What counts as a "reasonable restriction" on solar panels or home energy upgrades?

What "reasonable restriction" means in solar and energy-upgrade law

In the solar-access laws of most states, a "reasonable restriction" is the limit of what a
homeowners' association, developer, or local government may still impose on solar panels and
other renewable-energy equipment after outright prohibitions are struck down. The common
formula is that a restriction is reasonable only if it does not significantly increase the
cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or performance — and, in
several states, only if the restriction allows an alternative system of comparable cost,
efficiency, and energy-conservation benefits. The phrase is a legal term of art, not a general
invitation to approve or reject designs at will: state statutes define what crosses the line,
and the definitions vary from state to state.

These laws typically operate the same way. A state statute declares that deed restrictions,
covenants, declarations, or association governing-document provisions that effectively
prohibit or restrict solar or other renewable-energy equipment are void and unenforceable,
and then immediately carves out the "reasonable restrictions" exception. That means the
practical question is rarely "can they ban it?" — under these statutes, usually no — but
rather "which specific conditions are still enforceable, and do they meet the statutory
standard?"

Statutory benchmarks: how restrictions are evaluated

The clearest benchmarks are in California Civil Code section 714.
It makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, condition, or governing-document
provision that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy
system, and it defines "reasonable restrictions" as those that do not significantly increase
the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or
that allow an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy-conservation
benefits.

For photovoltaic systems, the section defines "significantly" by two benchmarks: added
cost not to exceed $1,000 over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a
decrease in system efficiency of more than 10 percent as originally specified and
proposed. For solar domestic water-heating and swimming-pool heating systems, the benchmark
is an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the system but in no case more than $1,000,
or an efficiency decrease exceeding 10 percent. In practice this means a comparison of two
designs on paper: the cost and expected performance of the system the owner proposed, and the
cost and expected performance of any design the association or other approval entity wants
instead.

The "alternative design" idea appears directly in the statute: a restriction is reasonable if
it does not significantly increase cost or decrease performance, or if it allows an
alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy-conservation benefits. So when
an approval entity insists on a different layout, the question is whether that layout costs
roughly the same and performs roughly as well — not whether the owner's first choice was the
only possible design.

Other states express the same idea without dollar-and-percentage benchmarks. Florida Statutes
section 163.04
prohibits ordinances and deed restrictions, covenants, declarations, and similar binding
agreements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting solar collectors, clotheslines, or
other energy devices based on renewable resources. It allows the entity with approval power
to determine the specific location of collectors on the roof "within an orientation to the
south or within 45° east or west of due south" — but only if that determination does not
impair the effective operation of the collectors. Arizona Revised Statutes section
33-1816 provides that, notwithstanding the community
documents, an association shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy
device, and allows reasonable rules regarding placement only if the rules do not prevent the
installation, impair the functioning of the device, restrict its use, or adversely affect its
cost or efficiency.

Which authority controls

For the properties covered by these statutes, the state statute usually controls over the
recorded documents. California Civil Code section 714 applies to deed, contract, and security
instrument restrictions affecting real property and to governing documents. Florida Statutes
section 163.04 applies to ordinances, deed restrictions, covenants, declarations, and similar
binding agreements, including approval rights over residential dwellings and condominium
units. Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-1816 applies to "community documents" and
association conduct. In each case, a provision that crosses the statutory line is void and
unenforceable rather than merely disfavored.

The same statutes leave other requirements untouched. California Civil Code section 714
states that a solar energy system must still meet applicable health and safety standards and
requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities, the California Electrical
Code, and, where applicable, Public Utilities Commission safety and reliability rules.
Permitting, electrical, structural, fire, insurance, and utility requirements are independent
of any statutory or association approval.

