Owners’ Individual Security Lighting: Yay or Nay?

The desire for security lighting by owners with security concerns can put associations and boards in a difficult position, especially when their CC&Rs prohibit exterior or high-intensity lighting. What should your clients do when owners request permission to install lights that can be both protective and disruptive?

The Balancing Act

“Lighting is said to be a deterrent to criminal activity, so an association might want to allow it to let owners protect themselves and their property,” says Jeffrey Beaumont, a partner with Beaumont Tashjian in Woodland Hills, Calif. He notes, though, that, while there aren’t many reasons to prohibit security lighting in a single-family residential neighborhood, that’s not necessarily the case in denser communities. “When you have zero lot lines, bright lights can interfere with the neighbors’ ability to enjoy their own homes,” he says. “The association could get dragged into litigation over nuisance claims.” High-intensity lighting also can cause physical damage. “In a condo community, bright security lighting more likely than not is going to penetrate the waterproofing membrane,” Beaumont says. Nonetheless, the case for “no” isn’t clear cut. “There’s the fear of denying someone a request and then them becoming a victim of crime,” Beaumont says. “The Francis T. case in California set the stage for this issue and really heightened the sensitivity to it by managers and boards” (Francis T. v. Village Green Owners Ass’n, Cal. 1986).

When the Worst-Case Scenario Happened

In that case, the community had been subject to a crime wave, leading residents to complain about the lack of lighting. After one unit was burglarized in April 1980, the owner made multiple requests for the association to install lighting but received no response. In August, she installed additional exterior lighting at her unit to protect her from crime. The board, however, determined that her lights violated the CC&Rs and demanded their removal on or before Oct. 6. The owner cut off the electric power to the exterior lights on Oct. 8. On Oct. 9, when her unit was in total darkness, she was raped and robbed. “The California Supreme Court held that the association and individual board members generally aren’t liable for the criminal acts of third parties but can be held responsible for their own negligence or willful misconduct,” Beaumont says. “And it found that the board’s demand that she remove the lights — albeit to enforce the governing documents — actually increased her risk of harm and caused her injuries.” The takeaway? Boards must exercise reasonable care to protect residents from “foreseeable harm” in areas under the association’s control. “Criminal activity is foreseeable when that type of harm had occurred in the past and on regular basis,” Beaumont says. In the Francis T. case, the association and board members knew that the owner’s unit had already been burglarized. “But the prior crime needn’t be identical to the subsequent crime,” Beaumont says, “as long as the possibility of that type of harm was foreseeable.”

Tips for Finding the Right Balance

First and foremost, if your client’s governing documents outright ban security lighting, it should consider amending. “Lights should be allowed based on reasonable guidelines on, for example, where lights can be installed, wattage, brightness, and the direction lights point,” Beaumont says. “I also suggest associations adopt architectural standards to regulate consistency throughout the community.” Informal dispute resolution can play a role, too. For example, one of Beaumont’s clients recently received complaints about an owner’s extremely bright lights. “They’re allowing the owner to keep them but trying to get them to switch to a less intense wattage,” he says. The board didn’t make this decision without careful evaluation, though. “They held meetings with the owners and walked them through the concerns. The board learned about where the owners are coming from — they have a special needs child and one of the residents had been a victim of a crime. Getting to know where they’re coming from really made a difference.” If a board’s evaluation of a lighting request reveals foreseeable criminal activity, it might want to go beyond allowing owners to install their own exterior lights. “That should send the message that the board also should allow other reasonable security measures by owners and consider measures in the common areas,” Beaumont says.