Pavers, Property, and Protests: Navigating "Limited Common Elements" in Condominium Disputes

1. Introduction: The Battle for the Lanai

The boundary between shared community space and private unit use is one of the most litigious front lines in condominium law. In the matter of Katherine A. Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association, this tension centered on a seemingly simple addition: patio pavers.

The dispute arose after the Association’s Board passed a resolution allowing first-floor owners to install pavers on the ground outside their lanais. To the Petitioner, Katherine Windis, this was an unauthorized "land grab"—a move that allegedly stripped other owners of their undivided interest in common property. To the Association, it was a logical administrative step toward community-wide desert landscaping. This case, eventually decided by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as a masterclass in how statutory definitions of "Limited Common Elements" dictate the extent of a Board’s regulatory power.

2. The Resolution: Setting the Rules for Desert Landscaping

On April 23, 2012, the Fairway Court West Board of Directors adopted a resolution to standardize the installation of pavers. The Association was in the midst of a transition from grass to desert landscaping and sought to provide a uniform framework for owners wishing to enhance their entryways.

The resolution established the following rigorous criteria:

• Dimensions: Installations were restricted to a minimum of 7 x 15 feet and a maximum of 8 x 16 feet.
• Material Standards: Pavers were required to be at least two inches thick with color consistency matching existing community installations.
• Economic Responsibility: The individual unit owner assumed all costs for both the initial installation and ongoing maintenance.
• Board Oversight and Removal: Prior written approval was mandatory. Notably, the Board reserved the right to remove non-compliant pavers or maintain them at the owner’s expense.
• Classification: The resolution explicitly categorized these areas as "Limited Common Areas" under the Association’s control.

3. The Petitioner's Challenge: When Common Property Feels Private

Katherine Windis, a former Board member, argued that the resolution was a de facto conveyance of common property to private individuals. Her challenge was built on a sophisticated—though ultimately unsuccessful—interpretation of Arizona’s Condominium Act and the community’s governing documents.

The Statutory Argument: Windis contended that the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1217, A.R.S. § 33-1218, and A.R.S. § 33-1252. Her primary legal theory was that since all owners hold an "undivided interest" in common areas and pay taxes accordingly, any exclusive use granted to one owner constituted a "conveyance" of that interest. Under A.R.S. § 33-1252, such a transfer of title requires an 80% vote of the entire membership—a "nuclear option" for property rights that the Board bypassed.

The CC&R Challenge: Windis further alleged that the resolution ignored several specific provisions within the community’s Declaration:

• CC&R 2.03: Defines everything beyond exterior walls as "Common Area" owned jointly by all.
• CC&R 2.05: Specifically prohibits placing items like chairs, stools, or benches on common property.
• CC&R 2.21: Explicitly states that deeds for first and second-floor units grant "equal rights and privileges" regarding lawns and plantings, arguing the resolution favored lower-level units.

4. The Legal Turning Point: Defining "Limited Common Elements"

The Association’s defense rested on a nuance of property law: the "Limited Common Element" (LCE). An expert analysis of this case reveals that the Board did not actually create LCEs through their resolution; rather, they regulated areas that the law already defined as such.

Under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), a space's legal classification is determined by its functional use. If a portion of the common area is designed to serve only a single unit—specifically for ingress and egress—it is statutorily an LCE.

5. The Verdict: Why the Association Prevailed

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petition. The decision turned on the "burden of proof." In administrative hearings, the Petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning the claim is "more likely true than not." Windis failed to meet this burden.

The court’s reasoning solved the "Undivided Interest Paradox." While it is true that every owner holds an undivided interest in the common areas, that ownership does not equate to a right of use in every square inch. The ALJ determined that because the areas in question were entryways and stoops serving single units, they were statutorily Limited Common Elements from the outset.

Consequently, the Board was not "conveying" or "selling" property title (which would require the 80% vote under A.R.S. § 33-1252); they were simply exercising their administrative power to regulate the aesthetic and maintenance standards of an existing LCE. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety certified this decision as final.

6. Key Takeaways for Condo Owners and Boards

As a legal analyst, I recommend the following lessons for any community association facing similar disputes:

1. Functional Use Dictates Legal Status: A Board doesn't need to "label" a space an LCE if it already functions as one. If a stoop or entryway serves only one unit, it is likely an LCE under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4) regardless of what the CC&Rs call it.
2. Regulation is Not Conveyance: There is a critical legal distinction between regulating how an owner uses an LCE and transferring title of common property. Boards can pass resolutions for the former, but the "nuclear option" of an 80% vote is reserved for the latter.
3. The "Exclusive Use" Trade-off: Boards should clearly state that the privilege of exclusive use (like a paver patio) is contingent upon the owner assuming all maintenance and liability. This protects the Association's budget while granting owners personal utility.
4. Consistency in CC&R Interpretation: While CC&R 2.21 grants equal rights in deeds, those rights are subject to the functional realities of the building’s design. Second-floor units, which lack rear entryways, are not "discriminated against" simply because they cannot install pavers where no entryway exists.

7. Conclusion: Seeking Harmony in Shared Spaces

The Windis case demonstrates that even when CC&Rs state that "everything beyond the walls is common area," state statutes provide the nuanced definitions necessary for effective management. By understanding that certain common areas are legally "limited" to specific units for ingress and egress, Boards can confidently regulate landscaping and improvements without fear of overstepping their authority.

For Associations, the path forward is clear: draft resolutions that reference statutory definitions and specify maintenance shifts. For owners, the takeaway is a reminder to look past the general "undivided interest" clause and examine the functional purpose of the land in question. Clear, legally-grounded resolutions are the best defense against the cost and conflict of administrative litigation.