Money
Solar access rights and HOAs: what the law actually gives you
Three different laws get called "solar rights". Only one of them limits your homeowners association, and none of them protects your sunlight.
Written by HyreSolar Research team Research and analysis
Audited by HyreSolar Research team Data audit and fact check
The short answer
Three different laws, all called "solar rights"
- Solar access law
- Voids or limits covenants and HOA rules that block an installation. Binds your association and sometimes your city. Does not protect your sunlight. This is what the rest of this page is about.
- Solar easement statute
- Authorises you to negotiate and record an easement over a neighbour’s land to keep sunlight unobstructed, and specifies what the instrument must contain. Binds only a neighbour who actually signs. Absent a signature it does nothing whatsoever.
- Solar permitting law
- Limits what a city or county may charge, review or require for a solar permit. Binds building and planning departments. Has no effect on your HOA and none on your neighbours.
- "Reasonable restriction"
- The phrase every access statute turns on. It is what the association is still allowed to impose, and each state defines it differently or not at all. This is where the real variation lives.
A solar easement statute is not protection. It is permission to go ask.
Mistaking a solar easement statute for protection is the most consequential misunderstanding on the subject, and it is easy to fall into because the statutes sound protective.
In every state we read that has one, the easement statute describes an instrument: something that must be negotiated, written and recorded. Maryland's says an owner "may negotiate to obtain" one. California's and Minnesota's set out what such a document must contain. None of them creates any right against a neighbour who has not signed.
So if a neighbour's tree grows, or they build a second storey that shades your array, a solar easement statute in your state does not help you. What would have helped is a recorded easement you negotiated before it happened, which almost nobody does.
Minnesota is the clean proof that these are separate things. Minnesota has had a solar easement statute for decades. It did nothing at all about homeowners associations. It took a new access statute in 2023 to stop an association refusing permission. Two laws, two problems, and the older one never addressed the newer one.
There is no typical solar access law
We read eight statutes in full, expecting variations on a theme. They are not variations on a theme. They are structurally different instruments that happen to share a goal.
Texas works by listing what an association may restrict, and everything outside the list is prohibited. Florida imposes no cost or efficiency test at all; the association's only real power is choosing where on the roof the array goes, within 45 degrees of due south, and only if that does not impair effective operation. Arizona uses a functional standard with no numbers in it: a rule must not "adversely affect the cost" or "impair the functioning" of the system. California, Maryland, Minnesota and Virginia all use percentage tests, and they picked three different cost thresholds between them.
And Virginia does something none of the others do. Its protection collapses entirely if the recorded declaration prohibits solar. It does not void that covenant, it defers to it. Of the eight statutes we read, seven override the offending restriction and one surrenders to it.
The practical consequence for a reader is uncomfortable but honest: you cannot reason from what you have read about another state. The difference between a flat $1,000 threshold and a 5% one, or between a closed list of permitted restrictions and an open functional standard, decides real cases.
What counts as a "reasonable restriction", by state
| State | Cost trigger | Efficiency or production trigger | Who pays legal costs | Civil penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | PV: a flat $1,000. Solar water heating: more than 10% of cost, capped at $1,000. | More than 10% efficiency decrease | Prevailing party, either way | Up to $1,000 for a willful violation |
| Arizona | No figure. A rule must not "adversely affect the cost" | No figure. Must not "impair the functioning" or adversely affect efficiency | Mandatory, to whoever substantially prevails, either way | None |
| Florida | None | None. Only a rule on roof placement within 45° of due south, and only if it does not impair effective operation | Prevailing party, either way | None |
| Texas | None found in the enacted text | An alternative roof location wins only if it raises estimated annual production by more than 10% | Not established | Not established |
| Maryland | A 5% increase in installation cost, with no dollar cap | A 10% reduction in energy generated | None | None |
| Minnesota | PV: a flat $1,000. Solar water heating: more than 20%. | More than 10% decrease in projected generation | None | None |
| Washington | None | 10%, but only for shielding a ground-mounted panel | None | None |
| Virginia | A 5% increase in installation cost | A 10% reduction in energy production | None | None |
Each row read from the state’s own published statute on 2 September 2026, except Texas, which rests on the enrolled bill text because the state statute site serves no statutory text to automated retrieval.
