Maryland HOA ADUs & Modifications

Key Findings

• Solar is a quantified right, not an unqualified one. Section 2-119 bars an association from placing unreasonable limits on rooftop or exterior-wall solar when the owner controls that surface. The 2025 amendment puts numbers on the word "unreasonable": a restriction crosses the line if it drives up installation cost by at least 5 percent, or cuts energy output by at least 10 percent, below the owner's initial proposal — and a certified specialist has to prove it.¹ Reasonable rules on looks and placement still hold, so long as they stay under those thresholds. That is exactly what Blood v. Stoneridge confirmed when it upheld a rear-roof-only rule.²
• The ADU statute splits across two titles. Section 2-126, in Title 2, does the real work: it reaches into an association's authority and limits it. Section 11B-111.11, in the HOA Act, is administrative only.^3,4 Read Maryland off § 11B-111.11 alone, and you will misstate the law.
• EV charging is a full right-to-charge regime. The owner pays for installation and insurance, the board has 60 days to say no in writing or the application is deemed approved, and the same rules run through both the HOA Act and the Condominium Act.⁵
• Maryland is not a UCIOA state, keeps no statewide HOA regulator, and does not license community association managers. A 2025 bill to license managers died in committee.⁶
• Maryland renamed its appellate courts in December 2022. Today you cite the Appellate Court of Maryland and the Supreme Court of Maryland; Blood (2019) came down under the old name, the Court of Special Appeals.²

Details

Section 1: Overview

In Maryland, an association reviews a member's proposed change — and approves or denies it — under the authority its declaration grants, sitting on top of either the Maryland Homeowners Association Act, for planned communities, or the Maryland Condominium Act, for condominiums. But that authority no longer stands alone. Three defined-standard protections now hem it in: a solar protection (§ 2-119)¹, an EV-charging protection (§ 11B-111.8)⁵, and a 2025 ADU protection (§ 2-126) that bars unreasonable limits on building or renting an accessory dwelling unit.³ Architectural authority in a planned community flows from the declaration and the Maryland Homeowners Association Act (§ 11B-101 et seq.)⁷; in a condominium it flows from the declaration and the Maryland Condominium Act (§ 11-101 et seq.).⁸ The solar statute sits in Title 2 of the Real Property Article, not in the HOA Act, and it forbids any land-use restriction from placing unreasonable limits on roof or exterior-wall solar where the owner controls the surface; the 2025 amendment gave "unreasonable" concrete cost and energy thresholds.¹ The ADU question turns on § 2-126 — the provision that actually reaches the association — together with the new statewide ADU zoning framework in the Land Use Article and any local ordinance, while § 11B-111.11 does nothing more than tell an association how to count an ADU for voting.⁴ Four federal rules bind every Maryland association no matter what state law says: the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, the FCC's OTARD rule for antennas and satellite dishes, the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification requirement, and ADA Title III for common-area facilities that operate as public accommodations.^9,10,11,12 The sections that follow lay out that framework, the duties it creates, and the recent moves by the legislature and the courts.

Section 2: The legal framework

2A. Architectural review under the HOA Act and the Condominium Act

In a planned community, architectural review is a creature of the declaration, and the Maryland Homeowners Association Act (§ 11B-101 et seq.) works as a statutory overlay that bounds how the association uses that power.⁷ In a condominium, the Maryland Condominium Act (§ 11-101 et seq.) plays the same part.⁸ Maryland is not a UCIOA state; it runs a separate HOA Act and Condominium Act instead of one unified common-interest statute. The declaration typically creates an architectural review committee, spells out which changes need approval, and sets the standard and the process. The statute does not replace that structure — it fences it in. Section 11B-104 gives building-code and zoning laws full force inside a development, addresses how local laws and ordinances interact, and lets a code home-rule county in the Southern Maryland class stand up a homeowners association commission that offers alternative dispute resolution, including binding arbitration.¹³ Maryland courts read an ambiguous restrictive covenant against the association, but they generally uphold a board's architectural decision unless they find fraud or bad faith — the deferential standard the intermediate appellate court applied in Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Ass'n.² The Act's procedural rules bear directly on enforcement: § 11B-111 requires open meetings and reasonable notice, § 11B-112 gives members access to books and records, and § 11B-111.10 sets the dispute-settlement steps an association must take — notice and a chance to be heard — before it sanctions a covenant violation.¹⁴ An association that skips those steps, or enforces a covenant unevenly, hands an owner a process challenge that stands apart from the merits.

