Reasonableness
Why a rule your board adopted is not judged the same way as your CC&Rs.
A board-adopted rule survives a legal challenge only if it is reasonable: rationally connected to protecting owners' health, safety, or well-being, not merely popular. Courts have refused to treat owner approval, even a clear majority vote, as proof a rule is reasonable. The test applies to rules the board adopts on its own. It does not apply to the recorded declaration, which gets a stronger, separate presumption of validity.
The question a court actually asks
When an owner challenges a rule the board adopted, on-record purpose matters more than how many owners liked it. A Florida court laid out the test directly: an association is not free to adopt a rule just because it can.
"[An association] is not at liberty to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules bearing no relationship to the health, happiness and enjoyment of life of the various unit owners."
Source: Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, Florida District Court of Appeal
The California Supreme Court later adopted this same reasoning. A rule needs a real, articulable connection to the community's operation or well-being. "The board thought it was a good idea" is not, by itself, that connection.
Why a rule is scrutinized harder than the CC&Rs
Your declaration and a board-adopted rule are not reviewed under the same standard, and the gap is intentional.
| Document | Standard courts apply |
|---|---|
| Declaration (CC&Rs) | Strong presumption of validity; enforced unless it fails a narrow three-part test |
| Board-adopted rule | Reasonableness test: must relate rationally to owners' health, safety, or well-being |
"[The reasonableness test was adopted specifically to] somewhat fetter the discretion of the board of directors."
Source: Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, Florida District Court of Appeal
Owners signed onto the CC&Rs when they bought in. Nobody signed onto whatever the board decides to adopt next. That is why the reasonableness test exists: it is a check on the board, not on the owners. See covenant vs. rule for the full document hierarchy.
A rule does not need to reach "nuisance" to be valid
Boards sometimes assume they can only regulate conduct serious enough that a court would shut it down as a legal nuisance. That is not the bar.
"[I]t is not necessary that conduct be so offensive as to constitute a nuisance in order to justify regulation thereof."
Source: Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, Florida District Court of Appeal
That lowers the bar in the board's favor, but it is not unlimited. Consistency matters too: a board that applies its own criteria unevenly, or without articulated reasons, weakens its own reasonableness case even when the rule itself would otherwise pass. Exactly how much documentation a court expects varies by state and by the type of decision.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
Owners approve a new pet weight limit two to one at a meeting. An owner later sues to block it. What must the board show to win?
The board bans overnight commercial-truck parking in driveways. No owner has ever sued over it as a nuisance. An owner argues the board can't regulate anything short of an actual nuisance. Is the owner right?
A landscaping restriction turns out to be written directly in the CC&Rs, not adopted by the board separately. Which standard applies to it?
Sources
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, Florida District Court of Appeal
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, Florida District Court of Appeal
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., Supreme Court of California
Rules & Rulemaking
Next, see how a board actually gets the authority to adopt a rule in the first place: Board authority to adopt rules.
Whether a state's courts apply this exact reasonableness test, and how strictly they weigh consistency and documentation, varies by state. Check your state's case law and your own governing documents before relying on any specific outcome.