Top 10 Architectural Review Mishaps


Denise Iger, Esq., Iger Wankel, LLP


It is the stuff lawsuits are made of. The architectural review process is easily the most


litigated issue in the community


association world. Attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting or defending these claims often exceed $100,000, because emotions can run high. Good organization, careful consideration of procedural requirements, and an active review body can make all the difference in avoiding legal disputes over architectural applications.


After decades of seeing the same mistakes made repeatedly, I have come up with this list of the most common issues that lead to litigation:


1


Failing to read and strictly follow the CC&R provisions of the governing documents that govern architectural review timelines.


Assumptions may be made that a generic 30-day or 60- day deadline applies without confi rming what the governing documents or California law actually require. The CC&Rs may require that a decision be “sent” or “delivered” within 30 or 60 days. The difference in these tiny words may indicate that a denial was not provided on time, resulting in the application being automatically approved. Some applications, like solar panel installation, may have a shorter response deadline by law than what is set forth in the governing documents. Every Association should maintain a list of all deadlines related to the community’s architectural review process.


2


Failure to review applications for completeness immediately upon receipt.


When an application is missing application fees, required plans, color chips, neighbor awareness forms, or other information, the association should promptly notify the owner that the submission is incomplete and that the application will not be reviewed until the missing materials are provided. Delaying this notice can result in missed deadlines and unintended approvals under the governing documents.


3


Denying an application without providing a clear and appropriate explanation of the reasons for the denial.


California law requires the association to explain why an application was denied and to describe the appeal procedure (if an appeal is permitted by law).


Failure to base the decision on the criteria set forth in the CC&Rs or architectural guidelines.


Governing documents for planned developments almost


always include specifi c architectural review criteria in the CC&Rs. A common criterion is whether the proposed change is in harmony with the surrounding topography or structures. Failure to use the specifi c criteria required when reviewing the application can be grounds for a successful lawsuit by the applicant or an aggrieved neighbor.


16 March | April 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32