Can an HOA prohibit clotheslines?

Whether a homeowners' association or condominium association can prohibit clotheslines depends on the state where the property sits — and in most states, the recorded covenants, declarations, and association rules control, which usually means a clothesline ban is enforceable. But two of the states most often cited as "right to dry" states have verified statutes that cut the other way. Florida Statutes section 163.04 expressly includes clotheslines among the devices that local ordinances, deed restrictions, covenants, and declarations may not prohibit or effectively prohibit. Utah Code section 10-20-814 and section 17-79-714 (both effective November 6, 2025) let municipal and county land use authorities refuse to approve or renew plats or subdivision plans whose recorded covenants prohibit "reasonably sited and designed" clotheslines. And the Hawaii statute most often listed in right-to-dry roundups, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 196-7, protects solar energy devices only — no clothesline coverage appears in the official text. The state statute for the property's location, not the association's aesthetic preference, controls the result.

What the rule says

Florida — an explicit clothesline statute. Florida Statutes section 163.04, titled "Energy devices based on renewable resources," provides that no ordinance may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting "solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources." It then provides that a deed restriction, covenant, declaration, or similar binding agreement may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting those devices from being installed on buildings erected on the lots or parcels covered by the document. A property owner may not be denied permission to install solar collectors or other energy devices by any entity granted approval power in such documents, with respect to residential dwellings and within the boundaries of a condominium unit. The approving entity may still set the specific roof location for solar collectors — within an orientation to the south, or within 45 degrees east or west of due south — so long as that does not impair their effective operation. The prevailing party in litigation under the section recovers costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and the section does not apply to patio railings in condominiums, cooperatives, or apartments.

Utah — a 2025 statute that names clotheslines. Utah Code section 10-20-814 (municipalities) and section 17-79-714 (counties) provide that the land use authority may refuse to approve or renew any plat, subdivision plan, or dedication of any street or other ground if deed restrictions, covenants, or similar binding agreements running with the land prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting "reasonably sited and designed solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources" from being installed on buildings erected on the lots or parcels covered by the plat or subdivision. Two features matter. First, the protection is qualified: it reaches reasonably sited and designed clotheslines, not any clothesline anywhere. Second, the enforcement mechanism is the land use authority's approval power at the plat or subdivision stage — the statutes do not, by their text, void existing covenants or give a homeowner a direct right to sue over an existing ban. An official keyword search of the Utah Code for "clothesline" returned exactly these two sections (a control search for "solar" returned 95 results, confirming the search indexes the code).

Hawaii — a solar statute, not a clothesline statute. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 196-7 ("Placement of solar energy devices") provides that no person shall be prevented by any covenant, declaration, bylaws, restriction, deed, lease, term, provision, condition, codicil, contract, or similar binding agreement, however worded, from installing a solar energy device on any single-family residential dwelling or townhouse that the person owns, and voids contrary provisions. Private entities must adopt placement rules, and the rules may not render a device more than 25 percent less efficient or increase the cost of installation, maintenance, and removal by more than 15 percent. Devices placed on common elements or limited common elements require the private entity's consent, subject to written conditions. The official text contains no clothesline provision: the word does not appear in the statute, and the legislature's directory for chapter 196 lists no clothesline section. Hawaii is often described as a right-to-dry state; based on the official sources reviewed, the protection is limited to solar energy devices.

Which authority controls

The verified statutes operate differently, and the difference matters:

• Florida reaches the documents themselves: a deed restriction, covenant, declaration, or similar binding agreement "may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" clotheslines, and local ordinances are barred as well. Denial of permission is also barred for residential dwellings and within the boundaries of a condominium unit. This is the strongest of the three protections reviewed.
• Utah operates at the approval stage: the land use authority "may refuse to approve or renew" a plat or subdivision plan carrying prohibiting covenants. It is discretionary in wording, applies to recorded restrictions running with the land, and is qualified by "reasonably sited and designed."
• Hawaii does not protect clotheslines at all under the text reviewed; its covenant-voiding rule is confined to solar energy devices.

