Alert

California Court Upholds Coastal Commission’s Denial of HOA Seawall Permit

December 20, 2024

On December 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal of the State of California reversed a writ of mandate and agreed with the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) denial of a permit by the Casa Mira Homeowners Association for coastal development of a seawall to protect the condominium complex.  

Legal Challenges to the CCC’s Determination

The California Coastal Act of 1976 was enacted on January 1, 1977. The purpose of the Act was to “[p]rotect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and natural and artificial resources.” Casa Mira Homeowners Association (HOA) applied for a permit to build a 257-foot wall to protect its property (built in 1984) and a small apartment building (built in 1972) located seaward of the HOA property. The seawall would be roughly where the current stone riprap revetment is.

The CCC denied the permit to the extent that it included a seawall to protect the HOA property because it was developed after the enactment of the Act while it did approve a 50-foot seawall to protect the apartment building that existed prior to the enactment of the Act. The trial court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the CCC’s decision.

There were several “friend of the court” briefs filed in this matter with the issue revolving around whether the Act required approval of construction to protect structures along the shoreline that were built after the enactment of the Act. That is, does the Act allow for the creation of protective structures for structures existing at the time of the application for such protection or only to those structures existing along the coast at the time of the enactment of the Act?

The Court’s Analysis

In its ruling, the court noted the purpose of the Act was to try to maximize public access to and along the coast “consistent with sound resources conservation and its natural and artificial resources.” In applying these principles and the particular section of the Act involving construction that alters the natural shoreline, the court determined that such construction only applied to protect structures that existed at the time of enactment of the Act.

The court further analyzed the history of the Act, the underlying need for its enactment, and the clear dichotomy between structures existing prior to enactment and those built after enactment. Those built after would be subject to the provisions of the Act requiring that “[n]ew development shall not in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.” On the other hand, for those structures built prior to the Act, the Act allows for the protection of those structures from coastal erosion.

What It Means

Despite acknowledging that the CCC’s prior coastal permit decisions followed the interpretation advocated by the HOA, the court has provided the “line in the sand” favoring an interpretation different than those prior decisions. The court’s interpretation makes sense. If you are developing on a bluff or along the coast, then you need to take steps to protect that development from any sand erosion. If your development was built prior to the enactment of the Act, then you may seek to erect protective structures for your building(s).