A restriction that crosses the state’s trigger stops being "reasonable" and becomes unenforceable. Below the trigger, the association may generally impose it. That threshold is the whole fight.
The fee-shifting trap, which nobody mentions
Three of the eight states shift legal costs: California, Arizona and Florida. This is usually reported as a homeowner protection, and it is generally described as though the statute is on your side.
In all three, the shifting runs both ways. California awards fees to the prevailing party. Arizona makes an award mandatory to whoever substantially prevails. Florida awards to the prevailing party. None of them is one-way in the homeowner's favour.
Think about what that means before you file. If you sue your association over a solar restriction and a court finds the restriction was reasonable under your state's test, you may be ordered to pay the association's legal costs on top of your own. Associations litigate with pooled money from every owner, which includes yours, and they do it routinely.
That is not a reason never to enforce your rights. It is a reason to be confident about the threshold question before you get there: does the restriction actually cross your state's cost or efficiency trigger, and can you evidence it? In California, that means documenting either a $1,000 cost increase or a 10% efficiency loss. Getting that wrong is expensive in a way the popular write-ups of these statutes do not convey.
A right with no remedy attached
Maryland, Minnesota, Washington and Virginia all prohibit an association from unreasonably restricting solar. None of them gives the homeowner a fee award or a civil penalty for a violation.
That combination is worth understanding clearly. The rule exists and the covenant is unenforceable, so you have a defence if the association comes after you. What you may not have is an affordable way to go on the offensive, because you will be funding the whole thing yourself with nothing to recover even if you win.
Two of those four go further and put the proof burden on you. Maryland and Virginia both require documentation from a NABCEP-certified independent specialist, and Virginia additionally requires that specialist to be licensed in Virginia. So the homeowner pays for the expert evidence as well.
California is the contrast: fees to the prevailing party, plus a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a willful violation. Whether your state attached teeth to the rule matters more, in practice, than how the rule is worded.
Where the protection usually stops: common areas
If you own a condominium or a townhouse, the roof above you is frequently not yours, and that is where most of these statutes stop.
Maryland, Virginia, Washington and Texas each expressly permit an association to prohibit installations in common areas outright. If your building's roof is common property, the access statute in those states does not reach it.
California is the only verified exception, and it took a separate section to do it. Its common-interest provision reaches the shared roof of the building the owner resides in, and an exclusive-use garage or carport assigned to that owner. That is a genuinely different scope from anywhere else we read.
So the first question for a condominium owner is not what the state statute says about reasonable restrictions. It is who owns the surface you want to install on, which is answered by your declaration rather than by the state code.
Approval deadlines, and where silence counts as yes
| State | Deadline for the association to respond | Does silence approve? |
|---|---|---|
| California | 45 days from receipt, with a written denial required | Yes, unless the delay comes from a reasonable request for more information |
| Minnesota | Never less than 60 days, with written approval or denial required | Yes, on the same proviso |
| Arizona, Florida, Texas, Maryland, Washington, Virginia | No deadline found in the sections we read | Not established |
From the statutory text of Cal. Civ. Code § 714 and Minn. Stat. § 500.216. The absence of a deadline in the other six is an absence in the sections we read, not a search of the whole code.
A deemed-approval provision is a practically powerful thing to have: it converts an association’s favourite tactic, saying nothing, into a decision in your favour. Two of eight states have one.
If your association is blocking you
- 1 Read your own declaration first
It decides two things the state statute does not: whether the surface you want to use is yours or common property, and, in Virginia specifically, whether the state protection applies at all. Get the recorded declaration, not the handbook summary.
- 2 Find out whether your state has an access statute
Not an easement statute, an access statute. They are different laws and the easement one will not help you here. If your state is not among the eight on this page, we do not know the answer for it and your state bar or attorney general’s consumer office is the right place to ask.
