With that, you misused your "last word".
Once more, IMO the outcome of this dispute whether it is negotiated or lititgated, will not rely on any theory of prescriptve rights or whether a parcel is land-locked. Those concepts are not relevant.
There is no doubt the 35 have a right to use the road for ingress and egress and I have not argued otherwise. One would expect that right was formally conveyed as required by the city when the common area parcel was created.
The 35's prompt lawsuit addresses the immediate question of whether the separate common areas were properly transferred in accordance with tax sale procedures.
If so, the next question is whether the new owner is obligated as a condition of title to maintain the common areas in a specific manner. If not, the new owner may have the right to effect any changes deemed appropriate including, for instance, removal of the security guard gate.
Such a right, of course, certainly has an enormous economic value that will be included in any negotiated settlement.
.
>> “One would expect that right was formally conveyed as required by the city when the common area parcel was created.” <<
I was pointing out that even if they had dropped the ball on that, the owners of the homes/tenants are still in good shape. California’s clumsy, incompetent legislature still managed to plug that hole decades ago.
BTW, there is no such thing as a “last word” on FR!
.