Homeowners Association Refused to Let Him Build Across the Two Lots He Owned — Then the Appeals Court Ruled the Covenants Never Barred It

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Most folks don’t buy two side-by-side lots because they love paperwork. They do it because they want breathing room, a bigger yard, maybe a cleaner layout for a house that actually fits the land. But if you’ve lived in an HOA long enough, you learn a hard lesson: owning something and being allowed to use it the way you think makes sense are not always the same thing.

A Georgia homeowner named Steven D. Anderson ran headfirst into that reality after buying three adjacent lots in McIntosh County and trying to build a home that would sit across the line between two of them. The dispute turned into a lawsuit, and on June 26, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court and said the covenants didn’t actually forbid what he wanted to do. The full opinion is laid out in the source material, and it’s a good reminder that “rules” and “what the rules actually say” can be two different things.

This wasn’t a case about a guy trying to build a skyscraper in a cul-de-sac. It was a fight over interpretation, authority, and the fine print that governs a neighborhood—fine print that can either protect a community or become a club people swing when they don’t like your plan.

A man, three lots, and a plan that didn’t fit the lines on the old plat

The record shows Anderson bought three adjacent lots on April 28, 2023, in the “Tolomato Island – Phase I – The Thicket” subdivision. The lots were subject to a declaration of covenants and restrictions (the court calls it “the Declaration”), which required approval by an Architectural Review Board (ARB) for construction, with some exceptions not relevant here.

After buying the property, Anderson decided to combine two of the lots and build a single house that would cross the old boundary line between them. He obtained a survey combining the two lots and filed it with McIntosh County. The county’s posture, as described by the court, was basically: if the county requirements were met, it would consider issuing a building permit even if the HOA didn’t approve, because the HOA dispute wasn’t the county’s concern.

But inside the subdivision, that line on the plat still mattered. Anderson applied twice to the ARB for approval to build across the original lot line, and the ARB declined both times because it believed the Declaration didn’t allow it.

Why the HOA and ARB said no

The dispute wasn’t only about Anderson. Around the same time, the Association and the ARB were already at odds about whether the ARB had power to let owners combine adjacent lots “at the owner’s option” and eliminate side setbacks between the lots. The Association took the position that the Declaration didn’t allow that kind of owner-driven lot combination without extra permission.

The provision they pointed to was Article 10.15. It says: “Without the Declarant’s prior written consent, no Lot shall be subdivided or its boundary lines changed after a subdivision plat depicting the Lot has been approved and filed in the Public Records.” In plain terms, the Association viewed Anderson’s replatting as a boundary-line change that needed written consent from the declarant.

There was also a vote among the members on a proposed amendment that would have allowed owners of contiguous lots to combine them into a single building site. That amendment didn’t pass, which often happens in these communities: plenty of people like flexibility in theory, but not enough of them want to risk someone else using it in a way they don’t like.

The lawsuit and the trial court’s ruling

On July 16, 2024, Anderson sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. He asked the court to declare “that the Declaration does not prohibit approval of structures across lot lines on the Original Plat once McIntosh County approves changes in the Original Plat lot lines.” He also asked for an injunction to stop the Association from denying site plan approval on the basis that crossing the original plat’s lot lines wasn’t allowed.

Both sides sought summary judgment. The trial court read the Declaration to mean the opposite of what Anderson wanted, reasoning that it prohibited building a residence on two lots as he intended. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Association and denied Anderson’s motion.

That’s a rough moment for any property owner. You’ve got land you bought in good faith, a plan you believe is reasonable, and you’re being told, in effect, “Not here, not like that.”

The appeals court: the covenants didn’t actually forbid a house crossing the line

The Court of Appeals of Georgia approached the Declaration like a contract, applying standard contract interpretation rules. The court emphasized a familiar Georgia principle: restrictions on private property aren’t favored, they must be clearly established, and they can’t be enlarged by judicial construction. If there’s ambiguity, it’s construed in favor of the property owner.

Both sides claimed the Declaration was unambiguous, but they read it differently. Anderson said there was no express restriction against building across the original lot line. The Association said Article 10.15 and the definition of “Lot” effectively blocked it.

The appeals court agreed the language was unambiguous, but it agreed with Anderson’s reading. Article 10.15 does prohibit changing boundary lines without the declarant’s written consent. The court said that provision “must be enforced as written,” which meant that for purposes of the Declaration, the lots remained separate even if the county treated them as combined.

But here’s the key point: Article 10.15, while it restricts boundary changes, “contains no restriction against the construction of a house across a boundary line.” That’s a big difference. Some HOAs act like anything they don’t like is forbidden. Courts tend to insist the paper actually say so.

What the “Lot” definition did—and didn’t—do

The Association also leaned on Article 1.20, which defines a “Lot” as a portion of the property that can be independently owned and conveyed and is intended for development, use, and occupancy as a residence for a single family. The Association argued this definition prevented a single house from being built across two lots.

The court didn’t buy that. It said that if the definition has any restrictive force, it limits building more than one single-family residence on a single lot. A single-family home spanning more than one lot still results in each lot being used as part of a single-family residence, not two houses or multi-family occupancy.

So the court held Anderson was entitled to the limited declaration he asked for: that the Declaration “does not prohibit approval of structures across lot lines.” The appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case.

He didn’t automatically “win” the right to build

This part matters if you’ve ever tangled with an HOA: a legal win on one issue doesn’t always mean you get to start pouring concrete. The appeals court was careful here. It said its ruling did not mean Anderson was entitled to build his house.

Why not? Because the Declaration gives the ARB significant discretion, and there could be “other reasons” to disapprove the construction plans. The trial court hadn’t addressed the injunctive relief request because it had ruled against Anderson on the covenant interpretation. Now, on remand, the trial court can consider whether an injunction is appropriate in light of the appeals court’s interpretation.

In other words, the HOA can’t say “the covenants forbid crossing the line” if they don’t. But they may still have other grounds—legitimate or not—to slow things down, depending on what the Declaration allows and what the ARB’s standards require.

A practical takeaway for anyone living under covenants

If you own property in a covenant-controlled neighborhood, this case is a good reminder to stop relying on hallway wisdom and start reading the document. A board may speak with confidence, a committee may act like it’s obvious, and neighbors may insist “that’s how we’ve always done it.” None of that is the covenant. The covenant is the covenant.

It’s also a reminder that you can be “wrong” and “not prohibited” at the same time. The court said Anderson’s boundary-line changes weren’t effective for purposes of the Declaration without declarant consent, even if the county accepted the survey. But the court still said the Declaration didn’t ban a house crossing that original line. Those are two separate questions, and men get in trouble—at work, at home, in communities—when we mash separate questions into one argument because it’s convenient.

And if you’re the guy trying to build, it’s worth remembering that patience and precision often beat volume. The court’s decision turned on the actual words in Article 10.15 and the definition of “Lot,” not on who felt more strongly.

The case now goes back to the trial court, where the next fight may be about discretion, approvals, and whether the Association can find other reasons to say no. For homeowners watching from the sidelines, it’s a lesson in stewardship: if you’re going to tie your money, plans, and family life to land governed by covenants, you’d better know exactly what those covenants say—and what they don’t.