While CC&Rs are presumed to be reasonable by the courts, they sometimes have conflicts with other documents such as the bylaws or operating rules. Other times, the CC&Rs may conflict with the Davis-Stirling Act or the California Corporations Code. When this occurs, associations should seek legal counsel in most instances, the following rules of interpretation will apply.

If a statute uses words such as "notwithstanding any provision of the governing documents to the contrary or any similar language, the st9tute overrides the association's CC&Rs. For example in California Civil Code Section 4715(a), it states:

No governing documents shall prohibit
the owner of a separate interest within
a common interest development from
keeping at least one pet...

If a statute uses words such as "unless the declaration otherwise provides or similar language, the CC&Rs will prevail. For example, California Civil Code Section 4500 States:

Unless the declaration otherwise
provides...the common area is owned as tenants in
common, in equal
shares, one for each separate interest.

Sometimes condominiums will assign ownership interests and the payment of assessments according to the square footage of the units. If the CC&Rs were silent on the issue, then this statute would assign ownership in equal shares. Another example is found in California Civil Code Section 5500(a):

Unless the governing documents
impose more stringent standards, the
board shall do all of the following...

Sometimes the Davis-Stirling Act is silent on which controls, the statute or the CC&Rs. The board must then decide from the general language of the statute which controls. For example, California Civil Code Section 4800 does not contain any of the language set forth above, nonetheless, it controls because of its use of the word "shall":

A common interest development shall
be managed by an association that may
be incorporated or unincorporated.
The association maybe referred
to as an owners' association
or a community association.