Section 2 — The architectural-review framework

2A. Source and scope of architectural authority

Architectural authority in a Colorado common interest community begins in the recorded declaration — the covenants, conditions, and restrictions. The declaration usually hands review to the executive board or to an architectural or design review committee and sets the standards those bodies apply. CCIOA backs that contractual authority: § 38-33.3-302 gives an association broad power to regulate how owners use, maintain, repair, replace, and modify units and common elements, and to adopt and enforce rules — all subject to the declaration and the Act.¹

CCIOA's reach depends on the community. The Act governs condominiums, planned communities, and cooperatives. Communities created on or after July 1, 1992 generally fall under the full Act, while smaller and older communities may be only partly covered: § 38-33.3-116 exempts certain small planned communities and cooperatives — those at or below the statutory unit count and not subject to development rights — from most of the Act, and it addresses pre-CCIOA communities separately.¹⁷ The § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-outs, though, apply notwithstanding any contrary declaration, bylaw, or rule. A community's CCIOA status and creation date decide whether a specific statutory provision reaches it.

Precedence runs in order: the Act's non-variable provisions and the § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-outs come first — they apply notwithstanding any contrary declaration, bylaw, or rule — then the declaration, then the bylaws, then the rules and architectural guidelines.⁷ A guideline that conflicts with a carve-out is unenforceable to that extent.

2B. The approval process and standards of review

Colorado imposes no statutory architectural-decision deadline, no deemed-approval rule, and no statutory written-denial requirement specific to architectural review. Those procedural protections are contractual — they bind an association only when the declaration or the adopted guidelines create them.² The statutory constraint that does govern discretion is the good-faith obligation in § 38-33.3-113, which provides that every contract or duty under the Act carries an obligation of good faith in how a party performs or enforces it.⁵ Colorado courts apply that duty — along with the long-standing rule that discretionary covenant decisions must be reasonable, made in good faith, and neither arbitrary nor capricious — to architectural determinations.¹⁸

In practice, good-faith, non-arbitrary review means applying published standards consistently, tying each decision to the declaration's stated criteria, holding every owner to the same standard, and steering clear of selective enforcement. Under that standard, the validity of a denial is tied to the declaration's stated criteria and to a specific, published standard the application fails to meet.¹⁸

The HB 22-1137 framework — § 38-33.3-209.5 — does not set an application timeline, but it shapes how a board documents and communicates decisions once a matter turns into a violation. It requires associations to adopt and follow written responsible-governance policies, including a covenant-enforcement policy with notice-and-hearing procedures and a schedule of fines, and it bars an association from fining an owner unless it follows that written policy — which must guarantee notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker.¹⁹ The division of labor is straightforward: the declaration and adopted guidelines set the process and the criteria, the statutory carve-outs set hard limits on what an association may deny, and the enforcement policy sets the procedure for acting on a violation.

2C. Statutory and federal limits on architectural authority

Several CCIOA provisions override a contrary declaration. The first covers solar and renewable energy: an association may not effectively prohibit renewable energy generation devices (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1.5)), which § 38-30-168 defines to include solar energy devices, wind-electric generators, and heat pump systems. Section 38-30-168 independently voids any covenant that effectively prohibits or restricts such a device. It allows only aesthetic provisions that do not raise the device's cost by more than ten percent, cut its performance or efficiency by more than ten percent, or stretch a review-and-approval period past sixty days — and it deems an application approved if the association does not deny it or return it for modification within sixty days.⁶

Flags: an association may not prohibit an owner from displaying a flag on the owner's property, in a window, or on a balcony, and it may not regulate flags by subject matter, message, or content, though it may bar commercial-message flags and adopt reasonable content-neutral rules on number, location, and size (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1)(a)).⁷ Signs: an association may not prohibit an owner's or occupant's sign on the unit's property or in a window, and it may not regulate window or yard signs by content, though it may bar commercial-message signs and set content-neutral rules on number, placement, and size (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c)).⁸

Xeriscape and drought-tolerant landscaping: an association may not prohibit xeriscape, drought-tolerant, or nonvegetative landscapes on property the owner maintains, may adopt design and placement rules, and may confine nonvegetative turf grass to rear-yard locations (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1)(i)); as SB 23-178 (2023) amended it, the (1)(i) turf provision reaches only a single-family home that shares one or more walls with another unit and does not apply to a detached single-family home, while the more detailed water-wise provisions of § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(i.5) govern detached homes.⁹

