Civil Code Rules & Governing Documents
Extending the Declaration's Term
Chapter 3 · Governing Documents · Declaration
Text current as of 2026-07-07 · Last amended by AB 805, eff. 2014-01-01
The code says CIV §4265
(a) The Legislature finds that there are common interest developments that have been created with deed restrictions that do not provide a means for the members to extend the term of the declaration. The Legislature further finds that covenants and restrictions contained in the declaration, are an appropriate method for protecting the common plan of developments and to provide for a mechanism for financial support for the upkeep of common area including, but not
limited to, roofs, roads, heating systems, and recreational facilities. If declarations terminate prematurely, common interest developments may deteriorate and the housing supply of affordable units could be impacted adversely. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is in the public interest to provide a vehicle for extending the term of the declaration if the extension is approved by a majority of all members, pursuant to Section 4065.
(b) A declaration that specifies a termination date, but that contains no provision for extension of the termination date, may be extended, before its termination date, by the approval of members pursuant to Section 4270.
(c) No single extension of the terms of the declaration made pursuant to this section shall exceed the initial term of the declaration or 20 years, whichever is less. However, more than one extension may occur pursuant
to this section.
(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 180, Sec. 2. (AB 805) Effective January 1, 2013. Operative January 1, 2014, by Sec. 3 of Ch. 180.)
How courts have read this
Editorial summaries — not the court’s words.
- La Jolla Mesa Vista Improvement Ass'n v. La Jolla Mesa Vista Homeowners Ass'n 220 Cal. App. 3d 1187 · 1990 Signed consent to a CC&R extension cannot be unilaterally revoked.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)
- Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. 26 Cal. App. 5th 743 · 2018 Upheld a CC&R member-vote precondition to developer suits — later voided by statute.
mentioned in passing
- Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp 60 Cal. 4th 1135 · 2015 Prevailing-party fees apply even when the development is not a CID.
mentioned in passing
Decided under the former numbering
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. Terifaj 33 Cal. 4th 73 · 2004 · as former §1357 Recorded CC&R amendments bind all owners, including existing ones.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)
- Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Seith 159 Cal.App.4th 563 · 2008 · as former §1357 Courts can lower the CC&R amendment threshold after a failed good-faith vote.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)
- Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Ass'n 140 Cal. App. 4th 1363 · 2006 · as former §1357 A court may cut a CC&R supermajority only after a true majority of all owners approves.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)