What is the test for determining when a land use restriction is disproportionate to benefit?

The majority acknowledge that under their interpretation of Civil Code section 1354 "the test for determining when the harmful effects of a land-use restriction are disproportionate to benefit 'is necessarily vague.' [Citation.]" (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 75 of 33 Cal.Rptr.2d, p. 1288 of 878 P.2d.) Nevertheless, in their view the foregoing allegations are deficient because they do not specifically state facts to "support a finding that the burden on the affected property is so disproportionate to its benefit that the restriction is unreasonable and should not be enforced." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 78 of 33 Cal.Rptr.2d, p. 1290 of 878 P.2d.) They also fail to make "any reference to the effect on the condominium development as a whole...." (Ibid.) This narrow assessment of plaintiff's complaint does not comport with the rule of liberal construction that should prevail on demurrer. (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245, 74 Cal.Rptr. 398, 449 P.2d 462.) When considered less grudgingly, the pleadings are sufficient to allege that the pet restriction is unreasonable as a matter of law.