2B. Solar and EV charging

Maryland's solar protection lives in § 2-119 of the Real Property Article — in Title 2's general real-property provisions, not in the HOA Act — and it reaches any "restriction on use," whether that is a declaration, the bylaws, or an association rule.¹ Section 2-119(b)(1) says a land-use restriction may not place unreasonable limits on a solar collector system on the roof or exterior walls of improvements the owner owns or has the exclusive right to use. The 2025 amendment traded the old "significantly increases the cost" and "significantly decreases the efficiency" language for a hard test: under § 2-119(b)(2), a restriction is unreasonable if, applied to a particular proposal, it "increases the installation cost of the solar collector system by at least 5% over the projected cost of the initially proposed installation; or ... reduces the energy generated by the solar collector system by at least 10% below the projected energy generation of the initially proposed installation."¹ The owner has to document that unreasonableness through an independent solar-panel design specialist — one certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, or one who attests to designing at least 30 systems in the prior three years.¹ The amendment also made clear that an association may restrict or prohibit solar in the common areas and set reasonable rules there, and it handed a board the discretion to install a common-area solar system even over contrary governing documents, at § 2-119(b)(4)(iii).¹ Section 2-119(d) exempts historic property listed in or eligible for the Maryland Register of Historic Properties.¹ In Blood v. Stoneridge (2019), the then-Court of Special Appeals held that limiting panels to the rear roof was not an unreasonable limitation: the Bel Air homeowners in Harford County had already put 15 panels on the front roof and 33 on the rear before they asked for approval, the association had let other owners use rear-roof panels, and the rule itself neither raised cost nor cut efficiency — so the court treated the added cost the owners pointed to as self-inflicted.²

Maryland protects EV charging under the HOA Act at § 11B-111.8 and, for condominiums, under the Condominium Act at § 11-111.4.^5,15 A covenant, declaration provision, or rule is void and unenforceable if it effectively bans, or unreasonably restricts, the installation or use of EV recharging equipment in an owner's deeded or specifically designated parking space. The governing body reviews the application the same way it reviews any architectural change, and if it does not deny the application in writing within 60 days, the application is deemed approved — subject to a reasonable request for more information.⁵ The owner carries the costs of installation, maintenance, electricity, and removal, must hire a licensed contractor and meet the building codes and the development's architectural standards, must pull any required county or municipal permit, and must either name the association as an additional insured or reimburse it for the higher premium.⁵ The same line runs through both the solar and the EV provisions: the association cannot impose an unreasonable limit or an effective ban, but it keeps the power to set reasonable rules on looks and placement and to require the application, documentation, and safety compliance the statute allows.

2C. ADUs and federal overlays

The 2025 accessory-dwelling-unit act — Chapter 197, House Bill 1466, which Governor Wes Moore signed on April 22, 2025 after the Senate passed it 47–0 and the House 138–1, effective October 1, 2025 — created two separate Maryland provisions, and telling them apart is the central check for this page.¹⁶ The provision that reaches the association is § 2-126, sitting in Title 2 alongside the solar statute. It says that where an owner has the exclusive right to use the property and follows applicable law, a restriction on use — a declaration, the bylaws, or an association rule — may not place an unreasonable limitation on the owner's ability to build or offer for rent an ADU on property zoned for single-family residential use.³ An "unreasonable limitation" includes one that significantly raises the cost of building an ADU, or that bans an ADU outright or by effect; it does not include a limit on short-term rental, and § 2-126 does not touch historic property.³ Section 11B-111.11, over in the HOA Act, does far less: it lets the governing body treat an ADU as a separate lot for voting, and § 11B-117(a)(2) lets the association treat an ADU as a separate lot when it levies assessments.⁴ That puts Maryland among the states that reach ADUs at the association level, alongside California (Civ. Code § 4751, which voids governing-document provisions that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict an ADU) and Colorado (HB 24-1152) — though Maryland uses an "unreasonable limitation" standard rather than a flat preemption.^17,18 The analysis runs on two layers: the same act added a statewide zoning framework in the Land Use Article (Title 4, Subtitle 5) that orders every local jurisdiction to authorize ADUs on single-family lots by October 1, 2026 and to approve complete applications ministerially within 90 days, with an ADU capped at no more than 75 percent of the primary dwelling — so a homeowner has to clear both the local zoning permit and the association's reasonable, non-prohibitive rules.¹⁶ Where § 2-126 does not apply — historic property, for instance — the declaration controls.

