In Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 855, the court concluded that a permit condition was void because it was not reasonably related to the use of the property, in contravention of section 65909. ( Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame, supra, 195 Cal. App. 3d at p. 860.) Rebuffing plaintiff's argument that the City's defense of the permit was time-barred, the court said this: "Surely a void and unlawful, or unconstitutional, use condition will not reasonably be perpetuated for failure of someone to comply with the applicable statute of limitations, former section 65907." ( Id. at p. 861.) The California Supreme Court noted that Anza has been roundly criticized. As one court put it: "The Anza opinion, which in effect holds there is no statute of limitations for claims that a conditional use permit is void, stands on its head the Legislature's intent to ensure the quick resolution of challenges to local planning and zoning decisions. Three other published opinions apparently have misgivings about Anza; they do their best to distance themselves from it. " ( Gonzalez v. County of Tulare, 65 Cal. App. 4th at p. 790.)