Sports Arenas Properties, Inc. v. City of San Diego

I write separately to express my concern that the majority’s result undermines the City of San Diego’s legitimate efforts to provide affordable rental housing for the poor and elderly.

Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the provisions of the conditional use permit are valid and binding upon successors-in-interest (see majority opn., ante, at p. 816), I cannot agree that the violation of these terms does not justify the imposition of an injunction.

The majority posit that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) ability to protect its mortgage insurance funds would be seriously impaired if the limitations in the permit were deemed applicable to HUD and subsequent purchasers. That conclusion is somewhat surprising given the marked lack of evidence in the record to support it. The majority evade this problem by creatively holding that (1) HUD has the power to determine the restrictions to be placed on a property once HUD acquires it; (2) this power was implicitly authorized in the original permit; and (3) the conditions delineated in the permit are superfluous and, therefore, constitute “additional limitations” which equity deems unenforceable.…

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment enjoining them from renting their apartments except to senior citizens on a nonprofit basis. 1 We conclude that the injunction must be vacated because the trial court misinterpreted the conditional use permit pursuant to which the project was to be built.

In March 1962, the Foundation for Specialized Group Housing applied to the City of San Diego “to construct and operate a non-profit senior citizen housing project under the requirements specified in the Federal Hpusing Act, Title II, Section 231. The project will consist of 549 apartment units in 78 buildings providing beautiful and adequate community facilities. The project will be operated by a qualified non-profit organization, The Foundation for Specialized Group Housing. Occupancy is restricted to senior citizens who qualify.”

The city owned the property at the time of the application but a month later the city conveyed the property to University City, Inc., a corporation organized for profit.

Although its planning commission recommended denial of the application, 2 the city issued the conditional use permit in June as follows:

Seven additional conditions were appended to the…