Texas Limits HOA Restrictions on Solar Panels

An HOA's dedicatory instrument, the deed restrictions, bylaws, or architectural guidelines, cannot prohibit solar devices outright: Subsection (b) forbids any provision restricting installation, and Subsection (c) declares a violating provision void on its face. Subsection (d) lists the only restrictions an association may still enforce. A device may be barred if a court has adjudicated it a threat to public health or safety or a violation of law, if it sits on association-owned or commonly-owned property, or if it sits anywhere on the owner's lot other than the roof of the home (or another structure the dedicatory instrument allows) or a fenced yard or patio the owner maintains.

Roof-mounted panels can be rejected if they rise higher than or extend beyond the roofline, sit outside the association's designated roof area unless an alternate spot would raise the device's modeled annual output by more than 10 percent using a public National Renewable Energy Laboratory tool, fail to match the roof's slope with a top edge parallel to the roofline, or use a frame, bracket, or visible wiring or piping that isn't silver, bronze, or black. A yard-mounted unit can be capped at fence height, and any device whose installation voids the manufacturer's material warranties can be refused.

Subsection (d)(8) lets the association require prior approval from itself or its architectural committee, but Subsection (e) bars withholding that approval once the Subsection (d) conditions are met, unless the board puts in writing that the placement would cause unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities; written sign-off from every adjoining owner counts as prima facie proof no such nuisance exists. B. 431, lets a declarant still block solar installation during the development period of a project with fewer than 51 planned residential units.

A dedicatory instrument clause that bans or restricts solar devices beyond Subsection (d)'s list is void under Subsection (c) and unenforceable regardless of when it was recorded. A homeowner denied approval despite meeting the statute's placement and design conditions can sue to force approval and void the board's decision; associations that withhold approval without the required written finding of unreasonable annoyance risk losing that denial in court, since the burden of proving a legitimate objection falls on the association.