• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Does an HOA have "quasi-government" level authority?

Very interesting! On the one hand, buying into an area with an HOA is a voluntary association, and you are entering into a type of contract to accept their covenants, codes and restrictions.
On the other hand, there's plenty of precedents where law overrides CC&Rs. Most of those have to do with civil rights, such as racial restrictions, restrictions on emotional support animals under the Fair Housing Act, etc.
This appears to be based on land use planning law, not on civil rights law. Personally, I think the townhome owner has a good case that he's allowed by right to do an ADU under state law.
 
I would think that the HOA's power comes from laws established by the state and what it will allow an HOA to enforce.
I would think that the local Municipality would first have to allow ADU's.
I would think the HOA would have to vote to allow or disallow ADU's first.
I would think if the property owner under the control of the HOA regulations would have to approach the HOA Board for changes to the rules and regulations and a vote would be required for changes.
I would think, if the HOA is against the change then possibly legal action would be the property owners course of action to sue the HOA that represents the property owners, in turn your suing your neighbors.

I would think?
 
There are variables at play. I owned a condominium with an HOA. Street parking was not allowed unless you owned a vehicle that would not fit in the garage, Trash and recycle waste cans had to be in the garage. There are 410 units in that one development in an area with thousands more.

As to the parking. In a complex similar to what I owned, the owner will lose his covered parking and the new tenant will not have any. If the idea catches wind and let's say another forty owners do likewise in a place with limited street parking....what then?

California legislated the ADU into fruition and it is creating problems. Properties can have a primary dwelling and multiple ADUs with no provision for parking cars. There is also the capacity of the domestic sewer system to consider. Now that there are so many applications for an ADU in LA County there is no plan check done. The asinine determination to task the inspector with a plan check somewhere near the beginning of the construction has taken hold.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
As to the parking. In a complex similar to what I owned, the owner will lose his covered parking and the new tenant will not have any. If the idea catches wind and let's say another forty owners do likewise in a place with limited street parking....what then?
Click to expand...
I had a developer approach me last month. They are nearing completion on a 50 unit condo/townhome project in So Cal. Asked me if we would be interested in converting all garages into ADUs, so the entire development would have zero parking and double the units. I said "no" without even bothering to check the issues raised in post #1, just because it did not sound like good transportation planning, a good marketing strategy, and also any developer that was that greedy would probably end up being a lousy client.
 
Parking is typically brought up in a Planning and Zoning meeting and is usually a concern of the community that has to navigate through narrow streets caused by garages being turned into ADU's.

A fire truck still has to get to the fire and the more obstacles, the slower the response time. Added car parking sometimes becomes a hindrance for fire operations.
 
Yikes said:
I said "no" without even bothering to check the issues raised in post #1, just because it did not sound like good transportation planning, a good marketing strategy, and also any developer that was that greedy would probably end up being a lousy client.
Click to expand...
There's a city in the Bay Area that has 3 developments planned in their downtown area (all within a block or two of each other). In total, about 400 new apartments will be created, and maybe 50 total parking spaces spear across all three developments (one providing zero parking for 60 apartments). This in a town that is notorious for having very little available parking. This isn't a large city.

One developer's justification for this: this is all low income housing, and poor people don't have cars (also Gov § 65863.2).

City approved all and the projects are moving forward. I believe construction on one starts in a few months. It's going to be a disaster for parking.
 
arwat23 said:
There's a city in the Bay Area that has 3 developments planned in their downtown area (all within a block or two of each other). In total, about 400 new apartments will be created, and maybe 50 total parking spaces spear across all three developments (one providing zero parking for 60 apartments). This in a town that is notorious for having very little available parking. This isn't a large city.

One developer's justification for this: this is all low income housing, and poor people don't have cars (also Gov § 65863.2).

City approved all and the projects are moving forward. I believe construction on one starts in a few months. It's going to be a disaster for parking.
Click to expand...
As an architect who has designed affordable housing for over 30 years, I can say that developer is uninformed.
On my lowest-income projects, where persons were at-risk of homelessness, many of them had cars. The cars were their home when they lived on the streets.

When HUD determines eligibility for low income housing, a potential resident has to disclose their income and their assets. HUD allows them to exclude the value of their car as an asset for this purpose, because HUD knows that a lot of working poor need a car to get to their job. That's especially true in an expensive region like the Bay Area, where people commute in from far-flung suburban/rural areas like Hollister.

Story time:
Around the 1990s era there was an unusual situation at a HUD 202 senior housing project that was being developed by a religious-based not-for-profit. Word got out (this was pre-social-media days, mind you) among a community of middle-class Russian immigrant senior men that HUD would not count your car as an asset. These guys dumped all their retirement savings into exotic sports cars, and qualified to live in the "very-low income" senior housing.
But wait, there's more:
These guys then brought over what we used to call "Russian mail-order brides" (this was not long after the collapse of the Soviet Union), and promised them that when they passed away, the exotic car would be theirs to liquidate and start their new life in America.

Smash-cut to the grand opening ceremony, with HUD officials, local officials and religious leaders who had made a vow of poverty, all praising the accomplishment of providing housing for vulnerable seniors in their time of need. Behind them in the low income housing parking lot is a row of Lamborghinis and Ferraris, with hot young blondes as arm candy on these elderly Russian guys.
 
Last edited:
It got bad enough with the parking in some neighborhoods of La Puente that I skipped doing the inspections. There are streets in San Bernardino that ban parking on both side of the street on sweeper day. Perhaps I am lazy but I'm just not walking down the middle of the street for three blocks. You may wonder about the "middle of the street" part of that. Short fences and mean dogs. The dogs want to eat you. Imagine the trouble I would be in for killing a Rottweiler named Sarah.
 
