Background
A Snoqualmie property contained two residential structures built in the 1930s and 1940: a front house and a rear accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that had been continuously rented since at least 1990. Ladder Properties LLC purchased the property in 2022, renovated both units without structural changes, and in October 2022 converted the two structures into condominium units. Ladder Properties then sold the front unit to the Woods (first-time homebuyers) and the rear ADU to Fiona Soileau as an affordable housing option. No physical changes were made to the property’s water or sewer infrastructure.
Following the condominium conversion, the City of Snoqualmie issued code violation notices alleging that the condominium ownership structure itself violated the city’s zoning, sewer, and water codes. The city’s community development director testified that recording a condominium declaration “created two separate dwelling units” in violation of the R-C zoning code’s restriction to “one single-family dwelling” and its prohibition on multifamily dwellings. The city also cited violations for the pre-existing single sewer line and water meter serving both units, though Ladder Properties had made no alterations to these systems.
The Court’s Holding
In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that the City’s code enforcement violates state law. The court reversed the superior court’s judgment and held that a municipality cannot prohibit or restrict condominium ownership based solely on the change in ownership form. The court found the city’s enforcement directly contradicts RCW 64.90.025(2) of the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA), which prohibits local zoning ordinances from “prohibit[ing] the condominium or cooperative form of ownership or impose[ing] any requirement upon a condominium…that it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership.”
The court also found the city’s position violates RCW 36.70A.681(1)(k) of the Growth Management Act, which explicitly prohibits cities from “prohibit[ing] the sale or other conveyance of a condominium unit independently of a principal unit solely on the grounds that the condominium unit was originally built as an [ADU].” The court reversed the hearing examiner’s affirmation of the zoning violation and reinstated the hearing examiner’s reversal of the sewer and water violations, which lacked evidentiary support for claiming actual physical code violations.
Key Takeaways
- Municipalities cannot use zoning enforcement to penalize or prohibit condominium ownership forms when the physical use and structures remain identical and compliant with local code.
- The WUCIOA and GMA expressly preempt local ordinances that treat condominium-owned properties differently from identically situated properties under other ownership structures.
- Cities cannot prohibit the separate sale of ADU condominium units, even if the units originated as ADUs, when doing so conflicts with state-mandated affordable housing protections.
- Code violations must be based on actual physical changes or uses, not merely on changes to the ownership and legal form of property without alterations to structures or utilities.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly protects property owners and affordable housing initiatives by preventing municipalities from using zoning code to block condominium conversions. As cities increasingly encourage ADUs as affordable housing stock, this ruling ensures that regulatory enforcement cannot be weaponized to prevent separate ownership and sale of ADUs once converted to condominiums. The decision clarifies that state law protects condominium ownership rights and affordable housing access even in restricted zoning districts.
The decision also has implications for homeowners associations, property developers, and municipalities attempting to enforce zoning codes. It establishes that enforcement must target actual land uses and physical characteristics, not ownership structures. The court’s reasoning that “a physically identical development” cannot face different regulatory treatment based on ownership form alone imposes a meaningful constraint on local zoning authority that must yield to state policy favoring condominium rights and housing diversity.