No Statutory Right to a 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; Posey v. Leavitt) Dictionary definitions of "view" are broad.
- Black's Law Dictionary: "the outlook or prospect from the windows of one's house."
- Dictionary.com: "View is a general word, referring to whatever lies open to sight: a fine view of the surrounding country. Prospect suggests a sweeping and often distant view, as from a place of vantage: a beautiful prospect to the south."
CC&R View Protections. Many CC&Rs include language giving the architectural committee or the board authority to determine when an obstruction is unreasonable. To define a view, associations must start with their governing documents. View protection language in CC&Rs is never precise. The following two provisions are typical: "...nor shall any tree, shrub, or other landscaping be planted or any structures erected that may at present or in the future obstruct the view from any other lot..." "No tree, shrub, or other landscaping shall be planted or any structures erected that may unreasonably obstruct the view from any other lot."
Unreasonable Definition. The lower court in Ekstrom v. Marquesa (2008) adopted an expansive definition of a view: "a view of the ocean or neighboring golf course visible in any direction from anywhere on a homeowner's lot, inside or outside one's house." It defined obstruct " as "to block from sight or be in the way of (and thus even one palm frond would block some portion of a view), and the term (view) means that which is visible to the naked eye while standing, sitting or lying down anywhere in one's home, or anywhere on one's lot, looking in any direction one wishes." The appellate court did not address the lower court's definition of "view" but instead addressed palm trees and the enforcement of the CC&Rs. The superior court's overly expansive definition of a view has not been adopted by other courts.
Unreasonable View 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 the 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 ones.
Tree Trimming. In Ekstrom v Marquesa, the CC&Rs had a provision that protected views by requiring all trees to be trimmed so they do 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 the restriction unambiguous and the board's actions 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. (See also Seligman v. Tucker, "unreasonably obstruct" is not too vague to be enforceable.)
SLAPP Motion. In Colyear v. Rolling Hills, Colyear sued a neighbor who asked the association to protect his views from Colyear's trees. The court dismissed Colyear's lawsuit, concluding his neighbor's conduct was protected because view protections were of general concern to homeowners in the community.
View Protection Cases
Following are some cases where various view disputes were addressed:
Brilliant v. Mulholland Estates Homeowners Ass'n (2026 unpublished). Homeowner sued his HOA and downhill neighbors for breach of contract, alleging that overgrown trees obstructed their view in violation of the CC&Rs and landscape guidelines. The trial court dismissed the case because the CC&Rs did not provide an express right to an unobstructed view. On appeal, the court agreed that a right to an unobstructed view does not exist under the governing documents. However, it reversed the dismissal because of a provision that landscaping was “not to achieve a shape or density approaching that of a barrier.” The court held that the case should not have been dismissed at the demurrer stage since that contract provision was “reasonably susceptible” to the meaning alleged by the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff interpreted the landscape guidelines as imposing a duty on downhill neighbors to prune or otherwise manage their trees so they do not grow into a continuous wall-like obstruction. The appellate court noted that the landscape guidelines also granted the HOA the power to require the pruning or removal of trees and shrubs, suggesting there was a clear recourse if foliage grows to a size or shape that becomes problematic. Thus, the guidelines could be interpreted as a duty to prevent foliage from becoming a barrier.
Davis v. Irvine Terrace Community Ass'n (2021 unpublished). Plaintiffs sued for allowing a neighbor to rebuild or modify their existing home in a manner that blocked plaintiffs’ views. Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Association’s CC&Rs guaranteed a right to an unimpaired view. The recitals state that the purpose of the CC&Rs is to enhance and protect the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the tracts. The section on architectural control states that alterations to lots must be in harmony with surrounding structures. A provision on landscaping gives the ARC the right to require any member to remove, trim, top, or prune any tree or shrub which, in the opinion of the ARC, unduly impedes or detracts from the view of any lot. The court determined the preamble protected the community as a whole, not individual owners. It noted that architectural guidelines are "guidelines" and, by their nature, have a subjective component, and ARCs have discretion to decide which designs are in harmony with the community. The court ruled that, under both California law and the governing documents, plaintiffs did not have a valid claim regarding their views or the criteria the Association used to approve the project.
Maravich v. Dover Shores Community Association (2020 unpublished). Homeowners brought suit against their HOA, contending the HOA failed in its duty to prevent other owners from obstructing the view from their home. The court reviewed relevant provisions of the CC&Rs and Rules and determined the HOA's discretion to allow tall trees, even if they impede an owner’s view. The issue was whether a rule adopted regarding trees and views was inconsistent with the CC&R provision on the same subject. The Appellate Court noted that while the rule was different than the CC&R provision, “merely being different does not render them inconsistent.” The CC&R provision confers discretion on the Landscape Committee to require trimming and removal of tall trees or not. The court determined that the rule was a policy statement regarding the discretion regarding the tall trees.
Ekstrom v. Marquesa (2008). CC&Rs protected views by requiring all trees to be trimmed to rooftop level. The board made an exception for palm trees since trimming them would kill them. When advised by legal counsel that the board's exception was contrary to the CC&Rs, the board adopted a definition of view that would avoid trimming palm trees. They defined "view" to be that which is visible from the back of the house, six feet above ground level, standing in the middle of the outside of the house looking straight ahead to infinity, with nothing to the left or right of the lot lines being considered part of the home's view. The court rejected the board's definition. It ruled that the architectural committee had discretion to determine whether any particular palm tree exceeding roof height in fact blocked a view, but the association did not have discretion to exempt trees that blocked views. The association had to trim palm trees even if it killed them.
Zabrucky v. McAdams (2005). The view-protection language was unclear about whether owners could add second stories to their houses. As part of its analysis, the court found that significantly obstructing any owner's view of the ocean would depreciate the economic value of their property and dramatically reduce their enjoyment of their home. Since much of the value of properties depended on their views of the ocean, the court broadly interpreted the CC&Rs to prohibit second stories.
Posey v. Leavitt (1991). The court ruled that, absent a CC&R provision, members have no right to air, light, or an unobstructed view.
Ezer v. Fuchsloch (1979). Trees on a neighboring lot had grown such that they almost completely obstructed the plaintiff's view of the ocean. The court interpreted the view language to mean that trees and shrubs had to be trimmed to rooftop height to preserve views. Defendants argued that their 25-foot-tall pine tree had an independent right to exist without being trimmed. The court found the "tree rights" argument interesting but unpersuasive. The defendant was ordered to trim all trees and shrubs to rooftop level.
Seligman v. Tucker (1970). CC&Rs included a view-protection clause but lacked a standard for determining which view was protected. The court made its own determination that the view being protected was the original view at the time the houses were built. It was decided that a down-slope neighbor who was building a second story on his house unreasonably obstructed the plaintiff's view of the San Fernando Valley. The defendant was ordered to remove his second story.
Anti-SLAPP. Viewing covenants in CC&Rs is a matter of public interest within an association. Any opinions or viewpoints expressed by members or directors are protected under California's anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4); Colyear v. Rolling Hills)
ASSISTANCE: Associations needing legal assistance can contact us. To stay current with community association issues, subscribe to the Davis-Stirling Newsletter.