Attic Modification done 32 yrs ago by former owner

[terims]

Attic modifications made by former owner 32 years ago and Now the Architectural Committee wants me to provide them w/ per its, permission etc and I just listed property for sale. I have no permits... It was my understanding as it was told too me back in 1993 that modification could be done without requiring permits or permission as long as the modifications do not not effect the footprint of the unit. Floor plans from builders back in 1985 clearly show the attic space with a full size access door as part of the boundaries of my unit. Note: just 2.5 years ago after the roofers reported my modifications but , went ahead and staged all the materials for 192 u its on top of my roof. no doubt they had hoped to damage my roof but failed. How shhoud I handle the HOA board meeting they have summons me to?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Talk to an attorney.

 

[e hilton]

Why do you think the roofers wanted to damage the roof? And how did they know the attic had been modified? Have you read the hoa rules that were in effect at the time the changes were made?

 

[tbz]

Welcome with your first time post.

As CC noted in post #2 the only person that can likely give you advice on your situation is a lawyer versed in HOA & Construction industry law.

Your post is pretty cryptic but a reading of the Tea leaves, it sounds like the prior owner boxed off the attic with access only from your unit, and the units were likely originally built without firewalls extending through the roof, providing access to the whole attic area from one entry point not within a single unit, though I could be reading between the lines wrong.

Sounds like the Roofer ran into non-access and because of that cut off and as thus called it in to their HOA contact as they needed access.

The bottom line is you have stated you purchased it like this and if your home inspector did their job correctly their report should have it listed as being that way.
Though you will need a lawyer to explain it to the HOA.

Other than suggesting you call a lawyer I am not sure what anyone here is going to be able to help with, as you have not asked a question or provided enough information about an actual specific code question to be able to provide feedback.

Good luck

 

[socaldano]

In addition to consulting an attorney, I strongly recommend reviewing the applicable Existing Building Code (IEBC), as it often contains provisions designed to recognize the value of durable, time-tested construction. I recall language to the effect that structures or elements that have "withstood the test of time" are not necessarily required to be upgraded to current code, unless they are being modified or repaired.


For example, the code used the scenarios of a roof damaged by a falling tree: while new trusses must meet current code, the undamaged, original trusses are presumed safe based on their proven performance over time. This kind of clause was to meet the reasonable cost requirement, unless structural safety demands it.

Additionally, if this issue involves a Homeowners Association (HOA) architectural committee, it may be worth asking whether any licensed Professional Engineers (P.E.) or Professional Architects (P.A.) sit on that committee. In many states, including ours, it is a misdemeanor for an unlicensed individual to perform or present themselves as performing architectural or engineering work. If unlicensed individuals are making what amount to engineering judgments without proper credentials, that could present legal and ethical issues—including criminal charges "impersonating a P.E. or a P.A. .

Also, consider discussing the doctrine of laches with your attorney. If the disputed condition has existed since 1993, the legal question becomes: why is it being challenged now, after more than 30 years of apparent acceptance or inaction? Laches is an equitable defense that applies when:

1. A party unreasonably delays asserting a claim, and
2. That delay results in prejudice to the other party.

The key questions would be:

• What changed now to make the structure or condition objectionable?
• Has the delay in enforcement harmed the property owner (e.g., investments made, reliance on prior silence)?
• Did the HOA or other enforcing body have constructive or actual knowledge for years and choose not to act?
• What "Harm" was caused by this very old act?

These are all highly relevant both from a legal and procedural fairness standpoint. If the structure was acceptable—or at least unchallenged—for three decades, that fact alone should raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the current enforcement action

 

[terims]

Thank s to all who took the time to respond to my post. I have just recently received another letter from the law firm representing the HOA . Two years ago my infractions were completely different but that case was just dropped with no reason given. Now my my new infraction they say I have violated. is as follows: Now they are claiming that the attic spaces in the upper units are not exclusive use areas for the homeowners they are calling the attic space common areas. This is how the rule reads:

No structural alterations to the interior surrounding the common area
of any unit shall be made, no plumbing or electrical work on a bearing or common wall shall be preformed by any owner without prior approval from the HOA.

