Skip to content
Improvements a board cannot simply banLesson 15 of 32

Academy/Architectural Review

EV chargers

What a board can and cannot do when an owner asks to install an electric vehicle charging station.

California voids any covenant or rule that bans or unreasonably restricts an electric vehicle charging station, and its stated policy is to remove obstacles to EV charging. This research base did not verify an equivalent statute in Florida, Texas, or Colorado, so outside California the answer depends on your state's law and your declaration.

01

California voids an outright ban

If your association sits in California, a rule or a covenant that bans an EV charging station outright does not hold up. The law also reaches restrictions that are so heavy they amount to the same thing.

"Any covenant, restriction, or condition... that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station... is void and unenforceable."

Source: California Civil Code Section 4745, State of California

The state's own policy goal is "to promote, encourage, and remove obstacles to the use of electric vehicle charging stations." A board that treats an EV charger request the way it treats a request for, say, a hot tub, and simply says no because it prefers not to deal with it, is on the wrong side of this statute.

02

"Unreasonable" is not spelled out the way it is for solar

California's architectural review law for solar panels sets exact numbers: a cost increase past a specific dollar threshold, an efficiency loss past a specific percentage, and those numbers are written into the statute. The EV charger statute does not do the same thing. It voids a ban and it voids an unreasonable restriction, but this research base found no numeric test, no dollar cap, and no percentage threshold specific to EV chargers.

That gap does not hand the board a blank check, and it does not hand the owner one either. The general pattern across every protected category in this research base, solar, generators, security devices, is the same: the board loses the power to say no outright, but it keeps a real role in regulating placement, wiring, and appearance, so long as that regulation does not amount to a de facto ban. Where a specific EV dispute turns on what counts as reasonable, that is a question for your declaration's own design guidelines and, if it goes further, an attorney.

03

Outside California, ask two questions first

This research base verified an EV charging statute only in California. If your community is in Florida, Texas, Colorado, or anywhere else, do not assume the same protection exists or that it does not. Ask, in order: does my state have its own EV charging statute, and separately, does my declaration already say anything about EV chargers or about exterior electrical equipment generally? A committee's authority to regulate any category starts with what the declaration actually grants it, so a silent declaration is itself worth checking, not assuming.

Check yourself

Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.

A California ARC denies a Level 2 EV charger request, citing "aesthetic concerns" as the only reason. What happens under state law?

An owner in a Texas HOA cites California's EV charger law while appealing a denial. What should the board tell them?

A California ARC approves an EV charger but requires it to sit in a specific spot to preserve sightlines from the street. Is this allowed?

Related elsewhere in the Academy

Architectural Review

Next, see where an architectural committee's authority actually comes from, and where it runs out, in Architectural review authority.

Whether your state protects EV chargers from an outright HOA ban, and what counts as a reasonable restriction on one, varies by state and by your declaration. This lesson verified a statute only in California.