"Use restrictions are an inherent part of any common interest development and are crucial to the stable, planned environment of any shared ownership arrangement. Use restrictions contained in a recorded declaration are afforded a presumption of validity and are enforced unless found unreasonable under a deferential standard. While use restrictions outside the declaration are not afforded the same presumption of validity, they are nonetheless enforced unless they fail a straight reasonableness test." Clear Lake v. Cramer.

Restrictions contained in CC&Rs are presumed reasonable and will be enforced uniformly against all association members unless the restrictions are arbitrary, impose burdens on the property that substantially outweigh the restriction's benefits to the development's residents or violate a fundamental public policy. Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village.

A restriction contained in CC&Rs will be enforced unless it violates public policy, it bears no rational relationship to the protection, preservation, operation, or purpose of the affected land, or it otherwise imposes burdens on the affected land that are so disproportionate to the restriction's beneficial effects that the restriction should not be enforced. Use restrictions are enforceable unless unreasonable. Lamden v. La Jolla Shores.

CC&R provisions are presumptively valid and the burden of proving otherwise rests on the challenging owner. Villa De Las Palmas v. Terifaj.

Wen an association seeks to enforce its CC&Rs to compel an act by one of its owners, the association must show that it has followed its own standards and procedures prior to pursuing such a remedy, that those procedures were fair and reasonable, and that its substantive decision was made in good faith, and is responsible, not arbitrary or capricious. Ironwood v. Solomon.

Also see Liebler v. Point Loma and Rancho Santa Fe v. Dolan-King.