Calif and minimum units allowed for senior complex

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is what allows exemptions to age discrimination in housing, i.e. it allows senior only communities. My understanding is that the FHA does not apply to some very small communities so they may not be allowed to restrict people based on age.

From HUD.gov "The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units..."

That's the only reason I can think the size of your community might matter, and I am not sure if that what the above statement means. Every state has a HUD office. I would contact them or an attorney with your question.

-- ShirleyC, what organization or person is telling you this? Can you please post about how many senior homes (condos units, stand alone houses, or mobile homes in a park) are involved? More than four? More than ten? More than 50? Two or more? Then read the following (from HUD at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF):

==========HUD Statement on Senior Housing=====================
Question 1
For the purpose of the [Housing for Older Persons Act] HOPA, what is a housing community or facility? What are some typical examples of a housing, community or facility?
Answer
A housing community or facility is any dwelling or group of dwelling units governed by a common set of rules, regulations or restrictions. A portion of a single building may not be considered a housing facility or community. Typical examples include: a condominium association; a cooperative; a property governed by homeowners or resident association; a municipally zoned area; a leased property under common private ownership; a manufactured housing community, a mobile home park.

Question 2
May an owner of single family houses that are dispersed throughout a geographical area, and who is not otherwise exempt under the Fair Housing Act, qualify as a "housing community or facility" and claim the exemption?
Answer
No. The common use of the terms "housing community" and "facility" applies to dwelling units which are in the same location and have some relationship to each other. The dwelling units in a housing community or facility must share a common set of rules, policies, and procedures, that is applied to all of the dwellings in the community or facility. Further, although there is no required stated minimum number of dwelling units that must be present for the exemption to apply, there must be a sufficient number of dwelling units to constitute a "community" or "facility" in the common meaning of those terms. One single family dwelling or a duplex would not qualify as a "housing community or facility."
======================

-- I do not agree with BenA2's or KerryL1's interpretation. The Fair Housing Act states that senior housing meeting certain criteria may discriminate on the basis of age and familial status. None of the criteria say anything about the number of condo units, houses, trailers (in a mobile home park, say). But as quoted above, HUD has indicated a single home will not generally meet the criteria for a "housing facility or community." By my reading, what BenA2 quoted is referring to only //owner-occupied housing// and how, as long as a real estate agent is not used, an owner of such housing can discriminate, for any reason whatsoever, in making the housing available to others for rent or purchase.

References:
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Senior-Community-Laws
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Case-Law/Balvage-v-Ryderwood#axzz2XWi1SdeK
https://www.davis-stirling.com/Portals/1/docs/pdf/HOPA.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_for_Older_Persons_Act
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/100.304
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/100.305

I shouldn't have responded at all. I had a typo, as well and meant to write that HPOA, in my overly quick read, didn't seem to apply to fewer than 4 units. Thanks for the correction, and for supplying resources, Augustin. It looks like Shirley is gone?

More information:

14 units

We are in California
We are in compliance with Federal law (HOPA)
State law says must be 35 units,but it reads like this may apply to developers or. that it applies to complexes built after 1985,
Our attorney is asking the the California attorney General to give an opinion on this.
the attorneys are the offspring of the Davis sterling authors and have attorneys all over calif. They have never see this question asked before.

We just had people buy that are not seniors, this is Changing our way of life.
We have 3 people wanting to sale who are over 70, maybe more. so much for the golden years.

So, has anyone had this experience or have any information about the 35 units in california?

My original post is lacking inormation, my apologies

Our complex was built in 1974

Is your HOA in Riverside County?Here is my layperson's take:

-- The Unruh Act dates to 1959. It is California Civil Code 51. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status." Age is not listed as a protected class, but in later years, court cases expanded the meanings of the classes above to include a prohibition against age discrimination. See https://www.sierrasun.com/opinion/law-review-is-an-under-age-30-discount-price-legal/

-- 1971: In Flowers v. John Burnham & Co. (1971), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/21/700.html, the appeals court said age discrimination could be allowed.

-- 1978: In Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Assn. (1978), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/81/688.html, an appeals court again said age discrimination was allowed.

-- 1982: In Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 721 [180 Cal. Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115], we recently condemned such an age restriction in an apartment complex as violative of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51)

-- "In Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 790 [191 Cal. Rptr. 320, 662 P.2d 427], a divided California Supreme Court held that covenants, conditions and restrictions of a condominium development which restricted residency to persons over the age of 18 years was violative of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and unenforceable." Connor found that age restrictions violated the Unruh Act.

-- From the 1983 Connor decision: "Meanwhile our state Legislature, with knowledge that age preferences have been established in a number of housing developments, and that each was upheld whenever challenged in court (e.g., Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Assn. (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 688 [146 Cal. Rptr. 695, 100 A.L.R.3d 231]; Flowers v. John Burnham & Co. (1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 700 [98 Cal.Rptr. 644]), not only failed to add age to the other categories in Civil Code sections 51 and 53 which prohibit discrimination, but emphatically refused to do so whenever age was proposed as an addition to those sections. I fail to understand how my colleagues can arrogate to themselves the right to legislate in an area in which the Legislature has deliberately refused to do so."

-- Around 1985, section 51.3 (concerning the legality of senior housing that restriced residency based on age) was added to the Unruh Act? It states in part: "The Legislature finds and declares that this section is essential to establish and preserve specially designed accessible housing for senior citizens. There are senior citizens who need special living environments and services, and find that there is an inadequate supply of this type of housing in the state."

Assume ShirleyC's HOA's covenants restricted residency to those over age 55 starting in 1974. In 1974, this appears to have been legal. Around 1983, the courts ruled otherwise: Age restrictions violate the Unruh Act. Presumably, sometime in the period from about 1978 to 1983, the courts would have prohibited said age discrimination and ordered ShirleyC's HOA to allow people of any age.

Around 1985 the California legislature added Section 51.3 to allow age discrimination in the case of senior housing, but importantly, with a number of qualifications. One of these qualifications is that the senior housing must have at least 35 units.

Another qualification says that "No housing development constructed prior to January 1, 1985, shall fail to qualify as a senior citizen housing development because it was not originally developed or put to use for occupancy by senior citizens."

It sounds like ShirleyC's HOA's attorneys were right to seek an opinion.

If I were a California Attorney General staff attorney, or in the future, maybe a judge where ShirleyC's HOA was the plaintiff, how would I rule? First, the Unruh Act's mission does not seem all that relevant, because ultimately, the courts said the Unruh Act prohibited age discrimination. It took an act of the legislature, around 1985, to change this. Around 1985, that the California legislature wanted more senior housing but also wanted to draw a line in the sand is clear. One of the lines the legislature drew was to allow only 35 unit or larger senior housing communities to restrict the age of residents. To rule in favor of ShirleyC's HOA would throw out the 35+ unit requirement. Is the 35+ unit requirement in some way unconstitutional? Does it, say, deny equal protection of the laws? At the moment, I do not think there is anything unconstitutional in restricting age discrimination to 35+ unit senior housing. After all, laws that prohibit discrimination in housing often have caveats, like "owner occupied" and "four or fewer units." See my earlier posts.

But I am a mere layperson. ShirleyC's HOA's attorneys have more command of the legal issues. Depending on what they say, I might see this differently.