Economic consequenses of enlarged patio in COOP development

[Andy415]

California
My question concerns the economic consequences resulting from the HOA allowing
permanent patios that extend on to land that previously was common ground. It seems to
me that since I can't use that land anymore, I should not have to pay taxes on the land
that is no longer of any benefit to me. Moreover, the owner of the patio should have to pick up
the proportional share of any tax on the land that is now, only for their exclusive use.
Any thoughts****************************

 

[justalayman]

The bigger question is; why was it allowed?


But yes, they have effectively converted common areas to individual areas. It would be unfair for the hoa (and of course its members) to expend money to maintain and insure property that is no longer effectively common area.

 

[LdiJ]

California
My question concerns the economic consequences resulting from the HOA allowing
permanent patios that extend on to land that previously was common ground. It seems to
me that since I can't use that land anymore, I should not have to pay taxes on the land
that is no longer of any benefit to me. Moreover, the owner of the patio should have to pick up
the proportional share of any tax on the land that is now, only for their exclusive use.
Any thoughts****************************

How much of an extension are we talking about?

 

[Andy415]

How much of an extension are we talking about?

The basic units are 1200 sq ft.The added enlarged patio areas are 400 to 500 sq ft.

 

[justalayman]

So, how was this allowed to happen? That could make a world of difference in any answer to your questions.

 

[FlyingRon]

The economics of it isn't a legal question. You'd have to consult with a real estate professional (likely an appraiser).

 

[Andy415]

So, how was this allowed to happen? That could make a world of difference in any answer to your questions.

New board of directors wanted to allow larger patios

 

[justalayman]

New board of directors wanted to allow larger patios

It's just not that simple. To allow an owner to build on common areas should require a board vote if not an actual change of the rules.

 

[festival]

It is common to have exclusive use common areas, often for porch/patio. These are usually described in the governing documents, and can be valuable to have in the complex. Your own unit may be more valuable if this is a possibility for a future owner of your unit.

Do your docs have these exclusive use common areas?

Many docs also state that giving up common area must be voted on by the owners.

Have you read your docs to see if there are such provisions?

Did the board just let people build a patio, or does it now have some new legal status/lease/amendment/grant/exclusive use/easement?

Another consideration is who pays for insurance. Is the owner providing insurance for the patio?

Found this in CA Civil Code. Not sure if this applies to your co-op, but you can bring it up to the board.

Civil Code §4600. GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE USE.
[Old: Civ. Code §1363.07]

(a) Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.

 

[Andy415]

It is common to have exclusive use common areas, often for porch/patio. These are usually described in the governing documents, and can be valuable to have in the complex. Your own unit may be more valuable if this is a possibility for a future owner of your unit.

Do your docs have these exclusive use common areas?

Many docs also state that giving up common area must be voted on by the owners.

Have you read your docs to see if there are such provisions?

Did the board just let people build a patio, or does it now have some new legal status/lease/amendment/grant/exclusive use/easement?

Another consideration is who pays for insurance. Is the owner providing insurance for the patio?

Found this in CA Civil Code. Not sure if this applies to your co-op, but you can bring it up to the board.

Civil Code §4600. GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE USE.
[Old: Civ. Code §1363.07]

(a) Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests in the common interest development shall be required before the board may grant exclusive use of any portion of the common area to a member.

Thanks for your detailed reply.
The board legally approved the larger patios and anyone can put one in.
The question is only about the sharing of expenses associated with space that can no longer be utilized by all residents.
For example: assuming taxes are paid by the association on all the property and individuals pay a proportionate share.
Then should not my proportion of taxes paid be reduced because I can't use that part of what was the prior common area. Moreover, should not the larger patio owners share of the taxes increase?

 

[justalayman]

That should have been addressed when the board voted to allow the larger patios

 

[tranquility]

The bigger question is; why was it allowed?


But yes, they have effectively converted common areas to individual areas. It would be unfair for the hoa (and of course its members) to expend money to maintain and insure property that is no longer effectively common area.

I agree with the reality, but, I am fundamentally uncertain as to if it has been "converted". If I were in such a situation, I might have a BBQ on the patio and sit, eat and smoke (a rarely enjoyed) cigar there. Let's see what the person claims. But then, I'm a bit of a dic...problematical person. I challenge stupid things to see what the powers that be (aka The Man) says. My whole life tested boundaries. This might be a time I might.