Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
21-501
| Cal. Att'y Gen. | Mar 17, 2022Background
- Request to California Attorney General (Assemblymember Laurie Davies) asking whether Civ. Code §4505(a) permits an HOA in a common interest development (CID) to bar vendors from entering through some gates while allowing entry through others.
- Hypothetical/factual setup: multiple gates each providing access to the entire community; some gates closed to vendors, others open—so every separate interest retains some ingress route through common area.
- Civil Code §4505(a) grants each separate interest nonexclusive rights of ingress and egress through the common area unless the recorded declaration provides otherwise.
- A development’s recorded declaration can modify ingress rights; declarations and use restrictions are presumptively reasonable but unenforceable if arbitrary, contrary to public policy, or unduly burdensome.
- Association operating rules (if the source of restriction) must be written, within board authority, consistent with governing documents and law, reasonable, and adopted in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Requester’s Argument | Association’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ. Code §4505(a) bars an HOA from prohibiting vendors from using some gates when other gates provide access to every unit | §4505(a) guarantees ingress rights and therefore precludes selective gate bans that limit access | Selective gate bans regulate, not deny, ingress because every separate interest retains access via other gates; declarations may modify ingress rights; rules can validly limit use of common areas | AG: Generally permissible. §4505(a) does not prohibit such regulations as a matter of law, but any specific restriction must be reasonable and comply with the declaration and other law; operating rules must meet statutory requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., 8 Cal.4th 361 (1994) (use restrictions are inherent in CIDs and subject to reasonableness review)
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 33 Cal.4th 73 (2004) (declaration functions as the development’s governing constitution)
- Sui v. Price, 196 Cal.App.4th 933 (2011) (reasonableness of restrictions evaluated by reference to the development as a whole)
- Smart Corner Owners Assn. v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, 64 Cal.App.5th 439 (2021) (declared covenants are presumptively reasonable; unenforceable if arbitrary, contrary to public policy, or overly burdensome)
- Brown v. Montage at Mission Hills, Inc., 68 Cal.App.5th 124 (2021) (discussion of declaration terminology and governance of associations)