Solar panels
What your architectural review committee can and cannot do when an owner applies to install solar.
An outright ban on solar panels is void in California, Texas, Florida, and Colorado, the four states this course verified. But the board is not sidelined: it keeps real authority over placement, mounting angle, screening, and in California, cost and efficiency limits. Confirm your own state's statute and your declaration before assuming either extreme.
The default assumption is backwards
A board that assumes it can turn down solar panels because members dislike the look is working from the wrong premise in at least four states. California, Texas, Florida, and Colorado each void a covenant that flatly bans or unreasonably restricts a solar installation.
"Any covenant, restriction, or condition... that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void."
Source: California Civil Code Section 714, State of California
Texas voids any provision that "prohibits or restricts a property owner from installing a solar energy device" (Texas Property Code Section 202.010). Florida bars a deed restriction, covenant, or declaration from prohibiting solar collectors outright (Florida Statutes Section 163.04). Colorado says an association "shall not effectively prohibit renewable energy generation devices" (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 38-33.3-106.5).
What "cannot ban" does not mean
None of these statutes strip the board of a say. Each pairs the ban on outright prohibition with a specific list of things the board may still regulate, within whatever the declaration and state law leave open.
| State | Can the board ban solar outright? | What the board can still regulate |
|---|---|---|
| California | No, void under Civil Code 714 | Cost and efficiency limits (see below), a 45-day review clock |
| Texas | No, void under Property Code 202.010 | Roof mounting angle, placement location, a documented neighbor interference finding |
| Florida | No, void under Fla. Stat. 163.04 | Location on the roof, within a south-facing orientation window |
| Colorado | No, statute bars prohibiting renewable energy devices | Not detailed in this course's research, check Colorado's statute and your declaration |
If your state is not one of these four, check your own state's statute and your declaration before assuming either extreme applies.
California's dials: cost, efficiency, and a clock
California will not let a board deny a solar water heating system over cost or performance unless the numbers cross a defined line. A restriction only counts as reasonable if it does not significantly increase the system's cost or significantly cut its efficiency, or if it allows a comparable alternative. For solar water heating specifically, "significant" has a number: more than 10 percent of the system's cost, capped at one thousand dollars, or more than a 10 percent efficiency loss. This base did not verify whether the same dollar cap applies to electricity generating (photovoltaic) systems, so do not assume it carries over.
California also puts the review itself on a clock.
"If an application is not denied in writing within 45 days from the date of receipt... the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information."
Source: California Civil Code Section 714, State of California
Texas's dials: mounting angle and neighbor interference
Texas lets the board restrict a roof mounted panel that extends above the roofline or sits at an angle that is not parallel to the roof. It can also require placement inside an association-designated area, unless moving it there would cut the system's estimated annual output by more than 10 percent, measured with a public National Renewable Energy Laboratory tool. A denial otherwise requires a written finding that the placement would substantially interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. A signed statement of no objection from the adjoining owner counts as evidence against that claim, in effect Texas's version of a solar neighbor sign-off.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
A California owner applies for a solar water heater. The board never responds in writing, and never asks for more information. Day 46 arrives. What is the status of the application?
A Texas owner wants a solar panel mounted on a shed roof, outside the association's designated location. The board shows the alternate site would cut estimated output by 15 percent and denies the request. Is that denial allowed?
A Florida owner wants solar collectors mounted on the north-facing slope of the roof. The association insists on a different slope instead. Who is right, under Florida's solar statute?
Sources
- California Civil Code Section 714, State of California
- Florida Statutes Section 163.04, State of Florida
- Texas Property Code Section 202.010, State of Texas
- Colorado Revised Statutes Section 38-33.3-106.5, State of Colorado
Architectural Review
Next, see how these same state statutes treat EV chargers, the closest cousin to solar review.
Whether your state voids a solar ban at all, and exactly how much cost, efficiency loss, or placement leeway your board can still require, varies by state and by your declaration. This lesson verified California, Texas, Florida, and Colorado; confirm your own state's statute before relying on any number here.