UNDERSTANDABLE!!! HOWEVER DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ME .THE ATTICS OF UPPER UNITS ARE CLEARLY MARKED ON THE BUILDERS FLOOR PLANS AS INCLUDED IN THE BOUDERIES OF EACH UPPER UNIT. THERE IS NO SHARED ACCESS, FULL SIZE DOOR OPEN INTO THE ATTIC SPACE AS SEEN ON THE PLANS SO CLEARLY. THIS AREA WAS NOT INTENDED AS COMMON AREA. THEY DO NOT INSPECT OR MAINTAIN LET ALONE INSURE THESE AREAS. AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMON AREA WITH EXCLUSSIVE USE AS MENTIONED IN THE CC&R'S WOULD BE THE CARPORTS. ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD AGREE THAT IF THE BUILDERS INTENDED THIS AREA TO BE COMMON THEY WOULD HAVE SPECIFCALLY MENTIONED IN THE CC&R'S LIKE THEY DID WITH THE CARPORTS. WOULD YOU AGREE? I believe they are really reaching to find some infraction to hit me with. What is their end goal here other than to interfere with the sale of my unit and my financial distress? Does anyone have experience with personal attics being redesignated as Common Areas?

 

[jar546]

Ah, this is starting to make sense. I am assuming this is a condo unit in a multi-family structure. Correct? What you own is the airspace inside your unit. From common wall to common wall to sub-floor to ceiling joists or concrete, whichever it is. Anything outside of that area is not yours and is considered a common space. Am I on to something?

Can I also assume that the roofers were paid by the HOA to perform work on the roof above your unit and probably others?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In my state, condominium properties consist of three types of elements: private (the declared interior portion of the owned dwelling unit, as depicted in the condo declaration drawings; limited common elements, again as depicted in the condo declaration drawings (this typically includes attached decks reserved for the use of one unit, private yard areas, and in some cases one or two garage spaces); and common elements (everything that's available for use by all members of the condo association, including roads, parking areas, clubhouse, etc.).

I'm from the opposite side of the country, so I don't know if California law provides for limited common elements. Without seeing the full declaration documents (both the plans and the written declaration narrative) I can't come to any informed opinion as to the status of your attic space. The builder's floor plans typically are not the declaration documents. I used to work for an architecture firm that designed condominiums. I have personally drawn the declaration plans for a great many condo units. I can tell you that the construction drawings (in this state) never say anything about the limits of ownership of any unit. Conversely, the declaration drawings (each of which covers only one unit, not the entire building) are not construction drawings. Nothing could be constructed from the declaration plans.

The bottom line here is that you have a property ownership dispute, which is a legal matter rather than a building code or even zoning code issue. We can't help you. You need to be talking to a lawyer with experience and expertise in HOA law.

 

[e hilton]

This seems to cloud the issue, imho. If it was a hatch, or there was a lock on the door to the attic space i would tend to agree it’s common area, but the way it’s presented i interpret it to be the same as my attic. I’m assuming the demising walls between attics were already in place.

THERE IS NO SHARED ACCESS, FULL SIZE DOOR OPEN INTO THE ATTIC SPACE AS SEEN ON THE PLANS

 

[socaldano]

On your CCR's, I had to sell my beach condo because I was right, the board president was wrong.. My attorney said that she and HOA attorney were in agreement. But the HOA president was beligerant and has near endless HOA money to spend on attorneys... and in California Judges rarely award attorney's fees in HOA battles. So she said to sell my unit and get out. This might be a little different as you might consider having YOUR ATTORNEY offer a settlement with the HOA. Either the HOA buy your unit at your sale price, or the HOA stop interfering with the sale.

I think the HOA can be sued under 42US1983, as they might be violating your 5th amendment rights. Then you are entitled to the value of the property and easily up to 10 times the amount in punitive damages to teach them to NOT do it to anyone else... Talk to an attorney very familiar with this.. if an attorney takes a 42US1983, they will do it on contingency only....

 

[ICE]

roofers reported my modifications but , went ahead and staged all the materials for 192 u its on top of my roof. no doubt they had hoped to damage my roof but failed.

What exactly are the modifications? Why would the roofers want to damage the roof over your unit?