California Laws Regarding Handicap Parking
Handicap parking laws in California are guided by both federal and state legislation. At the state level, these laws related to accessibility are outlined in the California Government Code (Sections 4450 through 4461). California also has its own federal legislation that supersedes the accessibility guidelines outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which demarcate minimum guidelines for all public areas of residential buildings. In general, these laws require that state and local government agencies, private businesses, and nonprofits provide access to the physically disadvantaged.
For newly constructed or extensively renovated apartment buildings with five or more units, the California state law provides certain requirements for handicap parking spaces. For lots that have between five and 25 spaces , these requirements are as follows: When a residential apartment has between 26 and 50 spaces, one accessible space must be made available for people with a disability. For lots that have between 51 and 75 spaces, two accessible spaces must be provided. For lots that have between 76 and 100 spaces, three accessible spaces must be provided. For lots where there are more than 100 spaces, at least one accessible space must be provided for every 25 parking spaces. Of all of the required accessible spaces, at least one space must be van-accessible for the disabled, which typically means that there needs to be a van-accessible loading aisle adjacent to the accessible space. These spaces are required unless there are no on-site van-accessible spaces available. The width of an accessible space is required to be a minimum of 96 inches, while a van-accessible loading aisle must be at least 60 inches wide.
Requirements for Accessible Parking Spaces
As previously noted, the Fair Employment and Housing Act is designed to provide for nondiscrimination in employment and housing related to the handicapped. FEHA sets out accessibility requirements as a component of this intent. Handicapped parking requirements are one of many accessibility requirements that apartment complexes must comply with but can be confusing for both owners and managers. While both state and federal law require accessibility, the regulations under which they do so differ in some respects. The Americans with Disabilities Act has a greater number of detailed requirements than does the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The state regulations implement the Fair Employment and Housing Act and also the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. They also mirror the federal Americans with Disabilities Act regulations, in most regards. The availability of state or local laws or ordinances creating greater accessibility requirements is not preempted by federal law or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. All state, local and federal laws applicable to a specific development or situation are therefore analyzed together, in addition to any applicable specific agreements between the parties to a dispute. California Building Code Regulations – California Health and Safety Code Section 18938 requires the California Building Standard Commission to issue regulations governing the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of facilities designed or constructed for public accommodation that are not specified in Title III of the ADA. This California Government Code section now includes parking spaces. The Administrative Code Section 11B-208.2.4 provides the same technical parking requirements as those of the Americans with Disabilities Act. California Government Code Section 4450 gives particular guidelines for the accessibility requirements for residential facilities providing retirement amenities such as common dining facilities, recreation rooms, laundries and housekeeping services which are additionally subject to the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides the following basic guidelines for required disabled access in California Housing developments. The owners of California apartment buildings may challenge these requirements (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6), as described on The HCD site.
Landlord’s Obligations
There are legal obligations created by state and federal law requiring apartment owners and operators to monitor their properties for ADA and common area violations. Owners and managers have an affirmative duty to ensure that their property is in compliance with all applicable accessibility standards and regulations.
In addition, they have a duty to familiarize themselves with accessibility requirements so they can recognize violations when they occur. While violations may be more readily apparent (such as improper placement or obstruction of van accessible spaces), violations can occur in much less obvious ways, such as fixtures, alarms, doors, window locks, stair handrails, and other components of common areas. While you may not be aware of some of these violations, the courts are unlikely to look too sympathetically at public accommodations who claim ignorance of the laws or regulations dictating design and construction requirements.
Lack of knowledge is not a defense to liability under either the Unruh or DPA. This does not mean, however, that defendants will be liable for every ADA violation. Courts are generally only willing to find defendants liable for violations attributable to "physical barriers" associated with their properties, and not for barriers located on other owners’ adjacent properties.
The level of scrutiny into management’s duty to conduct periodic inspections for property accessibility violations depends on the nature of the lawsuit. For example, where plaintiffs assert that the defendant failed to maintain its property in conformity with the standards required by the Unruh Act (§ 51-53) or the DPA (§ 8300 et seq.) it may be enough to conduct periodic property surveys and inspections to identify accessibility violations.
Because a fair number of these cases based on accessibility violations have been filed as disability discrimination cases, they are often filed as DPA claims for "access barriers" or "inaccessibility." (Civil Code § 55.56 (a)). DPA claims for "inaccessibility" can extend to highly technical accessibility issues beyond what is required by the Unruh Act, and for violations of requirements which are no longer under the control of the owner or even apply to the owner in question. Under the DPA, liability can be premised entirely on the technical inaccessibility of a space, resource, or service without evidence of property owner or operator knowledge, or any impact to a member of a protected class. Liability can even be premised on a plaintiff’s inability to access a violation before filing a complaint, such as in claims for common path of travel barriers. Where the focus of the claim is more on the lack of accessibility (rather than on whether the property is making reasonable accommodations to facilitate access) courts are less likely to require property owners and managers to conduct regular inspections.
