California HOA Solar Rights

Section 1 — Overview: Solar rights for HOAs in California

California runs the most layered solar-rights regime in the country. Under the California Solar Rights Act, any covenant, restriction, or condition, and any provision of a governing document, that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable.¹ An association may still impose reasonable restrictions, but only those that don't significantly increase the cost of a system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance — with "significantly" defined by dollar and percentage figures the statute itself sets.² Two Davis-Stirling provisions operate alongside the general Act: the solar deemed-approval rule that some sources misattribute to Civil Code § 4745 actually sits in § 714 itself (§ 4745 governs electric vehicle charging stations), while § 4746 governs solar on the common area roofs of multifamily developments and § 714.1 addresses what an association may and may not require.³ Whenever approval is required, the association must process a solar application the same way it processes an application for an architectural modification, and an application not denied in writing within 45 days counts as deemed approved.⁴ These features place California alongside Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas as the flagship strong-protection states — and arguably ahead of them, given the combination of a general voiding statute, defined numeric thresholds, a statutory approval clock, and specific rules for shared roofs. The sections that follow set out the statutory framework, the operational rules for what an association can and cannot do, recent legislative and judicial activity, and California's national positioning.

Section 2 — The statutory framework

2A. The Solar Rights Act: Civil Code § 714 and § 714.1

Civil Code § 714 is a general Civil Code provision reaching covenants on all real property, not only common interest developments. Subdivision (a) renders void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition, and any provision of a governing document as defined in § 4150 or § 6552, that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system.¹ The word "effectively" carries real weight here: a total ban isn't required, and indirect conditions that make a system unworkable can fall within the prohibition too. Subdivision (b) preserves reasonable restrictions, defined as those that don't significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.²

The statute defines "significantly" with figures that differ by system type. For solar domestic water heating systems and solar swimming pool heating systems, "significantly" means an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the system, but in no case more than $1,000, or decreasing efficiency by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed.⁵ For photovoltaic systems, "significantly" means an amount not to exceed $1,000 over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 10 percent as originally specified and proposed.⁶ AB 2188, chaptered as Stats. 2014, Ch. 521, effective January 1, 2015, set these figures and lowered the earlier thresholds.⁷ A solar energy system must still meet applicable health and safety standards imposed by state and local permitting authorities.⁸ Willful violation exposes a non-public entity to actual damages and a civil penalty not exceeding $1,000,⁹ and the prevailing party in an enforcement action is awarded reasonable attorney's fees.¹⁰

Section 714.1 adds Davis-Stirling provisions on top of that. It permits an association to impose reasonable provisions that restrict common area installations to those the association approves, require an owner to obtain approval to install a system in a separate interest owned by another, provide for maintenance, repair, or replacement of roofs or other building components, and require installers to indemnify or reimburse the association for loss or damage.³

2B. Solar on separate interests under Davis-Stirling: Civil Code § 714 and § 4745

One common point of confusion deserves correction up front. Civil Code § 4745 is the Davis-Stirling statute governing electric vehicle charging stations, not solar energy systems.¹¹ The deemed-approved window that applies to solar on a separate interest sits in the Solar Rights Act itself, at § 714(e), and it operates directly on associations.

Section 714(e)(1) requires that, whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the association process and approve the application the same way it would an application for an architectural modification — and it must not willfully avoid or delay that review.¹² For an approving entity that is an association and not a public entity, approval or denial must come in writing, and if an application isn't denied in writing within 45 days from the date of receipt, it's deemed approved, unless the delay results from a reasonable request for additional information.⁴ The consequence of inaction runs deep: silence past the statutory window converts to approval, and the association loses the ability to impose conditions it didn't timely assert.