State-by-state variation

The three statutes above illustrate how differently states structure the same idea:

• California uses explicit numeric benchmarks ($1,000 added cost; 10 percent efficiency
  decrease for photovoltaic systems), an architectural-modification-style approval process,
  and a 45-day written-decision rule with deemed approval for associations that are not
  public entities.
• Florida prohibits "effective prohibition" of solar collectors, clotheslines, and other
  renewable-resource devices, permits a roof-location rule tied to a south orientation or
  within 45° east or west of due south so long as it does not impair effective operation, and
  awards costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in litigation under the
  section.
• Arizona bars associations outright from prohibiting installation or use of a solar
  energy device (as defined in Arizona Revised Statutes section 44-1761, which the statute
  incorporates by reference), allows placement rules that survive the cost-and-efficiency
  test, and requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a party who
  substantially prevails in an action against the board of directors for a violation.

These differences matter: a restriction that is plainly reasonable in one state (for example,
a design change with no dollar benchmark) may exceed the statutory line in another. Before
relying on any comparison, check the enacted statute for the state where the property is
located.

What may still be required or restricted

Even under strong solar-access statutes, the following usually remain in force:

• Safety and permitting requirements. Health and safety standards, building, electrical,
  and fire codes, and utility interconnection and reliability rules apply regardless of
  statutory or association approval.
• Reasonable location and appearance rules. States like California, Florida, and Arizona
  permit location or placement rules that meet their cost, efficiency, and functioning
  standards — not rules that gut the system's economics or performance.
• Shared-property rules. Where roofs or other areas are shared (condominium or townhome
  settings), additional statutes, governing-document provisions, insurance requirements, and
  equitable-allocation rules can apply; the Florida statute, for example, excludes patio
  railings in condominiums, cooperatives, and apartments from its scope.
• Maintenance, repair, and indemnity provisions. Common-interest-development statutes
  frequently allow provisions addressing roof maintenance, repair, replacement, and
  installer indemnity, separate from the reasonableness analysis of the system itself.

Facts that could change the answer

• The state and the exact statute. Reasonable-restriction standards and benchmarks are
  state-specific; the statutes reviewed here are examples, not a uniform national rule.
• The property type and interest. Detached lots, HOA-controlled homes, condominium units,
  and shared-roof situations are treated differently, and some statutes exclude specific
  features (Florida's patio-railing exception is one).
• The specific cost and performance figures. Whether a restriction "significantly"
  increases cost or decreases performance depends on the system as originally specified and
  proposed, and on any alternative design actually available.
• The approval process and deadlines. Whether an approval was timely, in writing, or
  deemed granted depends on the application date, any reasonable request for additional
  information, and the state's procedural rules.
• Local requirements. Permitting, electrical, structural, fire, and utility rules are
  independent and always remain in force.

Practical decision path

1. Confirm which state's law applies and read the enacted solar-access statute for that
   state.
2. Obtain the deed restrictions, covenants, declarations, or governing documents, plus any
   written solar or architectural-application rules.
3. Get written cost, efficiency, and expected-performance figures for the proposed system —
   and for any alternative design the approval entity suggests.
4. Compare the two designs against the statutory standard (for example, California's $1,000
   and 10 percent benchmarks) and ask for the factual basis of any denial in writing.
5. Submit a complete application, keep proof of receipt, and track any statutory decision
   deadline.
6. Complete local permitting, electrical, structural, fire, contractor-licensing, and utility
   steps separately.

Before work begins, obtain the written requirement from the authority named in the guide and keep the record.

Records to keep

Keep the deed restrictions and governing documents, the written application rules, the
complete application and attachments, proof of delivery and receipt, any request for
additional information and your response, the written approval or denial, and the
cost-and-performance comparison between the proposed system and any alternative design.
These records are what a court, agency, or reviewer will use to test whether a restriction
met the state's statutory standard.

When professional advice may help

Reasonable-restriction disputes turn on the specific statute, the exact cost and performance
figures, and the property documents. Consider advice from an attorney familiar with
solar-access and common-interest-development law in the property's state before relying on a
deemed approval, starting work over an objection, or pursuing a claim for damages or
attorney's fees — especially in states where fee-shifting provisions, such as those in the
Florida and Arizona statutes reviewed here, affect the economics of a dispute.