Joe.B said:
This will be an interesting one, I will track and post the outcome if I can.
calmatters.org

No new ADUs here: When California law and homeowner association rules collide

He says state law gives him the right to turn his garage into an apartment. His HOA says it doesn’t. Who's right?
calmatters.org calmatters.org
Click to expand...
Having worked inside and for many HOAs and owners of such properties, I’m 100% aware that every request out of the ordinary first goes to the HOA. This fellow is changing the use of his garage on common ground. The HOA is there to protect the best interests, and common uses of said property, of all residents. I would think the majority of owners in that HOA would want this struck down. If not, and many were interested in doing the same, then the HOA could make it allowable. I think this fellow is just trying to weasel through the grey cracks only for his own good. That is not the premise of an HOA. I really wouldn’t consider living inside of an HOA as my own property, as much as living in a community property. Just my two cents.
 
I thought I understood the State legislature told cities and towns and such they couldn't prohibit ADUs. I would think the same legislation was intended to apply everywhere. Seems like a question for CA legislature.
 
ComPete said:
Having worked inside and for many HOAs and owners of such properties, I’m 100% aware that every request out of the ordinary first goes to the HOA. This fellow is changing the use of his garage on common ground. The HOA is there to protect the best interests, and common uses of said property, of all residents. I would think the majority of owners in that HOA would want this struck down. If not, and many were interested in doing the same, then the HOA could make it allowable. I think this fellow is just trying to weasel through the grey cracks only for his own good. That is not the premise of an HOA. I really wouldn’t consider living inside of an HOA as my own property, as much as living in a community property. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
In my state, condominiums are controlled by condominium associations, not homeowners associations, but that's just terminology. More to the point, how do you conclude that this man's garage is "common ground"? Condominiums in this state have three types of property, or element: The roads, parking areas, clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis courts, etc are "common elements" -- owned in common and available for use by any legal resident. Yards and exterior decks specific to one unit are "limited common elements" -- owned and maintained by the association, but restricted to use by the specific unit owner. The interior of the unit (typically from the inside face of the exterior walls, but this may vary depending on the declaration documents) is a "private element" -- owned in fee simple by the unit owner, and the association has no responsibility for maintenance and no control over interior alterations unless they affect a structural wall, beam, or column.

From the description, it sounds like this is a three story condo with a 2-car garage occupying the lowest story. It would depend on how the declaration documents were drawn up, but most likely the guy owns the garage, not the HOA.

On the other hand, they guy is (IMHO) an idiot for proceeding without HOA approval. I'm an assistant building official in a town with several condominiums. We won't approve permits for a condo alteration with a letter of approval from the condo association. He's got a letter from the HOA's attorney explaining why he's NOT allowed to do it. His own attorney didn't (apparently) tell him that lawyer was wrong. His own lawyer just wants to be paid to take it to court -- which is probably where it belongs. So his response was to start construction with no approvals. Does he have a building permit?

This guy is his own worst enemy.
 
There was a case in California in 1994 that went up the state Supreme Court. A condo owner in Culver City was told by the HOA to get rid of her cats, even though they were indoor cats and never ventured outside her own condo interior. (Keep in mind this was pre- FHA rulings regarding emotional support animals.
The HOA contended that it was theoretically possible that the cats could get fleas, which might then spread to other parts of the building(s).
The California Supreme Court sided with the HOA, and she was forced to find another place to live.

Since that time the state legislature passed a law allowing condo owners to have pets, overriding any CC&Rs. I guessing that case and subsequent legislation may make up some of the legal research relevant to this ADU case.

I’ve archived the 1994 LA Times article here: https://archive.is/554dL
Case details/opinion here: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/8/361.html
 
The State of California has been in a rush for more housing and there are restrictions on the jurisdictions that make it difficult to say no. A similar but different situation was an owner that wanted to place a covered patio on top of a garage that had a nearly flat roof. The neighbor hood was older tract homes with the garages close to the street and the dwelling behind. The planning dept said no. The owner changed it from covered patio to a support structure for solar panels and the city was forced to acquiesce.
 
Does California's ADU law specifically apply to municipal governments, or was it written to also override HOA regulations?
 
Odds are it was written to override law and not agreements....

Didn't see this though:

In 2019, the California Legislature passed a law to keep HOAs from enforcing such regulations on accessory dwelling units. The bill, authored by former Burbank Democratic Assemblymember Laura Friedman, voided any association rule that “effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts” the construction of ADUs.
 
Example:
HOA has a 5-ft maximum height wrought-iron fence requirement period! No other fence styles permitted for uniformity.

Muni has a maximum 6-ft height fence but allows lower height and other types of fencing.

Resident from the HOA calls: "I want to install a fence, can I have a 6-ft privacy fence?
Muni: Please contact your HOA first, then I can issue your permit.
Resident: "I would have never bought this place if I had know about all these rules!"
"I want a shed, who do I have to talk too for that?

Could the muni issue a permit for a 6-ft fence, yes!
Do they want that friction? no!

We get a copy of the HOA covenants from the subdivision for our reference so we can talk them down off the ledge.

PIA
 
HOA covenants are contractual issues, not governmental or even quasi governmental. Violations are civil matters and, if they go to court, they go to civil court with either the HOA suing the resident, or the resident suing the HOA.

In my state, at least, building code violations are criminal. If they go to court, the State sues the [alleged] violatoir in criminal court.

It's a very different matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top