Utah HOA Solar: Rules Cannot Ban Panels, But a Recorded Declaration Still Can

Part 7 of the Community Association Act was enacted by Laws of Utah 2017, chapter 424, and § 57-8a-701 was last amended by Laws of Utah 2025, chapter 207. Read the operative sentence precisely, because Utah's protection is narrower than the headlines suggest. Subsection (2)(a) provides that no governing document, other than a declaration, may prohibit installation. Under § 57-8a-228 the declaration sits at the top of the governing document hierarchy, so what Utah actually removed is the board's power to ban solar by rule, resolution or design criteria. A prohibition already written into a recorded declaration survives.

Who is covered turns on the roof. Subsection (1) defines a detached dwelling as one for which the association does not have an ownership interest in the roof, and Subsection (2)(a)(i) protects the owner of a lot with such a dwelling. An owner of a dwelling attached to other dwellings is protected under (2)(a)(ii) only if three conditions all hold: the association has no ownership interest in the roof or building exterior, the association has no maintenance, repair or replacement obligation for that roof or exterior, and every lot owner with an attached dwelling in the same building agrees to the installation. In a typical Utah townhome project where the association re-roofs the buildings, that third condition rarely arises because the first two already fail.

Subsection (3) sets the two vote thresholds, and they are deliberately asymmetric. An association may not amend the declaration to impose a solar prohibition unless at least 67% of the allocated voting interests approve. But an association may amend an existing declaration provision that prohibits solar on a lot with a detached dwelling with the approval of only 51% of the allocated voting interests. Utah made it materially easier to repeal a solar ban than to enact one, and 51% of allocated voting interests is the number a Utah homeowner organizing neighbors needs to hit. Section 57-8a-104 supplies the surrounding rules: the governing documents may not require more than 67% to amend, the board may not amend the declaration, and a provision purporting to freeze amendments during a set period is invalid.

Subsection (4) is the list of conditions a declaration or rule may impose without being treated as a prohibition. The installation must comply with applicable state and local health, safety and building requirements. A solar water heating system must be certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or another nationally recognized solar certification entity. An electricity producing system must comply with safety and performance standards set by the National Electric Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Underwriters Laboratories, an accredited electrical testing laboratory, or the state or a political subdivision. A roof mounted system must either not extend above the roof line, or have panel frames, support brackets and visible piping or wiring in a color or texture similar to the roof material. A ground mounted system must not be visible from the street the lot fronts. The association may charge the reasonable cost of reviewing the application, may hold the owner and any subsequent owner jointly and severally liable for enforcement costs during a violation, and may require, as a condition of installation, a recorded deed restriction running with the land under which the current owner indemnifies or reimburses the association or a member for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance or use of the system, including attorney fees.

Subsection (4)(e) is the numeric test that decides aesthetic disputes. A restriction on a system's size, location or manner of placement is permitted only if it decreases the system's production by 5% or less than production without the restriction, and increases the cost of installation by 5% or less than the cost without it. Both conditions must hold. An owner facing a relocation demand should get the installer to quantify the production loss and the added cost, because those two percentages are the whole of the argument. Nothing comparable appears in Utah's electric vehicle charging section, where § 57-8a-802(2)(e) uses only the word significantly.

Section 57-8a-703 controls reach. The part applies to a declaration or official association action regardless of when the declaration was recorded or the action was taken, with two exceptions. It does not apply to an express prohibition or an express restriction on installing a solar energy system that is described in a declaration recorded before January 1, 2017, or created by official association action taken before January 1, 2017. It also does not apply during the period of administrative control, meaning while the declarant still runs the association. A Utah owner in an older subdivision must therefore check the recording date of the covenant, not just its wording.

Two gaps are worth naming. Section 57-8a-701 sets no deadline for the association to approve or deny a solar application and contains no deemed approval provision, so a stalled application is argued under the general reasonableness requirement of § 57-8a-218(23). And the Condominium Ownership Act at Title 57, Chapter 8, contains no solar provision whatever, so a Utah condominium unit owner has no statutory solar right and is governed entirely by the condominium declaration and rules.

Part 7 carries its own fee shifting clause. Utah Code § 57-8a-702 provides that in an action to enforce the part, the court may award the prevailing party, in addition to any other available relief, an amount equal to the prevailing party's costs and reasonable attorney fees. That applies to both sides, so an owner suing on a covenant recorded before January 1, 2017 and losing on the § 57-8a-703 exemption can be ordered to pay the association's fees.

There is no state agency that orders an association to approve a solar installation. Section 57-8a-212.5 lets an aggrieved lot owner bring an action for damages, injunctive relief, or both, and § 57-8a-103(1) confirms that statutory, legal and equitable remedies are not mutually exclusive. Where the dispute is over a board rule rather than the declaration, the owner's strongest argument is textual: Subsection (2)(a) removes the power to prohibit from every governing document except the declaration, so a rule imposing an outright ban is void on its face.

If the association fines an owner over panels, § 57-8a-208 applies in full. The board must give a written warning naming the violated provision, allow at least 48 hours to cure a continuing violation, and honor a request for an informal hearing made within 30 days, during which interest and late fees stop accruing. The owner has 180 days to file a civil action, and under § 57-8a-301(1)(a)(iii) the fine cannot enter the association's lien until that window closes without an appeal or a court upholds it.

A $150 advisory opinion request to the Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman under Utah Code § 13-79-104, filed within one year of the act and after exhausting the governing documents' dispute procedures, is the cheaper first move. The opinion is not binding, but § 13-79-104(10) permits fee shifting from the date of the opinion and a civil penalty of up to $5,000 if a court later agrees and finds the violation knowing and intentional.