Section 714 and the Davis-Stirling provisions work together, not as substitutes for one another. Section 714 supplies the general voiding rule and the numeric thresholds; § 714.1 supplies the association-specific reasonable provisions; and, for separate interests and exclusive-use common areas such as an assigned garage or carport, § 714.1(b) bars an association from establishing a general policy prohibiting a rooftop system on the building in which the owner resides or on the adjacent assigned garage or carport, and from requiring a member vote for such an installation — any contravening action is void and unenforceable.³

2C. Common area roofs, multifamily buildings, and the role of architectural review: Civil Code § 4746 and § 4600

Civil Code § 4746, added by AB 634 (Stats. 2017, Ch. 818, effective January 1, 2018), governs solar on the common area roof of a multifamily common interest development shared by more than one homeowner.¹³ When reviewing such a request under §§ 714 and 714.1, the association must require two things: that the applicant notify each owner of a unit in the building where the installation will sit, and that the owner and each successive owner maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval and annually after that.¹³

The association may also impose additional reasonable provisions. It may require a solar site survey, prepared by a licensed contractor or the contractor's knowledgeable registered salesperson, to determine usable solar roof area, and that survey must include an equitable allocation of the usable solar roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage, or carport. The survey cost doesn't count as part of the system cost for § 714 threshold purposes.¹³ The association may require the owner and each successive owner to bear costs of damage to common area, exclusive use common area, or separate interests from installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement; costs of maintenance, repair, and replacement until removal and of restoration afterward; and disclosure to prospective buyers.¹³

Section 4600 ordinarily requires the affirmative vote of members owning at least 67 percent of the separate interests before a board may grant exclusive use of any portion of common area to a member.¹⁴ AB 634 amended § 4600 to exempt the installation and use of a solar energy system on the common area roof of a residence that meets the requirements of §§ 714, 714.1, and, if applicable, § 4746, from that supermajority vote.¹⁵ On order of precedence, § 714 and the Davis-Stirling solar provisions override conflicting declaration text, so a recorded CC&R cannot lawfully ban solar even where its language purports to. Architectural review survives, but only to apply reasonable restrictions within the statutory thresholds. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held in Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619 that § 714(e)(1)'s architectural-modification language "indicates that the Legislature specifically anticipated that an evaluation of a proposed solar energy system, just as any other proposed improvement, would involve the consideration of aesthetics," upholding a jury finding that an alternative system with a 14 percent reduction in output was a permissible reasonable restriction under § 714.¹⁶

Section 3 — What a California HOA can and cannot do regarding solar

A. What an association cannot do

An association may not enforce any covenant or rule that effectively prohibits or restricts a solar energy system; such provisions are void under the general Solar Rights Act provision § 714(a), which reaches both separate interests and, through § 714.1 and § 4746, common area roofs.¹ It may not impose restrictions that increase photovoltaic system cost by more than $1,000 or decrease efficiency by more than 10 percent — the statutory ceilings in § 714(d).⁶ For multifamily buildings, it may not require a member vote or § 4600 supermajority approval to install on the common area roof of the owner's building.¹⁵

B. What an association may do

An association may impose reasonable restrictions that stay within the § 714(b) and (d) thresholds, including reasonable placement and design conditions, provided they don't cross the cost or efficiency lines.² It may adopt the reasonable provisions listed in § 714.1 — requiring approval, providing for roof maintenance, requiring installer indemnification — permissive unless the association elects to regulate.³ For a shared common area roof, it may require a solar site survey and equitable allocation of usable roof area, and it may shift maintenance, damage, and disclosure responsibilities to the owner under § 4746(b).¹³

C. Approval process and timelines

The association must process a solar application the same way it processes an architectural application and may not willfully delay it, under § 714(e)(1).¹² An application not denied in writing within 45 days of receipt is deemed approved, unless the delay results from a reasonable request for additional information, under § 714(e)(2)(B).⁴ For a common area roof installation, the association must also require owner notice to other unit owners in the building and proof of the owner's liability insurance within 14 days of approval and annually after, under § 4746(a).¹³

D. Dispute resolution and remedies

Before litigating many governing-document disputes, Davis-Stirling requires an association to offer internal dispute resolution under § 5900 et seq., and if a member requests it, the association must participate before suing.^17,18 Alternative dispute resolution under § 5925 et seq. is a prerequisite to filing an enforcement action to enforce the governing documents or the Act.^19,20 These procedures can apply to a solar dispute that turns on the governing documents. The court path runs from the Superior Court at trial to the Court of Appeal and, on discretionary review, the Supreme Court. A prevailing party in an action to enforce § 714 is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under § 714(g), and a willful violator faces actual damages plus a civil penalty up to $1,000 under § 714(f).^10,9

