expanding a deck in a Condominium home

We have lived in our development for 28 years. The deck has been painted, poorly, by the association on sort of regular intervals. After 28 years we would like to expand the deck. We are probably among the very small minority in the community who have never expanded our decks. When I asked the association what I need to do in order to construct a larger deck, the administrator on site said that as of 2 years ago the law does not allow for that to occur, something about common grounds. It seems to me that given the previous allowance, that this is discriminatory and should really not be the law, and that she is misquoting a decision of someone on the board, or something. If I cannot expand it, and a new owner can't then the resale value of this unit would go down appreciably. Please guide me as to where I can find information regarding this.

I believe what is happening here is that the condo association board discovered that there are liability concerns when an owner encroaches on common area. Those who have encroached for many years have some legal rights not to correct the encroachment. But those who now want to encroach can rightly be turned down by the board. HOA attorneys read boards the riot act when the boards look the other way at members encroaching on common area.

Those owners who have encroached many years should either be forced to correct the situation or pay for a re-plat of the condo grounds and amendments to the covenants. This is a huge legal issue.

Condos 101:

The decks in a condo complex may be considered part of the unit, or common elements, or limited (exclusive use) common elements. This varies by community and will be outlined in the CC&Rs. Also described in the CC&Rs is who is responsible for what. It sounds like in the OP's community the association is responsible for maintaining the decks. This says to me that they are either common elements or limited common elements - ie, they do not belong to the individual owners.

In addition, this means that owners may not expand the decks since they are not their property - they belong to the association.

Also in addition, the monthly assessment in a condo association is usually based on something called par value, which is basically the percentage of ownership. This is also defined in the CC&Rs. It also means that this value may not be changed by anyone, including the association, without amending the CC&Rs.

As I'd mentioned in a different thread, an amendment that changes the nature of ownership is different from one that changes one of the restrictions, such as parking. I question whether it could be legally done at all without the approval of 100% of the membership. Especially in a case like this one, where any enlargement of a particular unit would come at the expense of all other owners in the association.

The CC&Rs in a condo community also talk about owners' rights, and one of those rights covers use of the common elements. It's usually worded as all owners have the right to use the common elements for any purpose for which they are intended, and no one may interfere with another owner's rights. To use a different example, if a condo owner decided he wanted a larger patio that butted up against a walking path, that could be seen as interfering with others' free enjoyment of the walking path.

But HOA and condo covenants are contractual terms between a group of people, a corporation, and individuals that have the force of law. Case law supports this. The OP's board meant may have been referring to these realities.

Correction: what past boards did was allow some individual owners to set aside parts of the common area for their exclusive use, which violates some provisions of the CC&Rs (specifically, the article dealing with owner rights to use all of the common elements). In other words, they gave away usage of commonly-owned property to individuals, not the property itself. Still wrong, still legal trouble waiting to happen.

If extended decks were an option and others have them, then you have a good case to present. You should put your request in writing, with details about dimensions, materials, and the like - and if you still have copies of supporting info from the builder, that would be very helpful. You want to show that what you're requesting is consistent with what is has been acceptable for other units.

By the by, related to satellite dishes, FTC regulations supersede your governing documents. Associations may not forbid the installation of a dish, but they may regulate their size and location of installation. My community forbids roof installations, won't approve anything over a certain size, and requires some sort of screening (eg. bushes) if the dish would be visible from the street. Placing it on a deck would likely be OK here.

Here’s a bit from the fcc.gov site ... https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule ... there could be more.

My sense is that restrictions from HOAs relate to suitable signal, reasonable (not degraded) signal, vice “best” signal. They have a couple of examples. So, an HOA can restrict location, if the restriction doesn’t cost anything additional to the owner, or cause delay, etc.

“ Q: What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving an acceptable quality signal? Can a homeowners association or other restricting entity establish enforceable preferences for antenna locations?

A: Enforceable placement preferences must be clearly articulated in writing and made available to all residents of the community in question. A requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule. However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed in a particular location on a house such as the side or the rear, might be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay. For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited. If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer must comply.

For DBS antennas, and digital fixed wireless antennas or other digital antennas to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal, the antenna must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view of the satellite or other device from which signals are received or to which signals are to be transmitted. Unlike analog antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient over-the-air signal strength, will at times provide no picture or sound unless they are placed and oriented properly.”

Augustine D you are correct that agreement and contracts can be enforced in a court of law however that does not make them laws. Cathy you might be right if you don't read the post and respond to what yow want instead of what was asked. HOAs have to file zoning regulations just like everyone else. The first thing the poster needs to find out is is it a law or a HOA rule or regulation. That would determine his next step.

It is perfectly possible for something to comply with zoning regulations but still be prohibited by CC&Rs. Airbnb rentals are an obvious example of this. If one is going to appeal to authority, it's best to appeal to the correct one.

The association CAN prohibit the dish from being placed on common areas, such as roofs. In my community, we had that problem for years - after I moved in, there was an article in the newsletter showing examples of spots that were and weren't acceptable for installation. Although the homeowner was (and still is) ultimately responsible for ensuring the dish isn't placed in the wrong area, we also posted signs to the entrances of the community stating satellite TV operators were to call our property manager to see where the satellite could be.

This is why there are a few homes with more than one dish - people went from DirectTV to something else (or back again) and would have to get a new dish. In our area, the dishes have to face south for the best reception and since the dish can't be put on the roof or siding (or brick front in my case), the installer had to place the dish on a pole. That's part of where our issues began because we learned the more dishes the installer placed, the more money he or she would earn, so rather than taking time to determine the best spot for the pole (since the roof and siding were out), it was so much easier and faster to plunk the thing on the roof.