Objective vs subjective standards
Not every rule your committee applies works the same way. Knowing which kind you're enforcing tells you how much discretion you actually have.
An objective standard is measurable: a maximum fence height, a specific material. A subjective standard depends on board judgment, such as whether a paint color fits the neighborhood's character. Subjective calls are harder to defend and more likely to be challenged as arbitrary, so committees should apply them in good faith and explain their reasoning in writing.
Two different kinds of standards
Every architectural rule your committee applies falls into one of two categories. An objective standard is measurable: a fence may not exceed six feet, siding must be a named material, a shed may not exceed a stated square footage. Anyone with a tape measure can check compliance, and there is little room for the committee's own opinion.
A subjective standard depends on judgment: a color must be compatible with the neighborhood, a design must be architecturally harmonious, an addition must fit the character of the community. Two reasonable board members can look at the same plan and disagree.
Most governing documents use both. Setbacks and height limits tend to be objective. Color, material choice, and overall fit tend to be subjective. Knowing which one you're applying tells you how much room you have to say no, and how exposed that decision is to a challenge.
Subjective doesn't mean arbitrary
A subjective standard is not an invitation to decide however the board feels that day. Where a state has legislated architectural review procedure, it typically requires the process itself, not just the outcome, to be fair.
"A decision on a proposed change shall be made in good faith and may not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious."
Source: California Civil Code Section 4765, State of California
That is California's rule. Check whether your own state imposes a similar good faith requirement, and what your declaration says about how architectural decisions must be made. Where no statute speaks to it, a subjective decision should still be defensible: written down, tied to a stated guideline, and applied the same way to every owner.
Both kinds of standards come from the same place
Neither kind of standard exists just because the committee decided it should. An architectural committee's power to review anything, objective or subjective, comes from the declaration.
"The authority of an association or any architectural, construction improvement, or other such similar committee of an association to review and approve plans and specifications for the location, size, type, or appearance of any structure or other improvement on a parcel... shall be permitted only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to such location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration of covenants or other published guidelines and standards authorized by the declaration of covenants."
Source: Florida Statutes Section 720.3035, State of Florida
That is Florida's statute. Whether your state has something similar, and what your own declaration actually authorizes, is worth confirming before a committee enforces a subjective standard it invented rather than one written into the governing documents.
The real fix for most disputes over subjective standards is not more discretion, it is more specificity. A board that adopts published design guidelines naming actual colors, materials, or examples turns a subjective call into something closer to an objective one, and gives owners something concrete to design against. See Design standards for how to build them, or the Community Associations Institute for template resources rather than drafting language from scratch.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
The ARC denies a paint color and writes only that it "must be more tasteful." What kind of standard is the committee applying?
A guideline caps fence height at six feet. A five foot fence is submitted, and the committee denies it, writing only that it "does not fit the community's character." What's the issue?
A board wants fewer disputes over paint approvals. Which change best reduces subjective, inconsistent decisions?
Sources
- California Civil Code Section 4765, State of California
- Florida Statutes Section 720.3035, State of Florida
- Community Associations Institute, architectural review resources
Architectural Review
Ready to see how these standards get applied step by step? Read Review procedures next.
Whether a subjective standard must be applied in good faith, put in writing, or made subject to appeal varies by state and by your declaration.