Where the focus of the claim is on whether the property defendant has made reasonable accommodations to facilitate access (such as in "failure to remove barriers to access" claims), courts are more likely to focus on the actual history of access barriers on the property, and any accommodations which have been made or requested in the past. In these cases, courts tend to require property owners to participate in an interactive process to propose, and implement, accessible accommodations at the facilities at issue.
Whether a tenant who files an ADA claim against an apartment complex for an accessibility violation is entitled to a damage award and to attorney’s fees and costs can depend on the type of ADA claim they have brought and the theories of liability involved.
Tenants With Disabilities Rights
Research shows that apartment residents tend to be attuned to particular legal issues. In our conversations with both apartment owners and managers, as well as their residents, we consistently encounter the same legal matters, over and over again. Despite being resolute issues with their residents, these topics seem to surprise apartment owners and managers. Perhaps these surprises arise because many owners and managers have a desire to help their tenants, but are unaware that rental units are required to meet specific legal requirements.
One of the most common law with which tenants seem to be familiar is the physical accessibility requirement for certain apartment buildings. These requirements, described as "design and construction" accessibility requirements under California Civil Code section 51.3, apply where a landlord has constructed a multi-family unit with four or more separate residences after July 1, 2003 and has constructed an elevator serving one of more of those residences. Further, the design and construction accessibility requirements are only applicable where the subject "covered multifamily dwelling" is intended for rent (as opposed to sale) at the time of construction.
Upon our review of different legal blogs, we have not found a blog post about a tenant’s right to request reasonable accommodations related to a parking space. Under California Civil Code section 54.1 (c), a qualified disabled tenant who seeks to establish a space in a common area parking space in which to park his/her vehicle has a right to request an accommodation in this regard. In such circumstances, the tenant would be entitled to a designated parking space , unless the total number of parking spaces is limited and that limit was established before July 1, 2009. Usually, the parking space provided to the tenant is a space either legally defined as a handicap or accessible parking space or located closest to an elevator or path of travel to the building. To ensure accessibility, those tenants requesting the accommodation are granted rights to the parking space and the right to park their vehicles in that space without alternative arrangements. Individuals are protected from unlawful discrimination should they choose to have a guest park a vehicle in their space for a short duration. In any other circumstance, the guest may be subject to landlord fees or towing.
As with all applications for reasonable accommodation, the process for requesting parking spaces is not set forth in the Civil Code. While the law does not require a formal process, it is important for owners and managers to be receptive and responsive to a reasonable accommodation request. As a practical matter, to avoid potential misunderstandings, it is best to accept the request in writing, inquire about all elements of the request and provide a written, and timely, response. It is unclear whether a landlord is liable to meet the request for a new parking space if there are no existing spaces, or if the tenant’s request for a new parking space is by way of asking for the unavailability of other tenant parking spaces. In the absence of a clear-cut answer, the safest course of conduct is to grant the tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation with respect to parking spaces, so long as it does not cause an undue burden on the landlord.
Filing a Complaint
Complaints related to handicap parking violations must first be filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). This department is charged with investigating complaints alleging discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. All complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged discriminatory act. The DFEH does not review claims arising out of the creation of disability parking regulations on the property (such as design or placement of space), but only illegal enforcement. When a complaint is filed with the DFEH, an investigator will contact both parties to obtain the facts of the case.
If the investigator concludes that there is a reasonable basis for discrimination, either through disability parking requirements being violated or an association’s action being discriminatory, they will issue a probable cause determination and a notice of right to sue. This is sufficient to allow the complainant to file a lawsuit in civil court, though they must initiate their claim within one year of receipt of a right to sue notice. After receiving the notice, the DFEH will issue an immediate right to sue notice.
Examples and Case Study
In the case of Grove Apartments, the owners of the complex were sued for failure to provide adequate handicap parking spaces in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California Disabled Persons Act (DPA). The complex had 10 handicapped parking spaces serving a total of 100 apartments units. In the lawsuit, the injured tenant was unable to find an accessible parking space which caused him to fall and eventually suffer a spinal injury resulting in paralysis. The space that he had to park in was the only parking available for his apartment unit and it was very far from his building. As a result of this lawsuit, the owner of the complex was required to pay $80 , 000 in damages and was forced to reconfigure the parking lot of their apartment complex to accommodate the needs of disabled tenants.
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing brings charges where they find sufficient facts of discrimination. In August 2013, the DFEH charged that 700 apartment unites in Los Angeles County, California had failed to meet city and federal requirements for compliance with accessibility laws. Consequently, the owner of the apartment complex agreed to remodel 88 units, improve paths of travel to laundry and pool facilities and install additional accessible parking spaces. The total cost of this new remodel is approximately $2 million.
Leave a Reply