Sometimes, but years of nonenforcement can create real legal issues. A new board does not automatically lose the ability to enforce a valid restriction, and an owner does not automatically gain a permanent exemption because neighbors have been getting away with the same thing.
The important questions are what the association knew, what it previously allowed, whether the situations are comparable, and how it is trying to restart enforcement.
Past silence is evidence, not an automatic repeal
A restriction can remain in the recorded declaration even when enforcement has been inconsistent. But waiver, estoppel, reliance, and selective enforcement may affect whether the association can enforce it against a particular owner.
Those are fact-specific legal issues. A fence approved in writing is not necessarily comparable to an unapproved fence. Different sections of a community may have different declarations. An older installation may have a documented exception that is not visible from the sidewalk.
Focus on the same restriction and genuinely similar circumstances, not a collection of unrelated complaints about trash cans, paint colors, and landscaping.
Architectural standards must be applied fairly
Section 720.3035 requires authorized architectural standards to be applied reasonably and equitably. It also prevents an association from relying on restrictions inconsistent with the governing authority, even if the board applies them uniformly.
In Foonberg v. Thornhill Homeowners Association, a Florida appellate court upheld rejection of a selective-enforcement defense because the evidence supported consistent enforcement of the fence restriction. The decision also illustrates why skipping an approval process is not a safe strategy just because an owner expects rejection.
The point is not that owners cannot challenge unequal treatment. It is that a challenge needs evidence strong enough to establish the relevant inconsistency.
A prospective reset can be different from retroactive punishment
Associations sometimes announce that a restriction will be enforced uniformly going forward while leaving existing conditions in place. A 2009 DBPR order involving S.B. Club Condominium Association upheld that approach for balcony enclosures under the facts presented.
That was a condominium arbitration decision, not a blanket ruling controlling every Chapter 720 HOA dispute. It illustrates a possible distinction between future violations and existing installations; it does not mean any “reset letter” cures every past problem.
A board still needs lawful authority and an appropriate process. A homeowner’s prior approval, reliance, or other established rights may require separate consideration. A newly elected board does not erase those facts.
What to collect before challenging enforcement
- The current restriction and relevant earlier versions.
- Dated photographs of comparable conditions.
- Your written approval, applications, and correspondence.
- Meeting minutes or notices announcing an enforcement change.
- A timeline showing when the association learned about the conditions and what it did.
Ask for a written explanation of the distinction the board is drawing. Continue responding to notices while you investigate; silence does not preserve every defense or deadline.
Florida law checked October 22, 2026. This article provides general education, not individual legal advice. A longstanding restriction dispute deserves document-specific advice before an owner relies on nonenforcement as permission.