Location: Nj. My Hoa Took Away Building-wide Parking Despite Public Offering Statement Explicitly Stating Access Through 2050 — Looking For Guidance On Next Steps

Location: NJ.

I’m looking for guidance from anyone with experience in HOA law, real estate, or condo governance. I’ll try to lay this out cleanly and factually.

We purchased a condominium unit in 2018 in a mid-size condo building (about 100 units) just outside NYC. At the time of purchase, the Public Offering Statement (POS) provided to buyers clearly stated that parking was part of the association’s property rights. Specifically, it described unrestricted access to shared parking spaces designated for our association.

Important detail: the physical parking spaces are located on a neighboring property owned by another condominium association in a basement garage accessible via my own buildings elevator. However, the POS explicitly designates those parking spaces as parking rights/access for our association, not as a discretionary amenity. The development of the neighboring property was approved by the city with easements and encroachments, and those approvals were contingent on shared access to parking and ingress/egress routes for our building.

The POS on file (dated 2005) states that:

• There are 52 parking spaces allocated to our association

• Access is governed by a lease agreement extending to 2050

• No contingencies or expiration prior to 2050 are mentioned

Fast forward to summer 2025.

Our entire community received an email stating that the parking spaces were being eliminated. We were told these spaces were being “purchased outright” by the neighboring association.

Here’s the backstory that makes this more troubling:

• The neighboring association was originally developed by a large developer (Toll Brothers)

• That developer retained ownership/control of the shared parking for years

• Our association paid monthly rent to the developer for access to the parking

• At some point (unknown to owners), Toll Brothers sold the parking spaces

• We only learned after the transaction closed that the buyer was the neighboring association

We were later told:

• Our association had the opportunity to purchase the parking spaces

• The board chose not to negotiate or exercise a right of refusal

• This decision was not brought to a weighted vote, despite bylaws requiring it for material property decisions

• Association counsel stated this was a “good faith decision” made by a board member who personally has a deeded parking spot

Context matters here:

• About 15 units have deeded parking

• The remaining \~85 units relied on the shared parking pool

• Parking was always first-come / shared access

• This was fully disclosed and relied upon at purchase

• In a dense metro area near NYC, parking is not a luxury — it materially affects value

When owners questioned how a lease explicitly stated as running through 2050 could suddenly expire in 2025, we were told that years ago, a prior board allegedly “rewrote” or “renewed” the lease, changing its maturity date from 2050 to 2025.

Critical issues:

• No amendment to the POS was ever recorded

• No disclosure of this material change was made to owners or buyers

• No membership vote occurred

• No updated POS exists reflecting this supposed lease change

Association counsel’s position is essentially:

• The POS is “outdated” and irrelevant

• It doesn’t matter that it was never amended

• It doesn’t matter that buyers relied on it

• The loss of parking is simply something owners must accept

That position seems completely at odds with every real estate professional I’ve spoken to. The first question anyone asks is: “What does your POS say?”

A few months ago, I formally requested a copy of the POS from association counsel. I was ignored for weeks. I only received it after CC’ing city officials and stating plainly that I was being denied a governing document.

When I finally reviewed it, the language was clear and unambiguous:

• Parking access is included

• The lease term is stated as running through 2050

• No limitations or contingencies are disclosed

Yet today, I have zero parking access tied to my unit.

What’s most frustrating:

• Some owners with deeded spots seem unconcerned

• There’s little acknowledgment of how this impacts overall building value

• Comparable sales will absolutely take a haircut

• Lenders, buyers, and agents rely on the POS — and it contradicts reality

I’ve contacted:

• Association counsel

• Board members

• City officials (re: easements, encroachments, approvals)

• Planning/zoning

At this point, everyone has gone radio silent.

The board’s current line is: “We’re negotiating with the neighboring association.”

My response has been: we’re years too late for that. Allowing a lease to expire (or be rewritten without disclosure) and then attempting to negotiate after the fact feels like gross negligence, failure of due diligence, failure to enforce governing documents, and potentially board misconduct.

I’m not trying to be dramatic — I just want the parking restored or clarity on what remedies actually exist.

If anyone has insight into:

• Enforceability of a POS that was never amended

• Whether an HOA can disregard POS terms outright

• Remedies when a board fails to vote on material property decisions

• How easements tied to development approvals are enforced

• Whether lenders/title insurers typically get involved in situations like this

…I’m all ears.

Happy to answer questions and share redacted documents if helpful.

Thanks for reading. lol