Realtor Sign sizes vs. the Sign post size and verbage

I sit on the Board of a Townhomes Association with the following CC&R:

9.6 Signs. No signs. billboards, or other advertising structure or device shall displayed to the public view on any lot, except one sign not to exceed five square feet in area, may be placed on a lot to offer the property for sale or for rent. Th Board may cause any sign placed on Property in violation of this provision to be removed or destroyed.

We currently have two homes with Realtor signs in the yards, and though the actual sign portion of the structure is 2 feet by 2.5 feet, the structure that the sign hangs from is 7 feet tall and 3 feet wide. Is the whole structure the sign, or just the flat part with the writing on it?

Also the CC&R states offering the lot for sale or rent. The Realtor's sign mentions nothing of sale or rent, it just has the Agency name, Agent's Name, a phone number and a website. Is this in violation of the CC&?R?

I think that a reasonable person would conclude that the flat part with the writing is considered the sign.

The rest of the structure is the post supporting the sign.


A realtor sign is an indication that the property has been listed with a Reator for sale or rent. Therefore, I don't think that not having the words "for sale" or "for rent" would be a violation of the rule you cited.

If you are on the Board, you may want to contact the Realtor with your concerns and ask that they use a different sign. I have found most Realtors to be very accommodating when asked. Additionally, you may want to amend the rule and adopt appropriate wording for the mounting posts for realtor signs.

If you are not on the Board, you should contact the Board with your concerns about the sign (does it block a view or impede viewing oncoming traffic?, etc.). Then let the Board investigate and make it's own determination. You may also want to offer some suggested wording for an amended rule.

Michail,

Funny you should ask this now as the Arizona Court of Appeals just upheld a state statute that forbids HOA's from banning For Sale signs.

The Arizona statute limits an acceptable For Sale or For Rent sign to:
"The size of a sign offering a property for sale shall be in conformance with the industry standard size sign, which shall not exceed eighteen by twenty-four inches, and the industry standard size sign rider, which shall not exceed six by twenty-four inches."

The statute addresses only the size of the sign and not how it is mounted. In my area residential signs in decent neighborhoods are typically hung from the cross-arm of a wooden sign post. In not-so-nice areas they tend to use a small metal frame stuck into the ground. I'll take the tall sign post any day and leave the ugly metal thing in the barrio.

Personally I do not care for realtors' signs that do not clearly indicate whether the property is for sale or for rent. I have wasted a lot of time over the years calling realtors only to find that the property I was interested in buying is only for rent or vice versa. If the property owner and his realtor wish to annoy prospective clients I think that is up to them, however, if the home is for sale it may sell more quickly if the realtor communicates that intent. And the sooner the home is sold the sooner the sign comes down. So it may be worthwhile to give the agent a call.

Public policy seems to support For Sale signs. The Arizona Legislature went so far as to invalidate all covenants prohibiting them regardless of when the covenants were recorded.

BTW, in the Arizona case, the association prohibited all for sale signs. The plaintiff members put up a sign on two different days and each time the association removed it. The members sued for injunctive relief and won in trial court, where the judge also awarded them all of their costs and attorney fees totaling just over $21,000. Assuming that the association spent a similar amount on defense, about $40K went from the association coffers into the pockets of the attorneys. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge's ruling, finding that the association had no valid defense and awarded additional fees to the members. The full opinion may be found at http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1CA-CV12-0362.pdf