Contact Us 619-589-8800

Case Law - Use Restrictions

C.L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc.

(2021) 992 F.3d 901 In a case involving a challenge under the ADA, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' held that a treatment center could not require that the service animal be certified by an accredited entity in order to qualify as a “service animal.”

Brown v. Montage At Mission Hills, Inc.

(2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 124 Civil Code §4740 provides that an owner shall not be subject to a governing document provision that prohibits rentals unless that governing document provision was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to their separate interest. Montage at Mission Hills adopted a short-term rental restriction imposing a 30-day minimum rental period. A homeowner challenged the short-term rental restriction as it applied to her, since she had acquired title to her unit before the short-term rental restriction had been adopted. The association argued that since the short-term rental restriction merely placed a restriction on the duration of rentals without prohibiting rentals, Civil Code §4740 was inapplicable and the provision applied to all owners regardless of when they acquired title. An appellate court disagreed and held that short-term rental restrictions are only enforceable against owners who take title after the effective date of the restriction.

Colony Hill v. Ghamaty

(2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1156 Associations can require that units be used solely for single-family dwelling purposes.  The Court found that the homeowner violated that use restriction provision of the Association's CC&Rs by renting portions of his unit to separate, unrelated individuals that did not have any familial relationship with each other nor functioned as an “integrated economic unit”.

Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club

(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1600 Associations may enact rules to deny non-resident owners access to the Association's common area facilities. The court held that the Association can require owners to give up their right to use the common area facilities and assign the right to their tenants.

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 361 According to the California Supreme Court, CC&R restrictions 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.

CONTACT US TODAY

Kriger Law Firm is committed to answering your questions about Community Association General Counsel, Governing Document Revisions, Alternative Dispute Resolution, CC & R Enforcement Litigation, and Common Interest Development law issues in California.

We'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.

Menu