Chapter 6 - § 6.13 • ZONING AND LOCAL REGULATION

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.13 • ZONING AND LOCAL REGULATION

Real estate use laws, ordinances, or regulations (including zoning or subdivision laws) may not prohibit the condominium or cooperative form of ownership or impose any requirement on a condominium or cooperative that would not be imposed on a physically identical development under a different form of ownership.⁴⁴⁰ Additionally, the CCIOA prohibits building codes from imposing any requirements on structures in a common interest community that would not be imposed on a physically identical development under a different form of ownership, except that a building code may require a minimum one-hour fire wall between units in a common interest community.⁴⁴¹

The CCIOA statutory proscriptions appear to apply only to land use regulation and building codes, but local governments also regulate other activities. For example, in Manor Vail Condominium Ass'n v. Vail,⁴⁴² a condominium association challenged a cable television franchise ordinance adopted in 1974,⁴⁴³ before enactment of the CCIOA. The ordinance established three customer categories and allowed the franchisee to choose the category that applied to each customer. It chose a residential category for the condominium that imposed substantially higher rates than another residential classification. The association argued that by allowing the franchisee to charge disparate rates to customers for the same cable television service, the ordinance denied equal protection because the rate classifications were not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The court did not agree. It could not conclude from the evidence that the cable television rate schedule was "wholly arbitrary" or represented "invidious discrimination" against the association. The association's contention that a better and more equitable rate structure could have been adopted afforded no constitutional grounds for declaring the ordinance invalid, even though the court might disagree with the wisdom of the ordinance. The association had not demonstrated that the classification lacked some reasonable basis and was unable to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

--------

Notes:

^[440] C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106(2). See generally Graham Court Assocs. v. Town Council of Chapel Hill, 281 S.E.2d 418 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) (where apartments were permitted non-conforming use, change in ownership to condominiums did not constitute modification that town could regulate by zoning ordinance and require special use...