California gives owners a strong frame for the 'they fined me but not my neighbor' problem. The state's leading HOA case law holds that an association's enforcement of its covenants must be reasonable, in good faith, and not arbitrary or discriminatory. An association that enforces a restriction against one owner while knowingly tolerating identical conduct by others is acting arbitrarily — and a court can refuse to enforce the restriction against the singled-out owner.
Because Davis-Stirling also funnels enforcement disputes through Internal Dispute Resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution before litigation, you usually get a structured chance to surface the inconsistency early. The owner who walks into IDR/ADR with dated photos of uncited comparable violations and the association's own enforcement records is in a far stronger position than one making a bare 'it's not fair' argument.
Reasonableness is the test
California courts evaluate covenant enforcement for reasonableness. Selective, inconsistent enforcement is evidence that the action against you is unreasonable or pretextual. Pair it with the records rights above: request the association's violation and fine logs, and the pattern (or absence of a pattern) often makes the case for you.
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading — informational only, not legal advice.
Cal. Civ. Code § 5975
Makes recorded covenants enforceable as equitable servitudes — and that enforcement is subject to a reasonableness standard.
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5900–5965
Internal Dispute Resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution requirements that give owners a forum to raise inconsistent enforcement before litigation.
California reasonableness / good-faith enforcement doctrine
California case law requires association enforcement to be reasonable and even-handed, not arbitrary or discriminatory.
How to assert selective enforcement in California
Build the record and use IDR/ADR to challenge inconsistent HOA enforcement in California.
Identify the exact restriction
Pin down the specific covenant or rule the board says you violated so your comparison is apples-to-apples.
Photograph uncited comparables
Document other properties with the same violation that weren't cited. Date the photos and note addresses or unit numbers — not owner names.
Request the enforcement records
Use your Davis-Stirling records rights to obtain the association's violation and fine logs. A one-sided enforcement pattern is your best evidence.
Raise it in IDR/ADR
Bring the comparables and records into Internal or Alternative Dispute Resolution and frame the action as unreasonable and inconsistent.
Preserve everything
Keep an organized, dated record. If the dispute escalates, the reasonableness standard turns on exactly this documentation.
Common questions
Is selective enforcement a defense in California?
Yes. California requires association enforcement to be reasonable, in good faith, and not arbitrary or discriminatory. Enforcing a rule against you while ignoring identical violations is evidence the action is unreasonable, and a court can decline to enforce it against you.
How does California's dispute-resolution requirement help?
Davis-Stirling (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5900–5965) routes enforcement disputes through Internal and Alternative Dispute Resolution before litigation, giving you an early, structured forum to surface inconsistent enforcement.
What evidence do I need?
Dated photos of comparable uncited violations and the association's own violation/fine logs (obtained through your records rights). Patterns of one-sided enforcement carry far more weight than single examples.
Do I have to name the neighbors who weren't cited?
No. Use addresses or unit numbers to establish the comparison. Keep the focus on the association's inconsistent conduct, not on individual neighbors.