In a state with more than 300 sunny days a year, few HOA fights are more common — or more one-sided under the law — than solar. Some architectural committees still tell homeowners that panels are “not permitted,” must go on the back of the roof only, or need to be hidden from the street. In Arizona, A.R.S. § 33-1816 settles most of this decisively in the homeowner’s favor.
An HOA cannot prohibit solar — full stop
The statute’s core rule leaves no room for a CC&R workaround:
“Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device as defined in section 44-1761.” — § 33-1816(A)
“Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents” is the key phrase. It does not matter what your declaration or architectural guidelines say — a flat ban on solar energy devices is unenforceable. And “solar energy device” is defined broadly by cross-reference to A.R.S. § 44-1761, reaching rooftop photovoltaic systems, solar water heating, and similar equipment.
Placement rules are allowed — but only if they don’t hurt the system
An association isn’t powerless over aesthetics; it may adopt reasonable placement rules. But the statute draws a bright line around what “reasonable” can mean:
“An association may adopt reasonable rules regarding the placement of a solar energy device if those rules do not prevent the installation, impair the functioning of the device or restrict its use or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.” — § 33-1816(B)
In practice, that means an association generally can’t insist panels go only where they perform worse. If the best solar production is on the front-facing roof, a rule banishing them to the back — at the cost of efficiency — runs into the statute’s express limits.
The board pays if it loses
Arizona backs this up with a mandatory fee-shifting provision that changes the economics of fighting for your panels:
“Notwithstanding any provision of the community documents, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to any party who substantially prevails in an action against the board of directors of the association for a violation of this section.” — § 33-1816(C)
Note the word “shall.” If a homeowner has to sue the board over a solar violation and substantially prevails, the court is required to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. That flips the usual leverage: an HOA can’t count on a homeowner backing down to avoid legal bills, because if the association is in the wrong, it may end up paying those bills.
What to do if your HOA pushes back on solar
- Submit your application anyway. Reasonable placement rules and an architectural-review process can still apply — but a denial that amounts to a prohibition doesn’t hold up.
- If placement is dictated, ask for the efficiency impact in writing. If the required location reduces output or raises cost compared with your installer’s recommended placement, that’s exactly what subsection (B) forbids — get your installer’s production estimates for both locations.
- Ask the board to cite its authority. “Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents” means a CC&R reference isn’t a valid basis for a ban.
- Keep the fee-shifting rule in mind. Subsection (C) makes attorney’s fees mandatory for a homeowner who substantially prevails — a fact worth noting, politely, in your written correspondence.