Overview

Homeowners frequently ask whether they have the legal right to see architectural applications submitted by their neighbors, especially when those applications affect exterior paint schemes, fencing, landscaping, or other visible improvements. The question becomes even more pointed when the homeowner in question signed an adjacent-neighbor approval form, or when a change appears to have occurred without that signature being included in the submission. The issue sounds simple. It is not.

Under Civil Code 5200, homeowners have the right to inspect and copy a broad range of “association records” and “enhanced association records.” The statute is written expansively and covers documents “prepared, owned, used, or retained by the association.” That language matters. But here is where the tension begins. Many HOA-side attorneys argue that architectural applications are merely member submissions and therefore do not qualify as association records subject to inspection. In their view, these documents belong to the applicant, not the corporation. In my opinion, that position does not withstand close statutory analysis. Once an architectural application is submitted to the HOA and retained as part of its decision-making process under Civil Code 4765, the association uses and relies on that document to exercise architectural control. At that point, the document becomes something the association “used” and “retained” within the meaning of Civil Code 5200. It is no longer just a private submission. It is part of the HOA’s official decision-making file.

The wording of Civil Code 5215 directly supports my position. That statute permits associations to withhold or redact specific categories of information, including “[i]nterior architectural plans, including security features, for individual homes.” The Legislature did not exclude architectural plans generally. It excluded interior plans only. When a statute carves out a narrow exception, courts confine that exception to what the Legislature expressly stated. If lawmakers intended to shield all architectural plans from inspection, they could have written “architectural plans” without limitation. They did not. By singling out interior plans and remaining silent as to exterior submissions, the statute strongly supports the argument that exterior plans, elevations, paint schemes, fence layouts, and landscaping diagrams fall outside the exclusion and are subject to inspection under Civil Code 5200.

This Fact Sheet addresses that debate directly. It explains why some associations resist producing architectural applications, why the statutory text supports inspection of exterior submissions, what limited redactions may apply, and where the line shifts from a good-faith disagreement to an enforceable violation of a homeowner’s inspection rights.

For a deeper dive into this topic, see my article, “Forcing HOA Transparency: The Power of Civil Code § 5200 to Demand Records.” Or, if you prefer, you can watch an episode of the HOA HELL podcast, “Your HOA’s Paper Trail: How to Use Civil Code § 5200 to Get Every Document You Need.”

Key Points

Civil Code 5200 and 5215 create the battleground for this issue. Some HOA boards and their attorneys insist that architectural applications belong to the applicant and fall outside the statute. I disagree. Once a homeowner submits an architectural application and the HOA relies on it to approve or deny exterior modifications under Civil Code 4765, that document becomes part of the HOA’s official record. The question is not whether the document originated with a member. The question is whether the statute allows the HOA to withhold it.

