Variances
When a board can let one owner break the rules, and why doing it wrong breaks the rule for everyone else.
A variance is a one-time, discretionary exception letting a single owner depart from an architectural or use standard. It is not a rule change, and not a right an owner can demand. Grant it routinely, or to some owners and not others, and the board risks losing the ability to enforce the standard at all.
What a variance actually is
A variance is board or architectural committee approval for one owner to build or maintain something that does not meet the standard everyone else is held to: a taller fence, a different roofing material, a closer setback. It applies to a specific request, not a category of requests, and it does not rewrite the standard itself.
What counts as a strong enough reason to grant one is set out in your own architectural guidelines or declaration, not a single legal test that applies everywhere. Read your governing documents before you rule on a request. Treat a variance as the exception you are documenting, not a workaround you are normalizing.
Why "exception" has to mean exception
A board's authority over individually owned property, including the standard a variance departs from, comes from a specific grant in the declaration or bylaws, not from the board's general sense that it is in charge. That matters here because a variance process run on a case by case feel, rather than consistent criteria, starts to look less like a narrow exception and more like the board quietly rewriting a standard it was never given open-ended authority to change.
"Consistent application of the guidelines" is what a court looks for before it will treat an association's design or use decisions as reasonable, along with deliberation and articulated reasons for the call.
Source: Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, section 6.9, comment d, American Law Institute
The trap: inconsistent variances invite a selective enforcement problem
An association was "tolerating children residing in other units" while trying to enforce a no-children restriction against one family, and the restriction, enforced selectively rather than uniformly, could not be enforced against the family singled out.
Source: White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, Supreme Court of Florida
The same exposure exists on the variance side. Grant a setback exception to one owner and deny an identical request from a neighbor with no documented reason for the difference, and you have handed the denied owner a selective enforcement argument, and possibly a waiver or estoppel argument too, depending on what the association said or did in between. A variance program with no written criteria can walk you into any of the three.
How to grant one without creating a problem
Before approving a variance, write down the specific fact that makes this request different: a lot's slope, an obstruction, a genuine hardship, not just that it seems reasonable. Apply that same reasoning the next time a similar request comes in, or be ready to explain in writing why this one is different. If the same request keeps coming up, that is a sign the underlying standard may need to go through your association's normal amendment process, see Changing existing rules, instead of being worked around one variance at a time.
And check first whether the request is actually a variance at all. A change needed because of a resident's disability is a reasonable accommodation under federal fair housing law, not a discretionary call the board can weigh against its preferences the way it weighs a fence height request.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
The board grants three neighbors permission to install a roofing material that violates the declaration's standard, then denies a fourth owner's identical request with no explanation. What is the board's biggest legal exposure?
An owner asks for a shed two feet taller than the architectural guidelines allow, calling it a variance. The board says yes, and lets every future request for a taller shed go through the same way. What has actually happened?
A homeowner's wheelchair ramp request does not meet the setback standard in the architectural guidelines. The board considers it under the same variance process it uses for paint color requests. What is wrong with that approach?
Sources
- Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, sections 6.7 and 6.9 (as quoted in Moretto v. Elk Point Country Club Homeowners Association), American Law Institute
- White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, Supreme Court of Florida
- 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(3)(B) (Fair Housing Act), U.S. Congress
- Joint Statement of HUD and DOJ, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act, HUD and U.S. Department of Justice
- How HOAs Can Successfully Handle ACC Variance Requests, RealManage
- Three Common Covenant Enforcement Defenses: Waiver, Estoppel, and Selective Enforcement, Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog
Related elsewhere in the Academy
Architectural Review
Next: see how consistent enforcement turns every exception you grant into a defensible pattern instead of a liability.
What counts as grounds for a variance, who decides, and what evidence they need are set by your own architectural guidelines or declaration, not a single nationwide legal standard. Check yours before ruling on a request.