e.g., Stephenson v. Perlitz, 532 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex.1976). The Owners’ reliance on this line of cases is misplaced. As the Owners recognize, in these cases, “the courts invariably focused on the properties’ use, noting specifically that the restrictions were intended to require that the properties be used for living purposes as opposed [to] business or commercial purposes.” We are not dealing here with permitted uses but mandatory assessments. And holding that multi-family dwellings are residential for purposes of use restrictions does not mandate a holding that they are residential for all purposes. Indeed, in other contexts, multifamily dwellings have been considered commercial property. See, e.g., City of Newton v. Board of Review for Jasper County, 532 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>); Walker v. Gross, 362 Mass. 703, 290 N.E.2d
holding that residential retirement community was commercial property for tax purposes because although organized as a cooperative residents received no ownership interest in units holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property holding railroad retirement benefits are not community property by congressional action holding a nonemployee spouse who holds a community pioperty interest in an employee spouses retirement benefits owns a community property interest in the latters iethement benefits as enhanced by eaily xetirement incentives holding that employee spouses accrued but unvested retirement benefits are a contingent property interest and a community asset