What this episode adds to the discussion: While California law and the First Amendment generally protect a property owner’s right to display “For Sale” signs, these rights are subject to reasonable government and HOA regulations regarding safety, dimensions and placement in common areas.
Properly navigating “For Sale” sign rights and restrictions
“For Sale” signs may be reasonably located in plain view for the public to observe. [Calif. Civil Code §§712, 713]
In a common interest development (CID), the boundaries of a unit owned as the separate interest of a member of the CID are the walls, windows, floors and ceilings within their unit (airspace).
Unless the CC&Rs of the CID state otherwise, the interior surface of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, windows, doors, outlets and airspace located within a unit are the seller’s separate interest.
All other portions of the walls, floors, ceilings and real estate are part of the common area maintained and managed by the HOA. [CC §4185(b)]
Thus, the seller is entitled to display a “For Sale” sign on the interior side of the window of their condominium unit. The interior side of the window belongs to the seller. Thus, placing the sign in the window facing outward is reasonable. [CC §4710]
However, when the seller seeks to display the sign on the ground area surrounding their unit, the seller obtains permission from the HOA. Here, the ground area is part of the common area owned by others, specifically, the undivided ownership interest held by all the owners of units in the CID. [CC §712]
A copy of an HOA’s governing documents and CC&Rs controlling the dimensions and design of “For Sale” signs is available from the HOA. [See RPI Form 309]
Unreasonable restraint on alienation
Now consider a city which prohibits the display of all “For Sale” signs. The ordinance was enacted to stop perceived “white flight” from a racially integrated city.
A seller and their broker claim the ban on signs unreasonably interferes with the sale and transfer of real estate — called a restraint on alienation — and violates the seller’s freedom of speech.
The city claims the sign prohibition is enforceable since it does not prohibit other means for advertising property for sale, only those advertisements located on the property.
Is the city ordinance a reasonable restriction on the display of “For Sale” signs?
No! Prohibiting the display of “For Sale” signs is a violation of the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech. Other methods of advertising real estate for sale are less effective, and the ordinance prohibits the free flow of commercial information for the sale of property. [Linmark Associations, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977) 431 US 85]
Further, cities and counties may not prohibit the placement of “For Sale” signs on private property. This rule applies whether the sign is on the property for sale or property owned by others who consent to a directional sign on their property. However, government agencies may determine the location, shape and dimensions of “For Sale” signs to ensure the signs do not affect public safety, including traffic safety. [CC §713]
Restrictions vary between residential and industrial zones, and among cities. Copies of “For Sale” sign ordinances controlling their use on private property are available through city and county planning departments.
Remember: Do your homework into the local restrictions unique to your area before you start placing signs – you’ll be thankful that you did.
Editor’s note — Stay tuned for the next episode covering the placement of “For Sale” signs off-site.
