Window Color. Owner replaced windows in their condominium with "sandtone" colored windows knowing the color was not allowed and after the association denied their application on grounds they were not an approved color. The court ordered the owner to comply with the association's color scheme and awarded attorneys' fees to the HOA.  Chapala Management v. Stanton.


Setbacks. Boards cannot approve setback requirements that conflict with the CC&Rs. Ticor Title v. Rancho Santa Fe.

Wood Deck & Hot Tub. An owner built a deck and hot tub in an easement area. He did so with the permission of the architectural committee but in violation of a CC&R prohibition. The board ordered their removal. The owner refused, even though the association offered to pay for the removal.The court concluded that the owner violated the express prohibition in the CC&Rs and the architectural committee did not have the authority to approve a violation of the CC&Rs. Woodridge v. Nielsen.


ARC Guidelines. If empowering language is provided in the CC&Rs, architectural committees may adopt standards beyond those set forth in the CC&Rs. Bear Creek v. Ferwerda.

Subjective Criteria. Architectural committees can use both objective and subjective criteria when reviewing submittals. Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe.

Clarifications. Associations can clarify in their architectural guidelines any ambiguous provisions contained in their CC&Rs. Rancho Santa Fe v. Dolan-King.

CC&R Prohibitions. Architectural committees cannot approve submittals that clearly violate the CC&Rs. Woodridge v. Nielsen (wooden deck in an easement).


Five Years. The statute of limitations for violation of a CC&R provision or a rule is 5 years from the time the board discovers the violation or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the violation. Code Civ. Proc. §336(b); Pacific Hills HOA v. Prun.
 

No Statutory Right to View. Absent a specific provision in an association's CC&Rs, Californians have no right to air, light or an unobstructed view (Pacifica HOA v. Wesley Palms) because of the chilling effect such protections have on real estate development.

Unreasonable Interference. Trial courts do not consider deprivation of a view, per se, as an injury. They consider the total effect of the encroachment and specifically whether it constitutes an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's rights under the CC&Rs. Posey v. Leavitt.

In Zabrucky v. McAdams, owners sued their neighbor over a one-story addition to their home claiming a violation of the association's view restriction. The court ruled against the plaintiffs holding that the CC&Rs did not prohibit all view obstructions--only unreasonable obstructions.

Tree Trimming. In Ekstrom v Marquesa, the CC&Rs had a CC&R provision that protected views by requiring all trees be trimmed so they not exceed the height of the house on the lot. The board exempted palm trees because trimming them would kill them. An owner sued and the court found that the restriction was clear and unambiguous, and the board's actions were inconsistent with that provision. The trees had to be trimmed.

Second Story. In Clear Lake Riviera v. Cramer, a homeowner who knowingly built a home in violation of the association’s height restrictions was ordered to comply with the HOA guidelines, even though reducing the height of the house would be expensive.