Many declarations require owners in associations to obtain architectural approval prior to installing any improvements to their property, or altering the exterior of improvements already existing.

Most associations do not have written standards or guidelines to assist owners as to what exterior alterations or improvements the architectural committee will approve and what colors, material, etc. the committee is looking for. As a result, the architectural committee has a good deal of discretion to review a request based on subjective criteria set forth in the declaration, such as whether the improvement is in harmony with surrounding structures.

When architectural committees deny an owner’s application without pointing to a specific set of written standards or guidelines to justify the decision, but rather rely on broad standards such as aesthetics, the disappointed owner commonly complains about the fact that there were no written standards to guide the board, committee or owners. In many cases, owners will question the integrity of the process and allege that the committee’s decision in his or her case was arbitrary and capricious. This may lead to litigation against the association on this issue, or it may lead the owner to not follow the decision of the committee, which may lead to litigation by the association against the owner. In either case, it leaves the owner with bad feelings about the association and its processes.

Fortunately, for the associations, courts have upheld the discretion of the committees to make these kinds of decisions with or without written guidelines or standards. In Rhue v. Cheyenne Homes, the association sued an owner who failed to obtain approval for his house to enjoin the owner from relocating his house into the association. The committee in Rhue had no written architectural guidelines or standards to guide the committee or the owner on what improvements would be acceptable. The Colorado Supreme Court held in favor of the association and found that the covenant provision requiring architectural approval was not vague or ambiguous because of a lack of specificity as to architectural standards or guidelines and further found that there was broad discretion in the hands of the architectural committee to make these types of decisions. The Court held that was the case as long as the intention of the covenant was clear (and it was clearly to protect the property values in the community).

The Colorado Court of Appeals also discussed this issue in Snowmass American Corp. v. Schoenheit. In that case, the association sued an owner to enjoin him from constructing his residence until the architectural committee could review and approve plans. In that case, the recorded covenants also gave broad discretion to the architectural committee to approve or deny improvement requests based on subjective criteria. These criteria related to integrating and harmonizing structures so as to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the subdivision. Here, too, the association did not have written architectural standards or guidelines. The Court held that the restrictive covenants imposed definite criteria upon the architectural committee and specifically stated the objective of the covenants was to preserve and enhance property values. The Court further analyzed whether the architectural committee acted consistently and uniformly and in good faith in making its decision and found that it had.

Given the existing case law, why should community associations adopt written guidelines and standards if the Courts will typically defer to decisions rendered pursuant to the broad discretion and subjective criteria language found in the recorded covenants? Because guidelines or standards stating which architectural changes the association will or will not approve can aid the owners by giving them advance notice as to how the association is likely to rule on certain requests. This will, in turn, help the association by establishing that the owner knew or should have known about the existing standards as to their particular improvement before making the request. At a minimum, the guidelines or standards should address the association’s position on major and recurring alterations (e.g., fences, paint colors, windows, doors, driveways, pool/spas, additions, etc).

Written guidelines or standards will also help boards and committees inadvertently making inconsistent or arbitrary decisions. Given the turnover on the average board or committee, the threat of inconsistent decisions is great. Having a written set of standards will help educate new members to the standards that ought to govern their decisions. Because, although the Courts do defer to the broad discretion of the architectural committee in making architectural decisions, the main factor is whether the committee exercised its discretion uniformly and consistently in all cases, and having written standards and guidelines will take out the guess work. In addition, having written architectural standards and guidelines will hopefully make an owner less likely to cry foul when an architectural committee has denied his or her request and hopefully may lead to fewer lawsuits regarding this issue.

In conclusion, while standards and guidelines are typically not required to support a decision to approve or reject an alteration under the architectural provision in the recorded covenants, they can be very helpful, and we recommend them.