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No California bill enacted or introduced in the 2024, 2025, or 2025-2026 session has amended or added to Civil Code §§ 714, 714.1, 4745, 4746, or 4600 as they relate to solar energy systems in common interest developments. The governing figures stay unchanged: § 714 was last substantively amended for these purposes by AB 2188 (Stats. 2014, Ch. 521), effective January 1, 2015,⁷ and §§ 714.1, 4600, and 4746 were last set by AB 634 (Stats. 2017, Ch. 818), effective January 1, 2018.¹⁵ The $1,000 and 10 percent thresholds and the 45-day deemed-approval window remain as set. Because no qualifying bill exists in the window, this page doesn't present a bill card here — and readers shouldn't infer a pending change to the solar thresholds or timeline from unrelated Davis-Stirling bills moving through the 2025-2026 session.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No published California Court of Appeal or Supreme Court decision issued in the past 36 months interprets the Solar Rights Act or the Davis-Stirling solar provisions as they bear on HOA solar authority. The controlling published authority remains Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, discussed in Section 2C as interpretive authority rather than as recent activity.¹⁶ A separate California Supreme Court rooftop-solar decision, Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission (Cal., Aug. 7, 2025, No. S283614), addressed the standard of judicial review of California Public Utilities Commission net-metering (NEM 3.0) decisions, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in applying the deferential Greyhound standard and remanding for review under the stricter standard. That ruling concerns CPUC oversight, not HOA authority under §§ 714, 714.1, 4746, or 4600, and it doesn't bear on this page.²¹ Because no qualifying appellate ruling exists in the window, this page doesn't present a case card here.

C. Active legislative debates

As of this update, no active 2026 proposal would amend the HOA solar provisions or adjust the $1,000 and 10 percent thresholds or the 45-day approval window. Davis-Stirling bills advancing in the 2025-2026 session address governance, assessments, meetings, and cooling systems rather than solar.

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

California sits at the top of the strong-protection tier of solar-rights states, whose statutes void or sharply limit association restrictions on solar. That tier includes California (Civ. Code §§ 714, 714.1, 4746),¹ Florida (Fla. Stat. § 163.04),²² Arizona (A.R.S. § 33-1816, § 33-1268),²³ Colorado (C.R.S. § 38-30-168),²⁴ Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.0208 and § 111.239),²⁵ and Texas (Prop. Code § 202.010).²⁶ A second category, solar-easement-only states, enables voluntary easements to protect sun access but doesn't override associations. A third category, no-protection states, leaves the declaration in full control. California's distinctive feature is its layered structure: a general Solar Rights Act with defined numeric thresholds, plus Davis-Stirling provisions for separate interests and for common area roofs, plus a statutory approval-process timeline. For a multi-state operator, the practical implication is direct: a California association cannot deny solar outright, must act on applications within the 45-day window, and must confine any restriction to the statutory cost and efficiency thresholds.

HOA Weekly's California Solar Rights coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and California courts act on these sections. No federal rule comparable to the FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule extends to rooftop solar, so California's state statutes control here rather than any federal preemption.²⁷

1. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(a) (California Legislative Information) ↩
2. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(b) ↩
3. Cal. Civ. Code § 714.1 ↩
4. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(e)(2)(B) ↩
5. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(d)(1)(A) ↩
6. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(d)(1)(B) ↩
7. AB 2188 (Stats. 2014, Ch. 521) ↩
8. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(c) ↩
9. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(f) ↩
10. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(g) ↩
11. Cal. Civ. Code § 4745 (electric vehicle charging stations) ↩
12. Cal. Civ. Code § 714(e)(1) ↩
13. Cal. Civ. Code § 4746 ↩
14. Cal. Civ. Code § 4600(a) ↩
15. AB 634 (Stats. 2017, Ch. 818); Cal. Civ. Code § 4600(b)(3)(J) ↩
16. Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619 ↩
17. Cal. Civ. Code § 5900 ↩
18. Cal. Civ. Code § 5910.1 ↩
19. Cal. Civ. Code § 5925 ↩
20. Cal. Civ. Code § 5930 ↩
21. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission (Cal., Aug. 7, 2025, No. S283614) ↩
22. Fla. Stat. § 163.04 ↩
23. A.R.S. § 33-1816 ↩
24. C.R.S. § 38-30-168 ↩
25. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.0208; § 111.239 ↩
26. Tex. Prop. Code § 202.010 ↩
27. 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 (OTARD rule) ↩