Florida Voids HOA Restrictions on Solar Panels

04(2) of the Florida Statutes strikes down any deed restriction, covenant, declaration, or similar binding agreement that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, solar collectors, clotheslines, or other renewable-energy devices on buildings within the lots or parcels it covers. A homeowners association, condominium board, or any other entity holding approval power over alterations to residential dwellings or condominium units cannot refuse a solar installation outright. The statute leaves that entity exactly one lever: it can fix where on the roof the collectors go, but only within an orientation to due south or within 45 degrees east or west of due south, and even that placement authority disappears the moment it would impair how effectively the collectors operate.

A companion provision, s. 04(1), applies the identical ban to local government ordinances, so cities and counties face the same restriction HOAs do. Enforcement runs through the courts rather than a state agency: s. 04(3) makes the prevailing party in any lawsuit over the section entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees, which puts real financial risk on a board that tries to enforce a void restriction or on a homeowner who sues without cause. The legislature's stated purpose, in s. 04(4), is protecting public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging renewable-resource development and preventing rules that would drive the cost of owning or operating property beyond what private owners can sustain.

That subsection also carves out one hard exception: the entire section does not apply to patio railings in condominiums, cooperatives, or apartments, so a board can still regulate what a resident hangs on a patio railing even where it would otherwise have no say over a rooftop solar array.

An HOA or condo board that denies a solar permit outright, or enforces a covenant clause banning collectors, is enforcing a provision the statute already voids; a homeowner can sue to install the system and, as the prevailing party under s. 163.04(3), recover court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A board keeps only the narrow right to set rooftop placement toward due south or within 45 degrees of it, and only when that placement will not cut into the system's output.