management partner can help boards evaluate operational needs, coordinate with security vendors and legal counsel, establish appropriate procedures, and communicate clearly with residents. With thoughtful planning and consistent oversight, associations can use modern security tools while maintaining the privacy, accountability, and trust that well-managed communities depend on.

This article provides general information for California community associations and is not legal advice. Associations considering surveillance technology, drone operations, automated license plate readers, or privacy policies should consult qualified association counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

Contact Silvercreek for more information.