Civil Code Property, Pets & Rentals
Television Antennas and Satellite Dishes
Chapter 5 · Property Use and Maintenance · Protected Uses
Text current as of 2026-07-07 · Last amended by AB 805, eff. 2014-01-01
The code says CIV §4725
(a) Any covenant, condition, or restriction contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, a common interest development that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a video or television antenna, including a satellite dish, or that effectively prohibits or restricts the attachment of that antenna to a structure within that development where the antenna is not
visible from any street or common area, except as otherwise prohibited or restricted by law, is void and unenforceable as to its application to the installation or use of a video or television antenna that has a diameter or diagonal measurement of 36 inches or less.
(b) This section shall not apply to any covenant, condition, or restriction, as described in subdivision (a), that imposes reasonable restrictions on the installation or use of a video or television antenna, including a satellite dish, that has a diameter or diagonal measurement of 36 inches or less. For purposes of this section, “reasonable restrictions” means those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the video or television antenna system, including all related equipment, or significantly decrease its efficiency or performance and include all of the following:
(1) Requirements for application
and notice to the association prior to the installation.
(2) Requirement of a member to obtain the approval of the association for the installation of a video or television antenna that has a diameter or diagonal measurement of 36 inches or less on a separate interest owned by another.
(3) Provision for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components.
(4) Requirements for installers of a video or television antenna to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of a video or television antenna that has a diameter or diagonal measurement of 36 inches or less.
(c) Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a video or television
antenna, including a satellite dish, the application for approval shall be processed by the appropriate approving entity for the common interest development in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and the issuance of a decision on the application shall not be willfully delayed.
(d) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
(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.
- Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condo. Ass'n 19 Cal. App. 5th 923 · 2018 Winning a preliminary injunction doesn’t make you the prevailing party for fees.
mentioned in passing
Decided under the former numbering
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 · 2000 · as former §1376 HOA board meetings and community newsletters are anti-SLAPP public forums.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)
- Smart Corner Owners Assn. v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC 64 Cal. App. 5th 439 · 2021 · as former §1376 Developer-drafted pre-suit member-vote requirements can’t block construction-defect claims.
- Golden Eagle Land Inv., L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Ass'n 19 Cal. App. 5th 399 · 2018 · as former §1376 Anti-SLAPP shields HOA board communications on land-use matters of public concern.
- Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n. v. Carson 246 Cal. App. 4th 761 · 2016 · as former §1376 Prevailing-party status turns on litigation objectives, not net dollars.
- Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass'n v. Hazelbaker 2 Cal. App. 5th 252 · 2016 · as former §1376 Mandatory HOA fee-shifting reaches suits enforcing ADR settlement agreements.
- Diamond v. Superior Court 217 Cal. App. 4th 1172 · 2013 · as former §1376 Foreclosing an assessment lien requires strict compliance with every notice requirement.
decided before the current text (eff. 2014-01-01, AB 805)