Parking, Roads & Vehicles

The hierarchy that decides every question in this course

Every topic in this course sits inside the same stack of authority, and the fastest way to get an answer wrong is to skip straight to the bottom of it. At the top is federal law, which sets a narrow floor an association cannot contract around. The clearest example is the Fair Housing Act's duty to make reasonable accommodations in parking rules for a resident with a disability, a duty that applies even in a lot with no reserved spaces at all.

"It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of Progress Gardens to refuse to make this accommodation."

Source: 24 CFR §100.204, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Below federal law, state statutes vary enormously, covering everything from towing signage to electric vehicle charging rights, and this is the layer where boards most often assume a rule exists that their state never actually adopted. Below that, county or municipal ordinance sometimes fills a gap state law leaves open entirely, as it does for booting in parts of Florida. Running across every one of these layers, a local fire code official has independent authority over anything that could block emergency access, including a gate or a speed bump placed on a fire apparatus access road under the International Fire Code. That code only binds your community once your state or city has adopted it, sometimes with local amendments, so confirm the current rule with your local fire marshal.

Below all of that sits your own declaration, which courts generally presume enforceable if it is reasonable under a standard set out in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village, and board rules adopted under authority the declaration actually grants, which get deference under Lamden v. La Jolla Shores only when made in good faith and within that granted scope. Both standards come from California Supreme Court cases. They are widely cited elsewhere as persuasive authority, but they bind only California courts, so confirm how your own state reviews a CC&R restriction or a board rule.

The road-ownership myth every board repeats

Ask five board members who owns the private roads in their community and expect at least two different answers, because there is no single national model. Some states still run on the older condominium-act model, where the roads are owned by every unit owner together, not by the association.

"The common elements of a condominium property are owned by the unit owners as tenants in common, and the ownership shall remain undivided."

Source: Ohio Revised Code §5311.04, State of Ohio

Other states use a newer model where the association itself can hold title to a road as a distinct asset, separate from any owner's unit, under statutes such as Nevada Revised Statutes §116.017. Which model applies depends on whether your community is legally a condominium or a planned community, and on your own state's statute, so check your declaration and your state's statute rather than assuming either one. Florida complicates this further: an association there can be required to maintain a road it does not even hold title to. Maintenance duty and ownership are decoupled under Florida Statutes §720.301(3); that is a Florida-specific rule. Start with Who owns the roads? to find out which model governs yours.

Where the states disagree the most

Two areas in this course show the widest state-to-state gap: vehicle immobilization and electric vehicle charging rights. Booting ranges from a crime to a licensed business depending entirely on which state you're in. Tennessee's MOTION Act makes it a criminal offense for anyone but a licensed attendant to boot a vehicle, while Texas licenses and regulates booting and gives the driver a right to a hearing. California has no booting statute at all, and its Attorney General has formally opined that booting without one is unlawful.

"A private security firm, acting pursuant to a contract with a property owner, may not immobilize a vehicle that is impermissibly parked in a private parking lot by affixing a 'boot' device to the vehicle."

Source: California Attorney General Opinion No. 03-1204, California Attorney General

Electric vehicle charging rights show the same spread. California voids any covenant that unreasonably restricts installing a charging station, while Virginia lets the declaration itself override the default right and lets the association bar common-area installation outright. Only a minority of states have a right-to-charge statute at all; where yours does not, an EV charging request runs through your ordinary architectural-review process instead. See EVs and Charging stations for the state-by-state range.

A related myth costs boards real trouble too: your board has no independent power to write a real traffic ticket or run radar on your own roads. At most it can vote to invite local police to enforce state traffic law, or fine a violation internally under your own covenants. See Speed enforcement.