• Architectural applications become association records once the HOA uses and retains them to exercise architectural control. Civil Code 5200 covers documents “prepared, owned, used, or retained by the association.” HOA-side attorneys often argue that architectural submissions remain private “member documents” and therefore fall outside the statute. That position ignores what actually happens in the real world, and I believe it ignores the plain intent of the Legislature. More importantly, it ignores the reality of Civil Code 4765. The HOA reviews the application, evaluates compliance with the governing documents, votes on approval or denial, and retains the file as part of its official records. Once the HOA relies on that document to make a decision under Civil Code 4765, it ceases to be a private submission. Instead, it becomes a record used and retained by the HOA in the governance of the development, and it therefore falls within Section 5200.
  • Signing or not signing a neighbor approval form does not determine your inspection rights. Section 5200 does not limit access to records involving you personally. If the HOA retained the architectural file as part of its governance function, you may demand inspection regardless of whether your signature appears on the form.
• Civil Code 5215 creates narrow exceptions, not blanket exemptions. Section 5215 allows an association to withhold or redact specific categories of information. Among them are “[i]nterior architectural plans, including security features, for individual homes.” The Legislature did not exclude architectural plans generally. It excluded interior plans only. That textual limitation matters.
  • The Davis-Stirling Act’s narrow exclusion of “interior architectural plans” reinforces  the position that exterior plans remain inspectable. Civil Code 5215 does not exclude architectural plans generally. It excludes interior plans only. When the Legislature draws a line that specific, courts confine the exclusion to that line. If lawmakers intended to shield all architectural submissions, they could have written the statute that way. They did not. Exterior elevations, paint schemes, fencing plans, and landscaping diagrams fall outside the statutory exclusion and remain subject to inspection under Civil Code 5200.
• Redaction is limited, and withholding requires a statutory basis. Civil Code 5215 allows redaction of personal identifying information, privileged communications, executive session material, and certain disciplinary or collection records. It does not authorize an HOA to refuse production simply because the requesting member was not the applicant. If the HOA withholds or redacts, you may request a written explanation specifying the legal basis under Civil Code 5215(d). A generalized appeal to “privacy” does not satisfy the statute.
• Most disputes hinge on classification, not confidentiality. The real argument is whether the architectural file qualifies as an association record under Civil Code 5200 at all. Once that threshold is met, Civil Code 5215 defines the narrow universe of permissible withholding. At that point, the HOA must point to a specific statutory exception. Preference or discomfort does not control.
• Wrongfully withholding records under Civil Code 5200 carries serious financial consequences for the HOA. The Davis-Stirling Act provides homeowners with powerful enforcement tools when facing an HOA that is refusing to produce records properly demanded under 5200. Upon prevailing, homeowners are entitled under Civil Code 5235 to an order compelling the HOA to produce the requested documents, civil penalties of up to $500 per request (i.e., for each category of documents demanded), any monetary damages the homeowner proves, and the homeowner’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Even better for the homeowner, the statute does not create a symmetrical fee risk. If the HOA loses, it pays. If the HOA prevails, it is not automatically entitled to its own attorneys’ fees unless a court determines that the member’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. That fee-shifting structure creates real exposure for boards that refuse to comply without a defensible statutory basis.
• If your HOA denies access, demand the statutory basis in writing and act accordingly. Submit a written demand under Civil Code 5200 identifying the requested architectural file. If the HOA refuses to produce the document you demanded, then call MBK Chapman, and we’ll set your HOA straight. The attorneys at MBK Chapman are California’s #1 homeowner-side HOA attorneys, and our reputation and experience gets real results.

Civil Code 5200 grants homeowners meaningful inspection rights, and Civil Code 5215 defines narrow, specific exceptions. When an HOA relies on an exterior architectural application to approve or deny modifications under Civil Code 4765, that document does not remain private simply because it originated with a member. It becomes part of the HOA’s decision-making record. If an HOA withholds it without a defensible statutory basis, the issue shifts from interpretation to enforcement, and the financial consequences for the HOA under Civil Code 5235 can be substantial.

FAQs

About MBK Chapman Fact Sheets

Homeowners searching for answers online will often come across articles that appear authoritative, but are actually written as search-engine marketing content rather than by an experienced HOA lawyer. These pieces tend to prioritize keyword density over clarity, accuracy, or legal context, which often leaves homeowners more confused than informed.

At MBK Chapman, our Fact Sheets are part of our HOA Law Library and are written by Michael Kushner, an HOA lawyer with decades of hands-on experience representing California homeowners. In fact, Michael Kushner is the HOA lawyer who pioneered the systems and strategies used by some of California’s most successful homeowner-side HOA law firms.

Each Fact Sheet is deliberately concise, statute-based, and designed as a quick-reference guide to help homeowners understand key HOA laws and enforcement rules at a glance.

AND DON’T FORGET TO TUNE INTO MY PODCAST, HOA HELL

YOU CAN ALSO ORDER MY GROUNDBREAKING BOOK

HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs

Amazon  |  Barnes & Noble