- 3 Submit a complete written application and date it
Where a deadline exists, it runs from receipt of the application, and an incomplete one lets the association restart the clock with a request for more information. Send it in a way you can evidence and keep the proof.
- 4 Make them put the denial in writing, with reasons
Two of the eight states require a written response. Everywhere else, a written reason is still what converts a vague objection into something testable against the statutory trigger. Ask specifically which restriction they are applying and why.
- 5 Get the cost or efficiency effect documented before arguing
The whole case turns on whether the restriction crosses your state’s threshold. Maryland and Virginia require a NABCEP-certified specialist’s documentation by statute; everywhere else it is simply the evidence you will need. Your installer can usually quantify the production loss from a forced placement.
- 6 Understand your costs exposure before you sue
In California, Arizona and Florida, fees follow the result in both directions. In Maryland, Minnesota, Washington and Virginia there is nothing to recover even if you win. Neither is a reason to give up, and both are reasons to get advice before filing rather than after.
The states we could not check, named
Attempted, and the state’s own site refused
North Carolina, Hawaii, Nevada, Colorado, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Oregon and New Mexico. Each was attempted with a specific citation. Some returned access errors to every request; several legislature sites refused connections outright; one returned a page that did not contain the provision we were looking for.
Indiana was not reached at all.
Not attempted
The remaining states. This page covers eight of fifty, and that is the honest extent of it.
Why we publish the list rather than a fifty-row table
A fifty-state table on this subject is easy to produce and almost impossible for a reader to audit. Ours would have had eight rows of read statute and forty-two rows of something else, and no way for you to tell which was which.
So: if your state is named on this page with a citation, we read the statute. If it is named in this section, we tried and failed. If it is not named at all, we did not look. In none of those last two cases should you infer anything about your state's law, including whether it has a statute.
Method and limitations
What was read
Eight state statutes in full from each state's own publishing system: California Civil Code sections 714 and 714.1, Arizona Revised Statutes sections 33-1816 and 33-439, Florida Statutes section 163.04, Texas Property Code section 202.010, Maryland Real Property section 2-119, Minnesota Statutes section 500.216, Washington RCW 64.38.055 and Virginia Code section 55.1-1820.1. Easement and permitting statutes were read alongside them to keep the three categories separate.
The Texas entry carries a caveat. The state's own statute site returned a large JavaScript shell containing no statutory text at all, so Texas rests on the enrolled bill text, which is the same operative language but is not the codified section as currently published.
A citation correction worth recording
Virginia's solar provision is frequently cited to a section of Title 67. That provision was recodified: fetching the old section returns a page with no solar content in it. The live citation is in Title 55.1. If you are working from an older article, check the citation before relying on it.
Dates to re-check
Washington's statute carries an explicit effective-until date of 1 January 2028. Minnesota's access statute is new, enacted in 2023. Virginia's was last amended in 2023. California's section 714 has not been amended since 2015, but the section supplying its definitions was amended with effect from 2022, which widened its reach without changing its own text. Solar access law is being actively legislated, so check the current text before acting.
Not legal advice
This describes published statutes. Whether a particular restriction is reasonable under your state's test is a question about your facts, your declaration and your state's case law, none of which we have. Where an installation or litigation is at stake, that is a question for a lawyer in your state.
Questions
Can an HOA stop me from installing solar panels?
Do solar rights laws protect my sunlight from a neighbour’s tree?
What is a "reasonable restriction"?
If I sue my HOA and win, do they pay my legal fees?
Does the law cover my condo roof?
How long does an HOA have to respond to my application?
My state is not on this page. What does that mean?
Can the developer of a new subdivision ban solar?
Written and audited by
HyreSolar Research
Primary-source research, data analysis and fact checking
We are a research desk, not a sales floor. We read the statute, the tariff, the code section, the federal filing or the manufacturer data sheet ourselves, and we publish the figure with the document it came from and the date we retrieved it. Where a number cannot be traced to a primary source, we publish the shorter page and say what we could not verify. That rule has cost us whole sections, and it is the reason the rest can be trusted.
