Case Law: Use Restrictions

  • Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association v. Carson
    (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761
    [Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] Where both sides achieved some positive net effect as a result of the court’s ruling, a prevailing party determination is made by comparing the practical effect of the relief attained by each; After resolving the issue of prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents, a trial court has ...
  • Colony Hill v. Ghamaty
    (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1156
    [Rent Restrictions; Single-Family Use] A “single-family” use restriction in the association’s CC&Rs could prohibit an owner from renting portions of his unit to separate, unrelated individuals that did not have any pre-existing or ‘familial’-type relationship with each other. Such a restriction did not violate the owner’s rights of privacy under the California Constitution.
  • Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Association
    (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007
    [Enforcement; Standing to Sue] A prior owner of a unit within an association does not have standing to enforce the CC&Rs.
  • Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Association v. Seith
    (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 472
    [CC&R Amendments; Real Estate Signs] Court upheld lender consent requirement for CC&R amendment, rather than lender vote; Real estate signs may be regulated for aesthetic purposes and may be prohibited from being posted in HOA common areas.
  • Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Association
    (2001) 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336
    [Freedom of Speech; Private Property] Actions of a private property owner constitute state action for purposes of California’s free speech clause only if the property is freely and openly accessible to the public.
  • Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Association
    (2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 1128
    [Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Pre-Litigation] Pre-litigation attorney’s fees that are incurred in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are recoverable by the prevailing party in subsequent ligation.
  • Ironwood Owners Association IX v. Solomon
    (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766
    [Architectural Control; Enforcement] A HOA must show that it has followed its own standards and procedures when taking action to enforce violations of its governing documents.
  • Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club
    (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1600
    [Operating Rules; Non-Resident Use] A HOA may create and enforce a rule excluding non-resident owners from use of the HOA’s common area recreational facilities.
  • Mission Shores Association v. Pheil
    (2008) 83 Cal.App.4th 789
    [Amendments to CC&Rs; Rent Restriction] An amendment to the CC&Rs which empowered the HOA to evict tenants who violate the CC&Rs was held to be reasonable.
  • Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc.
    (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 361
    [Governing Documents; Use Restrictions] CC&R restrictions are presumed reasonable, and are enforceable unless they are arbitrary, impose burdens on the use of land that outweigh their benefits, or violate public policy.
  • Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun
    (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1557
    [Architectural Control; Statute of Limitations] The 5 year statute of limitations under Code Civ. Pro. § 336 applies to both recorded restrictions as well as unrecorded restrictions such as architectural guidelines.
  • Parrott v. Mooring Townhomes Association
    (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 873
    [Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] The court found the Association to be the prevailing party and awarded its attorney fees after homeowners filed a request for dismissal of complaint.
  • Posey v. Leavitt
    (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1236
    [Restrictions; Duty to Enforce] A homeowner has the right to sue the HOA to compel the HOA to uphold its duty to enforce the restrictions.
  • Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association v. Hazelbaker
    (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252
    [Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Settlement Agreement] An action to enforce a settlement agreement reached between a HOA and an owner through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) was held to be an action to enforce the governing documents entitling the prevailing party to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code § 5975.
  • Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Association
    (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 688
    [Use Restrictions; Nuisances] A HOA has the power to issue reasonable regulations governing an owner’s use of his unit in order to prevent activities which might prove annoying to the general residents.
  • Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifaj
    (2004) 33 Cal.4th 73
    [CC&R Amendments; Binding Effect] CC&R amendments enacted by homeowners are accorded the same presumption of reasonableness as those imposed by developer; CC&R amendments are binding against both current and future homeowners.
  • Ward v. Superior Court
    (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 60
    [Enforcement; Recorded Notice of Noncompliance] An association is not legally authorized to record a notice of noncompliance in response to a member’s violation of the CC&Rs.
  • Watts v. Oak Shores Community Association
    (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 466
    [Operating Rules; Rental Activities; Board Deference] Homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on members relating to short-term rentals of condominium units.