View Protection At California Condo and Homeowner Associations: It’s Complicated
By David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney; Senior Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys
Many owners buy units, lots or homes at community associations that have views and are later shocked to learn that the view they cherish, the view that caused them to buy that home, is not guaranteed. The question that has been posed is whether or not property owners are entitled to an unobstructed view. With some exceptions, the answer in California is “no.” The California Supreme Court spoke on this subject in the late 19th century case of Kennedy v. Burnap and established the doctrine in California that one’s ownership of land does not imply a right to force owners of neighboring land to refrain from obstructing the view from the land or the light and air reaching the land. This law has not changed all that much since that case was decided in 1898.
Covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) governing the use of land in common interest developments provide some protection for views. California law allows a community association’s CC&Rs to restrict view obstructions within the development as long as the restriction is reasonable. Restrictions on improvements or landscaping that obstructs a neighboring owner’s view do exist in CC&Rs in some, but not all, California condominium and homeowner associations. And they have been the subject of much litigation. And they have been successfully enforced. Some associations’ CC&Rs do not guarantee a view but only make an owner’s view a consideration when the association is considering another owner’s request to make a modification that would impact another owner’s view.
In the 1986 case of Pacifica Homeowners Association vs Wesley Palms Retirement Community, the California Court of Appeal concluded that "[a]s a general rule, a land owner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right." However, "such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement or through the adoption of conditions, covenants and restrictions..."
To read the entire article, follow this link.
Print this Post
California community association attorneys, managers and others in the industry have differing opinions on how to properly and legally proceed with uncontested elections — elections in which the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of board positions needed to be filled. Prior to 2006 when the election process and procedures were changed and secret elections were mandated, the answer was simple. No election was required, and candidates were deemed the elected board by way of acclamation. Since 2006, the law has changed, and elections must be held by way of a secret ballot process. Some attorneys know that the days of deeming the board elected by acclamation are over; others think the opposite.
Sometimes, owners sue their condo or homeowners association in small claims court. And sometimes, they win, and there is a judgment to be satisfied. The association pays the amount of the judgment and then wants a receipt showing that the judgment is not owed any longer. They do not know what to do when a judgment or a portion of a judgment has been satisfied. How do you get the homeowner creditor, flush with the fruits of their lawsuit, to provide their association with an "acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment" (the form that should be completed and filed with the court to show that the judgment is no longer owed)? Board members and managers often ask why they would bother taking this step since the judgment is satisfied.
Many California community associations have a difficult time achieving a quorum to hold board elections or to vote on other important association matters. Some condo and planned development homeowner associations have not been able to hold a vote for a new Board of Directors for many years because they require a quorum of at least 50% of the owners. And unlike many other community associations, they do not have a reduced quorum provision in their bylaws that allows them to hold the meeting and take the vote of the owners with 25% of the owners constituting a quorum. Some associations cannot even achieve a quorum with just 25% of the owners.
A pipe, window or some other element of the common area leaks or breaks, and a condo association board decides that it is exclusive use common area and the unit owner’s repair and/or replacement responsibility, as it serves only that one unit. The problem is that this is not what the law provides. And while it may be what many board members and managers want to see happen, this is really contrary to the condominium concept where, unless the CC&Rs otherwise state, the association is responsible for the repair or replacement of the common area, and exclusive use common area is part of the common area. Let's face reality, we really do not want to see owners opening up and trying to repair the common area, as they may likely not do the right repair, and that may come back to haunt the association in the future (after that owner has sold and moved). 
I recently read an interesting article in the newspaper regarding structural defects. The article entitled “Home Structural Defects Are Rare But Can Be Costly” provides good advice for both homeowners and condo owners and associations. 
