Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association

Supreme Court of California · 1994 · Property

PropertycovenantsCC&Rsreasonablenesscondominiumcommon interest developmentscondominiumsCC&Rs

Facts

Lakeside Village is a 530-unit condominium development subject to recorded CC&Rs, including a restriction providing that no dogs or cats may be kept in any unit. Plaintiff purchased a unit in 1988 and moved in with three cats. After learning of the cats, the Association demanded their removal and assessed fines for continuing violation of the restriction. Plaintiff alleged the restriction was unreasonable as applied to her because her cats stayed indoors, were noiseless, and created no nuisance.

Issue

When may a condominium owner prevent enforcement of a use restriction contained in the recorded declaration of a common interest development? More specifically, is the reasonableness of such a recorded restriction judged based on the circumstances of the individual homeowner, or by its validity as to the development as a whole under equitable servitude principles?

Rule

Under Civil Code section 1354, covenants and restrictions in the recorded declaration of a common interest development are enforceable equitable servitudes unless unreasonable. A recorded use restriction is presumed reasonable and must be enforced uniformly unless the challenger shows that it is arbitrary, violates a fundamental public policy, or imposes burdens on the affected land that substantially outweigh its benefits to the development's residents as a whole. The inquiry is not whether enforcement is reasonable as applied to a particular homeowner, but whether the restriction is unreasonable in relation to the common interest development as a whole.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, the Harbor Mesa condominium declaration recorded before any units were sold prohibits residents from keeping any parrots or other birds inside units. After buying a unit, Elena Ruiz keeps a single canary in a covered cage and alleges it is silent, odorless, and never leaves her apartment.

If Elena seeks a declaration that the restriction is unenforceable because her bird causes no actual disturbance, how should a court rule under the governing standard?

Explanation. Recorded use restrictions in a common interest development's declaration are presumptively valid equitable servitudes enforceable unless unreasonable. The challenger must show the restriction is arbitrary, violates fundamental public policy, or imposes burdens substantially outweighing benefits to the development's residents as a whole. Allegations that Elena's own bird is quiet and harmless attack enforcement as applied to her, which is the wrong inquiry.