Arizona Bars HOAs From Banning Solar Panels

A.R.S. § 33-1816, titled "Solar energy devices; reasonable restrictions; fees and costs," governs how a planned community's homeowners association may treat rooftop and ground-mounted solar systems. Subsection A is absolute: "Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device as defined in section 44-1761." That cross-referenced definition, in A.R.S. § 44-1761(8), covers any system "designed primarily to provide heating, to provide cooling, to produce electrical power, to produce mechanical power, to provide solar daylighting or to provide any combination of the foregoing" by active or passive collection, plus systems that store that energy, and expressly reaches a "distributed energy generation system."

Subsection B gives the board one narrow lever: it may adopt reasonable rules regarding the placement of a solar energy device, but only "if those rules do not prevent the installation, impair the functioning of the device or restrict its use or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device." A rule that pushes panels to a shaded roof face, requires different mounting hardware, or otherwise cuts output or raises the homeowner's cost fails that test and is unenforceable, regardless of what the CC&Rs say.

Subsection C sets the enforcement mechanism: "the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to any party who substantially prevails in an action against the board of directors of the association for a violation of this section." That fee-shifting runs both directions and removes the usual cost barrier to a homeowner suing a board that denies or slow-walks a solar application.

A companion statute, A.R.S. § 33-439, reaches further than HOA rules: it voids any deed covenant, contract, security agreement, or other instrument that "effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar energy device," so the same ban is unenforceable even outside a community-association context.

Adopting or enforcing a rule that bans solar devices outright, or a placement rule that impairs function, blocks installation, restricts use, or adds cost, violates § 33-1816(A)-(B) and is enforceable in Arizona superior court by either a homeowner or the board. Under subsection C the court must award reasonable attorney fees and costs to whichever party substantially prevails, so a board that loses risks paying the homeowner's litigation costs on top of its own legal bill, not the other way around only.