Fire prevention: an association may not require cedar shakes or other flammable roofing (§ 38-33.3-106.5(2)) and may not prohibit fire-hardened building materials (§ 38-33.3-106.5(3)).¹² Energy efficiency measures (§ 38-33.3-106.7) — which the statute limits to defined items such as shade structures, attic and garage fans, evaporative coolers, energy-efficient outdoor lighting, retractable clotheslines, and heat pump systems — and residential EV charging (§ 38-33.3-106.8) carry similar limits.¹¹ From January 1, 2027, HB26-1007 adds portable-scale solar generation devices: under new C.R.S. § 40-2-140(7), a covenant or review standard that "explicitly or indirectly unreasonably prohibits or restricts" one is void, and permitted association restrictions are confined to prior notice, fire or electrical overload, damage or harm, and location.²⁰ Wildfire codes add a public-law layer on materials: county wildland-urban interface codes enforceable from July 1, 2026 can require noncombustible fencing within eight feet of a structure and hard-surface materials in the first five feet, and only a local government's governing body may petition the state code board for a modification — HB26-1334, which would have opened that route to affected owners, was postponed indefinitely on April 7, 2026.^21,22

Federal overlays apply on top of all this. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 protects display of the U.S. flag subject to reasonable safety restrictions, and Colorado's protection runs broader and content-neutral; the FCC OTARD rule (47 C.F.R. § 1.4000) limits restrictions on covered antennas and satellite dishes one meter or less in size; and the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification right (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A)) requires an association to permit owner-funded, reasonable disability-related exterior modifications.²³ Architectural standards and fair-housing accommodation duties run on separate tracks and meet at enforcement; since August 12, 2026, Colorado law also presumes that "the complete prohibition of assistance animals in housing is presumed to be discriminatory" (HB26-1045).²⁴

Section 3 — Compliance obligations in the architectural-review process

3A. Adopting and maintaining architectural standards

This obligation is both statutory and declaration-based. The declaration is the source of architectural authority, and § 38-33.3-302 gives the association power to adopt and enforce rules and guidelines consistent with the declaration and the Act.¹ Any architectural standard must yield to the § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-outs, so content-based sign or flag rules, bans on xeriscape or solar, and similar provisions in a board's guidelines are void under the statute.¹⁶

3B. Reviewing and deciding applications

This obligation is primarily declaration-based. No statutory deadline, deemed-approval rule, or written-denial requirement applies to architectural review, so the declaration and the adopted guidelines govern timing and form.² The statutory overlay is the good-faith obligation (§ 38-33.3-113) and the reasonable, non-arbitrary standard the courts apply — which together require consistent application of published criteria and forbid selective enforcement.¹⁸

3C. Honoring statutory and federal owner protections

This obligation is statutory and federal. An association must approve applications that fall within a carve-out even where the declaration would forbid them: solar and renewable energy devices (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1.5); § 38-30-168), flags and signs (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1)(a), (1)(c)), xeriscape and drought-tolerant landscaping (§ 38-33.3-106.5(1)(i), (1)(i.5)), energy efficiency measures (§ 38-33.3-106.7), and residential Level 1 or Level 2 EV charging installed at the owner's expense for the owner's use, subject to reasonable safety, registration within thirty days of installation, aesthetic, and insurance conditions (§ 38-33.3-106.8).¹⁰ Federal law adds the OTARD rule (47 C.F.R. § 1.4000) and the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification right (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A)).²³

3D. Enforcement and dispute resolution

This obligation is statutory, and it is where Colorado stands out most. HB 22-1137 (§ 38-33.3-209.5) requires an association to adopt and follow a written enforcement policy with a fair fact-finding process, notice of the alleged violation, and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker.¹⁹

For a violation that does not threaten public health or safety, the association must give the owner written notice and, before it takes legal action, two consecutive 30-day periods to cure; it may not impose daily fines, and it caps the fine at $500 for an uncured violation. A violation the association reasonably determines threatens public safety or health carries a 72-hour cure period.¹³

Past-due amounts may not bear interest above eight percent per year, the association may not refer a delinquent account to a collection agency or attorney without a recorded majority board vote, and it may not foreclose based solely on unpaid fines.¹³ HB 24-1337 (2024) then added a mediation-notice requirement before foreclosure, capped recoverable attorney fees at $5,000 or 50 percent of the amount owed (whichever is less, adjusted for inflation), and created a 180-day right of redemption after an association lien foreclosure.²⁵

An association must pursue an architectural violation through this framework, not through escalating fines. The carve-outs are statutory limits, not declaration terms, and there is no statutory application deadline to invoke.

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

Colorado's General Assembly ranks among the most active in the country on HOA matters — enforcement, landscaping, solar, and EV charging in particular. HB 23-1233 (2023) widened the locations where a residential owner may install an EV charging system, reaching certain general common element parking.¹⁰ The measures that bear most directly on architectural authority and enforcement follow.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No published Colorado appellate opinion in the past 36 months squarely addresses architectural review or the § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-outs. One recent decision does bear on whether an association holds covenant authority at all.

