Nevada Deems HOA Solar Requests Approved After 35 Days

Start with what the statute covers. NRS 116.333 and NRS 116.334 both borrow the definition of "distributed generation system" from NRS 598.9804, which is "a system or facility for the residential generation of electricity that uses solar energy to generate electricity," including a solar-powered affordable housing system. That is photovoltaic generation. A solar water heater, a solar attic fan or a solar pool heater is not a distributed generation system, and an owner installing one is outside these two sections, though still inside NRS 111.239, which is written around any "system for obtaining solar energy."

The process has a gate and a clock. Under NRS 116.333(1) an owner in an association whose governing documents authorize architectural restrictions submits a request under whatever procedures those documents set out, and must not install before approval. Under subsection 2, if the association has adopted solar rules under NRS 116.334, it has 35 days from receipt to approve or deny, a denial must come with notice detailing the reasons, those reasons must be based on the adopted rules, and if the association does neither in 35 days the request is deemed approved. Under subsection 3, an owner who resubmits after addressing the stated reasons gets a decision in 15 days, again with a written reasoned denial or an automatic approval. Under subsection 4, an association that never adopted solar rules must approve the request within 15 days and "shall not deny the request or impose any conditions upon the installation." That is the sharpest incentive in the statute: a Nevada board that wants any say over rooftop solar has to have written rules on the books before the request arrives.

Rules that do exist have mandatory content and a ceiling. NRS 116.334(2)(a) provides that the rules must not conflict with the National Electric Code, any local ordinance or any state law or regulation, and that to the extent of a conflict the rule simply does not apply. Paragraph (b) requires the rules to require that the solar installation company be properly licensed. Paragraph (c) is the cost escape: an owner need not comply with a rule adopted under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection 3, that is, the street-facing placement rule or the conduit-painting rule, if compliance would cost more than 3 percent of the cash cost of installing the system. The owner proves that with a written estimate prepared by a solar installation company properly licensed under chapter 624 of NRS and not affiliated with either the owner or the association, dated not more than 60 days before it is delivered, itemizing every cost of compliance including labor, materials, professional fees, permit fees, inspection fees, financing charges and change orders, and showing that the total exceeds 3 percent of the contract price for the installation.

What a Nevada association may actually require is a closed list in NRS 116.334(3). It may require that the panels be installed so they do not face a street, but only so long as that does not reduce the system's production by more than 10 percent, measured with the PVWatts Calculator maintained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy, which makes the argument a documented modeling exercise rather than a matter of taste. It may require all conduits to be painted to match the exterior of the unit, all batteries to be stored in a garage, and all inverters to be placed outside any street and reasonably out of view of other owners. Where the system goes on a roof or other exterior portion the association maintains, it may require a recorded agreement setting out both sides' rights and obligations, and that agreement may put sole responsibility for damage to the roof on the owner, require the owner to remove the system at the owner's expense when the association needs to maintain, repair or replace the roof, let the association remove the system itself and assess the costs of removal, relocation, storage and replacement against the owner if the owner does not act after reasonable notice, require installation to match the approved request, require an insurance policy naming the association as an additional insured, require indemnity including attorney's fees, give the association a right to inspect the system's condition, and require the owner to disclose the rights and responsibilities to a buyer.

Subsection 4 of NRS 116.334 protects one detail owners often lose. The association may not unreasonably restrict, prohibit or withhold approval for the owner to install any type of physical barrier around the system to deter animals, typically pigeons and rodents under a Las Vegas or Reno array, or to hide components for aesthetic reasons, and it may not require a particular type of barrier. It may require the barrier to be a particular color only if that color is commercially available as a stock item; if it is not, the association may require black or a color complementary to the panels or the racking.

The older covenant statute still sits underneath all of this and reaches beyond common-interest communities. NRS 111.239(1) makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction or condition in a deed, contract or other legal instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any other interest in, real property that prohibits or unreasonably restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or unreasonably restricting, the owner from using a system for obtaining solar energy. Subsection 2 deems two things unreasonable by law: a restriction or requirement that decreases the efficiency or performance of the system by more than 10 percent of the amount originally specified for it, as determined by the Director of the Office of Energy, and that does not allow an alternative system at substantially comparable cost, efficiency and performance; and a prohibition on a system that uses components painted with black solar glazing. NRS 111.2395 does the same job for wind energy systems, with exceptions for a Federal Aviation Administration hazard determination and for reasonable restrictions relating to height, noise or safety. NRS 116.333 and 116.334 were added by the 2025 Legislature at Statutes of Nevada 2025, pages 1805 and 1806.

The primary remedy is the clock, and it works without a lawyer. If the association has solar rules and lets 35 days pass from receipt of a complete request without approving or denying it, or lets 15 days pass on a resubmission that addressed its stated reasons, NRS 116.333 provides that the request "shall be deemed to be approved." If the association never adopted rules under NRS 116.334 at all, it must approve within 15 days and may not deny or impose conditions. Send the request by a method that fixes the receipt date, keep the proof, and note the deadline in writing to the board. A denial that does not detail reasons grounded in adopted rules does not satisfy subsections 2 or 3.

An association that fines an owner over a deemed-approved system is enforcing nothing, but it will still run the fine machinery, so know it. NRS 116.31031 requires written notice of the governing-document provision at least 30 days before the alleged violation, then a detailed violation notice with the proposed cure, the fine amount, a hearing date, time and location, and a clear and detailed photograph, followed by a hearing unless the owner pays, waives it in writing or fails to appear. A solar dispute will not pose an imminent threat to health, safety or welfare, so the fine is capped at $100 per violation and $1,000 per hearing, with additional fines of no more than the original amount for each 7-day period after 14 days uncured. NRS 116.31162(6) bars foreclosure of the association's lien by sale on such a fine. NRS 116.31065 adds that a board-adopted rule must be reasonably related to its purpose, explicit, not adopted to evade an association obligation, and uniformly enforced, and that a rule not uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any owner.

To escalate, NRS 38.310 requires that the association's own administrative procedures be exhausted and the claim be submitted to mediation under NRS 38.300 to 38.360 before any civil action about the interpretation, application or enforcement of the CC&Rs or rules, and directs the court to dismiss an action filed without that step; the claim is filed with the Real Estate Division with a $50 fee under NRS 38.320. An aggrieved person may also file a written affidavit with the Division under NRS 116.760 within one year after discovering the violation, after certified-mail notice to the association specifying the violation, any actual damages and the corrective action proposed. The Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels, created inside the Division by NRS 116.625, investigates such disputes and assists with the mediation process. Where the obstacle is the recorded declaration rather than a board decision, NRS 111.239 voids the covenant itself, which is the argument to make when the CC&Rs flatly forbid rooftop panels.