The authority that CPI has (as stated in M-01) to go onto properties, reasonably and when absolutely necessary, to inspect for violations, is (in my opinion) legally implicit, based on the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the DRs and the associated enforcement powers. Without the ability to ascertain whether, where, and to what extent violations exist on properties, which in some cases might require entry to conduct an inspection, violations might continue unabated, might be hidden from view, and enforcement of the DRs might be rendered impossible in some cases. I believe a Court would agree.

That said, CPI will never enter property without first seeking permission from the owner, they will exhaust all other means of observation (viewing from neighboring properties or the street), respect privacy, and they will exercise caution and always avoid surprise and/or confrontation. 

As for enforcement against sign violations (on lots as opposed to OPA common areas), since removing a sign from someone's property amounts to the taking of personal property, the M-01 process applies. If owners choose to deliberately "game" that process, knowing that their continuing violation might end before the M-01 process runs its course, that's disappointing and would say more about that owner than it would about the enforcement process.