In Willis v. Twin Shores Master Owner Association, Inc., 2025 COA 37, a premises-liability case, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 12, 2026 (No. 25SC286); the case does not touch architectural authority.²⁷

Two Court of Appeals decisions bear on the liability side of the structures an architectural program governs. Macomber v. Nations Roof, LLC, 2025 COA 59 (June 18, 2025), held as a matter of first impression that C.R.S. § 13-21-115 has no physical-proximity requirement for landowner status under § 13-21-115(7)(b), which "extends landowner status to anyone who is legally responsible for the condition of the property or for the activities conducted or circumstances existing on the property" — roofers working only on a roof were landowners as to injuries inside the store below — so an association, and its vendors, may be landowners for injuries beyond the specific element maintained; the Supreme Court denied certiorari on April 6, 2026, with Justices Hood and Samour recording that they would have granted it.^28,29 Shive v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC, 2025 COA 87 (Nov. 6, 2025), held that an exculpatory clause referring to "facilities" did not clearly and unambiguously release liability for a fall on an icy, publicly accessible sidewalk near the entrance, and reversed summary judgment on the Premises Liability Act claim.³⁰

C. Active legislative debates

Recent sessions have taken up further HOA measures, including construction-defect and foreclosure bills. HB 25-1272 (2025) raised the owner-approval threshold for construction-defect suits, and SB 25-184 (2025) continued the HOA Information and Resource Center after its 2024 sunset review.³¹ No pending measure identified as of mid-2026 changes the architectural carve-outs directly.

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

Colorado ranks among the carve-out-heavy states, alongside California and Arizona. What distinguishes it is how it concentrates most of its owner protections in a single master carve-out section — § 38-33.3-106.5 — and pairs them with a 2022 enforcement overhaul, HB 22-1137, that governs how an association pursues any violation, architectural or otherwise.

For a multi-state operator, the takeaway is direct: in Colorado the statute, not the declaration alone, decides what an architectural committee may deny — solar, flags, signs, xeriscape, EV charging — and how it must notice and cure a violation before enforcing it. That puts Colorado at the opposite end of the spectrum from light-touch, declaration-first states such as Alabama and Arkansas, where the recorded covenants carry most of the weight and statutory carve-outs stay sparse.

HOA Weekly's Colorado Architectural Review coverage is revised when we verify a change from the General Assembly and the Colorado appellate courts. Federal frameworks — the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the FCC OTARD rule, and the Fair Housing Act — apply to Colorado associations on top of the CCIOA carve-outs. Architectural review does not displace that federal duty: once a resident has communicated a disability-related need, a committee may not use its review process to indefinitely delay or effectively deny the request, and it may deny only for undue financial or administrative burden, fundamental alteration, or a direct threat to health or safety — not mere aesthetic preference.³²

Recommendations

Threshold questions. A community's CCIOA status and creation date determine which provisions reach it. The § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-outs override a contrary declaration or architectural guideline, so content-based flag or sign rules, xeriscape or solar prohibitions, and any roofing mandate that requires flammable materials or bars fire-hardened ones are unenforceable to that extent. Section 38-33.3-209.5 bars an association from fining an owner unless it has adopted, and follows, a written enforcement policy that meets the statute.

Process. Colorado sets no statutory architectural-decision deadline, so timelines and any written-decision practice come from the declaration or the adopted guidelines. The good-faith and non-arbitrary standard turns on consistent application of published criteria and on tying each denial to a specific published standard. Renewable energy device applications run on the § 38-30-168 sixty-day track, since those applications carry a statutory deemed-approval consequence that ordinary architectural applications do not.

Statutory limits. The $500 non-safety fine cap, the two consecutive 30-day cure periods, the 72-hour safety-violation cure period, the 8 percent interest cap, and the HB 24-1337 attorney-fee cap and 180-day redemption right are statutory limits on enforcement. No published Colorado appellate opinion in the past 36 months squarely interprets the HB 22-1137 framework or a § 38-33.3-106.5 carve-out (Section 4B).

Caveats

This page states the law as of July 15, 2026 and is not legal advice. CCIOA applicability turns on creation date and community size, so a specific provision may not bind a particular small or pre-CCIOA community.

The subsection lettering in § 38-33.3-106.5 has shifted across successive amendments, and the landscaping provisions now split between (1)(i) for attached homes and (1)(i.5) for detached homes, and the current text is published on leg.colorado.gov. The HOA Information and Resource Center serves as an information and complaint clearinghouse, not a regulator that can adjudicate architectural disputes or assess fines.

No published Colorado appellate opinion in the review window squarely construes architectural review or the carve-outs, so the practical standards described here rest on the statute and on older covenant-enforcement case law; an unpublished or very recent opinion that these searches did not surface could exist. Where a primary source could not confirm a claimed protection, we left it out rather than flag it.