Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A zoning, subdivision, building code, or other real property law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit the condominium form of ownership or impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership. Otherwise, no provision of this chapter invalidates or modifies any provision of any zoning, subdivision, building code, or other real property use law, ordinance, or regulation.
(2) This section shall not prohibit a county legislative authority from requiring the review and approval of declarations and amendments thereto and termination agreements executed pursuant to RCW 64.34.268(2) by the county assessor solely for the purpose of allocating the assessed value and property taxes. The review by the assessor shall be done in a reasonable and timely manner.
[1989 c 43 s 1-106.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1997–2007 · leading case: Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 P.3d 1213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 P.3d 1213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership.”
Strauss v. City of Sedro-Woolley, 944 P.2d 1088 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Appellants nevertheless contend that the requirement that they file a binding site plan violates RCW 64.34.050(1) and therefore should not be imposed.”
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 141 Wash. App. 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.34.050(1) — 1 case
Strauss v. City of Sedro-Woolley, 944 P.2d 1088 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Appellants nevertheless contend that the requirement that they file a binding site plan violates RCW 64.34.050(1) and therefore should not be imposed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.