California Case Law 2026: Tulare Medical Center v. Valdivia

Quick Answer

In Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Valdivia (Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist., No. F089334), filed April 7, 2026, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have enforced a CC&R land-use restriction against a clinic that provides abortion services. The court held the association had not shown a likelihood of success because the restriction was unenforceable on two independent grounds: it was adopted and recorded by a public entity without a compelling interest shown, and Civil Code section 53 voids it as a recorded restriction that limits use of property because of a characteristic protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion is certified for publication except for part V. This page covers the legal reasoning for associations, not the underlying policy debate.

At a Glance

The Dispute

In 1991 the Tulare Local Hospital District, a public entity, recorded a declaration of CC&Rs for the Tulare Medical Center, a common interest development, and later recorded a declaration of annexation adding parcels, including one the district sold to Leopoldo and Jennifer Valdivia in 2001. Section 7.01 of the CC&Rs limited uses to "medically related fields" and said no unit could be used for listed practices, including "abortion clinic." The Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association is an unincorporated association appointed in the CC&Rs and is authorized to seek injunctions for violations.

In January 2024 the association learned the Valdivias might lease their property to Family Planning Associates Medical Group, which provides family planning and abortion services at some locations. The association's property manager and attorney wrote that the clinic would violate section 7.01, and the attorney also asserted that the prospect of the clinic had caused picketing that disturbed other owners. In September 2024 the association sued for injunctive relief, and the defendants cross-complained.

What the Court Held

Procedural posture

The trial court denied the preliminary injunction in December 2024. It reasoned that, given the apparent absence of clear authority, it was an open question whether the restriction violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, so the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing. It also found the balance of harms did not support an injunction. The Court of Appeal ordered supplemental briefing in December 2025 on public-entity status, government action and the legal standard, and then affirmed. It treated the likelihood of success as a question of law and reviewed it independently.

Which statute governs

Both the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code sections 4000 to 6150) and the Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act (sections 6500 to 6876) say that covenants and restrictions "shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable." The court noted the parties did not say which act applies, that the association's trial papers cited section 6856, and that the text is the same in each, so it did not resolve the point. It applied Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361: recorded use restrictions are presumed reasonable, and are enforced unless "wholly arbitrary, violate a fundamental public policy, or impose a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit."

Ground one: unconstitutional government action

The court identified a fundamental California public policy protecting individual choice on abortion, drawn from the state constitution's privacy right (article I, section 1) and its reproductive freedom provision (article I, section 1.1). It held the district's adoption and recording of the CC&Rs was government action, because the restriction would not exist but for the district's conduct and the association's suit was an attempt to implement it. It applied the compelling interest standard and noted the association had treated the restriction as purely contractual and offered no argument or evidence of a compelling interest. The court said the association could develop evidence in later proceedings, but on this record it did not show a likelihood of success. The court also held the defendants had standing to argue that the restriction was unreasonable because it violates fundamental public policy. It expressly did not decide whether private parties' CC&Rs would be tested the same way.

Ground two: Civil Code section 53

Section 53 voids "every restriction or prohibition as to the use or occupation of real property because of any characteristic" protected by the Unruh Act, and voids restrictions that "directly or indirectly" limit use because of such a characteristic. The court held the recorded CC&Rs were a written instrument relating to real property, section 7.01 was a prohibition as to use, and it indirectly limited use because of a protected characteristic. On that basis it provided an alternate ground to affirm. The court rejected the argument that owners' expectations of uniform enforcement, or the effect of protesters on neighboring businesses, saved the restriction, saying those general expectations "must give way" to California's public policy and section 53.

What the court did not decide

Part V, which is not published, lists issues the court left open. They include whether article I, section 1.1 reaches private action, equal protection, and the clinic's own Unruh Act standing.

Why It Matters for Associations

Most associations will never face this exact restriction. The broader points are about drafting and enforcing recorded use restrictions.

• The presumption that use restrictions are reasonable is rebuttable, and fundamental public policy is one way to rebut it.
• Section 53 can void a recorded restriction without a showing that a party personally suffered discrimination, in the court's reading.
• Restrictions that were adopted by a public entity may face a constitutional standard that a purely private restriction would not. The court said it was not deciding the private-restriction question.
• A property manager's or attorney's letter citing a restriction does not substitute for evidence supporting it if the restriction is challenged.

Our reading is that boards should have counsel review older use lists for terms that may now conflict with state law, and should treat a preliminary injunction ruling as non-final. The court said an affirmance of a preliminary injunction denial "is not a decision on the merits," and the case continues in the trial court.

Related California Law

• California HOA case law: Nahrstedt, Lamden, Dolan-King, which includes the presumption of reasonableness applied here.
• California Davis-Stirling Act guide.
• Eng v. Opperman, another decision about how courts treat association-adopted restrictions and decisions.
• All published California HOA decisions of 2025 and 2026.

Board Checklist

• Pull every use restriction in your declaration and have counsel flag any that may conflict with current state law.
• Confirm whether your community is governed by the Davis-Stirling Act, the commercial and industrial act, or both.
• Before enforcing a contested use restriction, collect the evidence you would need to defend it.
• Check who adopted and recorded the original declaration, since a public-entity declarant may change the legal analysis.
• Do not rely on a notice letter alone; get counsel's view before filing for injunctive relief.
• Calendar the case's later proceedings if your documents contain similar language, since this ruling was on a preliminary injunction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this ruling mean CC&R use restrictions are unenforceable?

No. The court restated that recorded restrictions are presumed reasonable. It held this particular restriction was unenforceable on this record on two grounds.

Was this a final judgment?

No. It was an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and the court said such an affirmance is not a decision on the merits.

Was the entire opinion published?

No. It was certified for publication except part V of the discussion.

Which act applies, Davis-Stirling or the commercial and industrial act?

The court did not resolve it. It said the relevant text is the same in both and noted that developments with mixed residential and commercial components are governed by Davis-Stirling according to a treatise it cited.

What is Civil Code section 53?

It declares void recorded provisions that restrict the use or occupation of real property because of characteristics protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Does the ruling apply to private associations?

The first ground depended on government action by a public-entity declarant. Section 53, the second ground, is not limited to public declarants. The court did not decide how the constitutional question would apply to private restrictions.

Where This Comes From

We read the opinion in Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Valdivia (No. F089334, filed April 7, 2026) as posted on a public case-law mirror, covering the introduction, facts, procedural history, the statutory framework, the government-action and compelling-interest analysis, the standing analysis, the section 53 analysis in part and part V. We skimmed the historical survey of abortion-rights cases and part of the section 53 reasoning, and rely on the court's own summaries of both. We did not verify a Cal.App.5th citation.

How APM Helps

Association Property Managers manages HOA and condominium communities in the San Francisco Bay Area from our Dublin office. See our California service area, browse every California state-law guide, or request a free proposal. Laws and documents differ by community, and we review your CC&Rs and bylaws when we build your proposal.

Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed California attorney before acting.