Where no statute applies, the recorded covenants and association rules usually control, and a flat ban is generally enforceable. this guide does not support a conclusion beyond Florida, Hawaii and Utah. Local law, governing documents, contracts, and general property law may still affect the result.

What may still be required or restricted

Even in the protected states, the statutes leave room for association and local rules:

• Siting and design rules. Utah's protection is expressly limited to "reasonably sited and designed" clotheslines. Florida's statute bars prohibition and denial of permission but does not, in the text reviewed, create a specific location standard for clotheslines the way it does for solar collectors; rules that regulate placement, screening, or appearance without amounting to a prohibition are not addressed by the statute's text and will usually be judged under the governing documents.
• Approval processes. Where the documents require approval, the application still moves through the association's process, and the association may ask for design details before approving.
• Condominium, cooperative, and townhome specifics. Florida's protection reaches "within the boundaries of a condominium unit" and expressly excludes patio railings in condominiums, cooperatives, and apartments. Where the clothesline would attach to or cross a common element, the association's authority over common areas — access, maintenance, insurance, and consent — can still apply under the documents. Cooperative boards are not squarely addressed by the provisions reviewed; the state law for the property controls.
• Local ordinances. Florida's statute covers local ordinances as well as recorded restrictions; elsewhere, local law may add requirements or, in a state without protection, may itself restrict outdoor clotheslines.
• The timing of the documents and the plat. In Utah, the enforcement hook is a pending or renewable approval of the plat or subdivision plan. For a long-settled subdivision that will never return to the land use authority, the statute's text provides no direct remedy.

Facts that could change the answer

• The state and its exact statute. The protections reviewed are not a uniform national rule; other states may have different tests, qualifiers, or none at all.
• Whether the rule is a flat prohibition or a siting and design restriction. The verified statutes bar the former (in Florida and Utah) but leave room for the latter.
• The property type and the installation area. Detached HOA lots, condominium units, common elements, and cooperative buildings are treated differently; Florida's patio-railing exclusion is an example.
• The approval posture in Utah. Whether the subdivision is still within an approval or renewal cycle determines whether the land use authority's refusal power can be invoked.
• Effective dates and later amendments. Utah's provisions took effect November 6, 2025, and both Florida and Utah statutes have been amended and renumbered over time; current text controls.
• The exact language of the documents. A covenant that prohibits clotheslines outright is different from one that limits where or how they may be installed.

Practical decision path

1. Confirm which state's law applies, and read the current enacted statute for that state (for the states above, the Florida and Utah sections protect clotheslines in the ways described; the Hawaii section does not).
2. Obtain the recorded declaration, covenants, CC&Rs, or other governing documents, plus any written architectural or outdoor-appearance rules.
3. Classify the rule at issue: a flat prohibition, or a siting, design, or screening restriction.
4. If the property is in Utah, determine whether the subdivision or plat is subject to land use authority approval or renewal, and review the recorded plat and covenants.
5. Submit a written request with the proposed location, design, and any screening or hardware details; keep proof of delivery and receipt.
6. If approval is denied, ask for the written basis and compare it against the statute and the documents.
7. Complete any separate local requirements, and keep the association approval and local records apart.

Before work begins, obtain the written requirement from the association, landlord, permit office, or serving utility and keep the record.

Records to keep

Keep the recorded declaration and governing documents, any written architectural or appearance rules, the complete application and attachments, proof of delivery and receipt, any requests for additional information and your responses, the written approval or denial, and photographs and a written description of the proposed and installed clothesline and any screening. For Utah properties, also keep the recorded plat or subdivision documents and any land use authority correspondence, because the statutory protection operates at the plat-approval stage. These are the records a reviewer, court, or agency will use to test whether a ban or restriction was lawful.

When professional advice may help

Because the verified statutes differ in structure — Florida voiding-style prohibitions, Utah's qualified plat-approval tool, Hawaii's solar-only rule — a dispute turns on the specific state statute, the exact language of the governing documents, and the property's approval posture. Consider an attorney familiar with common-interest-development and land use law in the property's state before starting work over an objection or pursuing a claim, especially where the statutes shift costs and fees (Florida awards the prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney's fees in litigation under section 163.04) or where the only remedy is a discretionary act by a land use authority.