Four federal rules bind every Maryland association, whatever the state framework says. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-243) bars an association from stopping a member from flying the U.S. flag on property the member owns or may use exclusively, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits.⁹ The FCC's OTARD rule (47 C.F.R. § 1.4000) blocks restrictions that impair the installation, upkeep, or use of covered antennas and satellite dishes one meter or less across, within an area the owner uses exclusively.¹⁰ The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A)) requires an association to allow reasonable modifications of the existing premises, at the resident's expense, when a person with a disability needs them to use and enjoy the dwelling.¹¹ ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12182) applies where common-area facilities operate as public accommodations open to the public.¹²

Section 3: Compliance obligations created by the framework

A. Architectural review process obligations

• The association may review a change, and approve or deny it, only as far as its declaration authorizes; the declaration sets both the review standard and the list of changes that need approval. Source: DECLARATION. Applies to BOTH.
• The association must hold open meetings and give reasonable notice (§ 11B-111 for HOAs, with parallel provisions in the Condominium Act), and it must open its books and records to members (§ 11B-112).¹⁴ Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to BOTH.
• Before it sanctions a covenant violation, the association must run the dispute-settlement procedure in § 11B-111.10 (HOAs) or § 11-113 (condominiums) — written notice, at least 15 days to cure, and a chance to be heard — and it should put the decision in writing. Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to BOTH.
• Where a code home-rule county in the Southern Maryland class has set up an HOA commission under § 11B-104, alternative dispute resolution — including binding arbitration — may be on the table.¹³ Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to PLANNED COMMUNITIES.

B. Modifications the association must permit (subject to reasonable rules)

• Solar collector systems on roofs or exterior walls the owner uses exclusively (§ 2-119); the association may set reasonable rules on looks and placement, but not a limit that raises cost by at least 5 percent or cuts energy by at least 10 percent.¹ Source: STATE STATUTE (Title 2). Applies to BOTH.
• EV recharging equipment in an owner's parking space (§ 11B-111.8 for HOAs; § 11-111.4 for condominiums), reviewed like an architectural change with a 60-day deemed-approval default.⁵ Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to BOTH.
• Composting and contracting with a private organic-waste collector (§ 11B-111.9 for HOAs; § 11-111.5 for condominiums).⁷ Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to BOTH.
• Building or renting an ADU on a single-family lot the owner uses exclusively (§ 2-126), subject to reasonable, non-prohibitive rules.³ Source: STATE STATUTE (Title 2). Applies to PLANNED COMMUNITIES (single-family lots).
• U.S. flag display (the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act), covered antennas and dishes (OTARD, 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000), and resident-paid reasonable disability modifications (the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A)).^9,10,11 Source: FEDERAL. Applies to BOTH.

C. ADU obligations and limits on HOA authority

• Under § 2-126, the association may not place an unreasonable limitation on building or renting an ADU on a single-family lot: it cannot ban ADUs outright or by effect, and it cannot significantly drive up the cost of building one. It may still apply reasonable design and placement rules.³ Source: STATE STATUTE (Title 2). Applies to PLANNED COMMUNITIES.
• The owner still has to obtain the local ministerial zoning permit under the Land Use Article framework; the association layer and the zoning layer stand apart.¹⁶ Source: STATE STATUTE / local ordinance. Applies to BOTH layers.
• Section 2-126 does not reach historic property, and it does not limit short-term-rental restrictions; there, the declaration controls.³ Source: STATE STATUTE / DECLARATION. Applies to PLANNED COMMUNITIES.
• Section 11B-111.11 and § 11B-117(a)(2) let the association treat an ADU as a separate lot for voting and assessments; they do not let it prohibit the ADU.⁴ Source: STATE STATUTE. Applies to PLANNED COMMUNITIES.

D. Enforcement, dispute resolution, and appeal obligations

• The association must follow both its declaration's enforcement procedure and the statutory dispute procedure (§ 11B-111.10; § 11-113) before it fines or sues. Source: STATE STATUTE / DECLARATION. Applies to BOTH.
• A contested modification dispute runs through the Maryland Circuit Courts, with appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland and discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Maryland — the appellate courts Maryland renamed in December 2022.² Source: STATE STATUTE / court structure. Applies to BOTH.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

