A Georgia covenant that bars combining lots does not bar building across them
A Georgia covenant that bars combining lots does not bar building across them
2026-09-10 · Georgia · Courts
What happened. The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a judgment against a McIntosh County owner who wanted to build a single house spanning two of his lots, holding that a covenant forbidding changes to lot boundaries does not forbid building across one.
Anderson v. Tolomato Island Property Owners Association, Inc., No. A26A0623, decided 26 June 2026. McFadden, P.J., with Watkins and Padgett, JJ., concurring. Published; reversed and remanded.1
The facts
Steven Anderson bought three adjacent lots in the Tolomato Island – Phase I – The Thicket subdivision in April 2023. He filed a survey with McIntosh County combining two of them, and asked the architectural review board to approve a house spanning the combined lot.
The association refused and won summary judgment on the basis that the declaration “would not permit construction of a residence” there.
The rule the court applied
Georgia's canon of strict construction, stated in its usual form: “restrictions upon an owner's use of land must be clearly established, and covenants restricting the use of real property may not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction.”
Applied to the two clauses in play, that produced a split result.
Article 10.15 — the association wins. The court held the clause unambiguously bars Anderson from changing lot boundaries without the declarant's written consent. So “for purposes of the Declaration, Anderson's lots remain separate, notwithstanding their treatment by McIntosh County.”
A county survey does not amend a recorded declaration. That point alone is worth a Georgia owner's attention.
But — the owner wins on the question that mattered. “Article 10.15 contains no restriction against the construction of a house across a boundary line.”
The definitional argument, answered
The association fell back on Article 1.20's definition of “Lot,” which refers to a single-family residence. The court's answer is neat:
“If a house meant for a single family is built across more than one lot, each lot would still be occupied as a residence for a single family.”
The warning in the last paragraph
The court then did something unusual and useful — it cabined its own decision:
“The grant of summary judgment to Anderson as to the limited declaration he seeks does not mean that Anderson is entitled to build his house… given the significant discretion that the Declaration confers to the ARB in such matters. There might be other reasons for disapproving Anderson's construction plans.”
Injunctive relief was left to the trial court on remand.
Keep reading with the Georgia State Pass
The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how Georgia compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every Georgia topic on HOA Weekly.
$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.
What you unlock
- The gap between “the covenant doesn't forbid it” and “they have to approve it”
- What the pair means for an owner
- Where the review board's discretion has limits
and 2 more sections in detail
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?
Related Georgia HOA Topics
- Anderson v. Tolomato Island Property Owners Association, Inc., No. A26A0623 (Ga. Ct. App. 26 June 2026) — slip opinion ↩
- Cotton v. Vinings Estates Community Association, Inc., No. A26A0227 (Ga. Ct. App. 6 May 2026) — slip opinion ↩
- Kinnaird v. Morningview Homeowners Association, Inc., No. A25A1083 (Ga. Ct. App. 10 Sept. 2025) — slip opinion ↩
- Senate Bill 406, as passed (26 LC 49 2879S) — signed copy, Office of the Governor ↩
Stay on top of Georgia HOA law
Every week: new Georgia legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.