- 160
- primary sources read and cited
- 220
- figures with a retrieval date
- 115
- federal and state government sources
- 66
- researched pages published
How this desk works
- Primary sources only. Statutes from the legislature’s own publishing system, federal data from the agency that collects it, code text from the adopted edition, manufacturer claims from the data sheet. We do not cite an article that cites a source; we go and read the source.
- Every figure carries its provenance. A named document and the date we retrieved it, so you can check it and so you know how old it is. Retrieval dates are not decoration: an EIA rate from May is a different fact from an EIA rate from August.
- We publish what we could not verify. Every research page carries a section naming the things we tried to establish and could not, and why. A paywalled standard, a state website that refused the request, a manufacturer that publishes no figure at all.
- We separate measurement from modelling from our own reasoning, and label which is which on the page. A laboratory measurement, an assumption inside a modelling tool and our own inference are three different kinds of claim and they are never presented as one.
- We do not sell solar, and we take no payment for placement, ranking or a favourable mention. Nobody buys a position on this site.
Data as of Eight state statutes read in full on 2 September 2026. Authorship on this site is organisational: the analysis belongs to the desk rather than to a named individual, and we do not publish credentials we do not hold. Our editorial policy sets out how we source, date and correct what we publish.
Sources & retrieval dates
- California Civil Code §§ 714 and 714.1 — Source for the voiding of restrictive covenants, the significantly-affects tests of a flat $1,000 for photovoltaics and 10% efficiency, the 45-day deemed-approval provision, the civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a willful violation, prevailing-party fee shifting, and the unusually wide reach over shared roofs and exclusive-use garages and carports. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-1816, 33-439 and 44-1761 — Source for the functional no-adverse-effect standard with no numeric threshold, mandatory fee shifting to whoever substantially prevails, the inclusion of battery storage in the statutory definition, and the exemption for instruments entered before 17 April 1980. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Florida Statutes § 163.04 — Source for the absence of any cost or efficiency test, the rule permitting an association to determine roof placement within 45 degrees of due south provided it does not impair effective operation, and prevailing-party fee shifting. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Texas Property Code § 202.010, from the enrolled text of HB 362 (82nd Legislature, 2011) — Source for the closed list of permitted restrictions, the 10% estimated annual production override on association-dictated placement, the common-area carve-out and the development-period prohibition. Read from the enrolled bill because the state statute site serves no statutory text to automated retrieval. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Maryland Code, Real Property § 2-119 — Source for the 5% installation cost and 10% generation thresholds, the requirement that the owner document the effect through a NABCEP-certified independent specialist, the common-area carve-out, and the absence of any fee or penalty provision. Also the source for the easement provision stating that an owner "may negotiate to obtain" one. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Minnesota Statutes §§ 500.216 and 500.30 — Source for the 2023 access statute with its flat $1,000 photovoltaic threshold, 20% water-heating threshold, 10% generation test and 60-day response requirement; and for the older easement statute, which is the worked example of an easement law that did nothing about associations. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Revised Code of Washington § 64.38.055 — Source for the aesthetics-oriented standard, the 10% test limited to shielding a ground-mounted panel, the common-area carve-out, the absence of any remedy provision, and the statute’s own effective-until date of 1 January 2028. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
- Virginia Code § 55.1-1820.1 — Source for the 5% cost and 10% production thresholds, the requirement for documentation by a NABCEP-certified specialist licensed in Virginia, the common-area carve-out, the absence of a remedy, and the provision under which the protection yields entirely where the recorded declaration prohibits solar. Also the correction that the frequently cited Title 67 provision has been recodified here. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
Dealing with an association?
Tell us where you are and what has been refused. We can point you at the statute if your state is one we have verified, and say plainly if it is not.
HyreSolar is an independent analysis and matching service. We are not an installer, lender or utility. When a reader asks to be introduced, installers may pay us a referral fee. That fee never buys ranking, scores or placement in research. Our editorial policy sets out the rules.