4A. Recent bills

4B. Recent appellate rulings

4C. Active legislative debates

Statewide licensing of community association managers failed again in 2025 — House Bill 303 died in committee — so Maryland still runs no statewide manager-licensing program, and proposals for a statewide ombudsman and a governing-document database did not pass either.⁶ Reserve-funding reform did move: 2025 legislation (Senate Bill 63 / House Bill 292) now requires associations to adopt funding plans and to fund reserves at the level the most recent reserve study recommends — part of the § 11B-112.2 and § 11B-112.3 reserve framework that shapes how associations pay for major common-area work.²²

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Maryland sits toward the protective end on both solar and EV. Its solar standard is now quantified (§ 2-119), which lands it among the defined-standard states rather than the general-reasonableness states, and its EV protection (§ 11B-111.8, with the condominium parallel at § 11-111.4) is a full right-to-charge regime.^1,5 On ADUs, the 2025 act turns Maryland into an association-level ADU state through § 2-126, comparable in effect to California (Civ. Code § 4751) and Colorado (HB 24-1152), though Maryland uses an "unreasonable limitation" standard rather than a flat preemption and pairs it with a statewide ministerial zoning framework.^3,17 For a multi-state operator, the practical read is simple: in Maryland the solar standard is now numeric, EV charging is protected at the owner level and — starting October 1, 2026 — easier for boards to install in the common areas, and governing-document bans on ADUs on single-family lots are unenforceable, all of it litigated through appellate courts that changed names in 2022.

Federal frameworks — the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the FCC OTARD rule, the Fair Housing Act, and ADA Title III — bind Maryland associations regardless of what the state framework says.

Recommendations

Immediate (do now). Managers and boards should pull the association's architectural guidelines and strike — or at least flag — any provision that (a) bans or effectively bans solar on owner-exclusive roof or exterior-wall surfaces, (b) blocks EV charging in a designated parking space, or (c) prohibits ADUs on single-family lots. All three are now unenforceable to that extent under §§ 2-119, 11B-111.8/11-111.4, and 2-126. What should trigger the cleanup is any denial letter or CC&R clause that leans on aesthetics alone to block one of these categories.

Near term (this quarter). Rebuild the review workflow around the statutory clocks and standards. For an EV application, timestamp the day it arrives and calendar the 60-day deemed-approval deadline; miss it, and the board forfeits its right to impose conditions. For solar, adopt a written policy that makes the owner submit NABCEP-certified documentation before the board may call a placement rule unreasonable, so a denial rests on the 5-percent-cost or 10-percent-energy thresholds and not on taste. For ADUs, write a reasonable set of design-and-placement rules that no one can read as an effective ban, and confirm the owner holds the local ministerial zoning permit.

Ongoing. Treat the federal overlays as non-negotiable, whatever the declaration says: allow the U.S. flag, covered antennas and dishes in exclusive-use areas, and resident-paid reasonable disability modifications. Re-check bill statuses and case posture each quarter, because Maryland legislates actively here. What would change these recommendations is a further statutory amendment — say, a flat ADU preemption replacing the "unreasonable limitation" standard — a Supreme Court of Maryland decision reading § 2-119 or § 2-126, or a new statewide manager-licensing or ombudsman regime. None of those existed as of July 15, 2026.

Caveats

• Section 11B-111.11 is not the ADU-preemption provision. The substantive, HOA-reaching ADU protection is § 2-126 in Title 2; § 11B-111.11 is administrative — voting only. Any read of Maryland's ADU posture has to rest on § 2-126.
• The solar and ADU protections are not absolute. Both carry historic-property exceptions, and both leave room for reasonable, non-prohibitive rules; § 2-126 also expressly leaves short-term-rental restrictions alone.
• HB 405 (2026) chapter number. The verification record and LegiScan list HB 405 as Chapter 753, signed May 26, 2026, effective October 1, 2026, and the mgaleg-hosted chaptered PDF and the bill-detail effective date line up — but the chapter number could not be independently confirmed against a captured mgaleg status banner. Editors should confirm the chapter number against the mgaleg chaptered file before publication.
• Vargas is an unreported opinion with limited precedential value; it is here to show current enforcement practice, not as binding authority. Blood (2019) is the controlling reported authority on the solar reasonableness standard, and it predates the 2025 thresholds, so read its cost-and-efficiency analysis together with the quantified test now in § 2-119(b)(2).
• Local overlays vary. Prince George's and Montgomery Counties run active common-ownership-community programs, with registration or reserve requirements this framework page does not fully cover; verify the local layer for a specific community.

1. Md. Code, Real Property § 2-119 (Covenants restricting installation of solar collector systems), current text on the Maryland General Assembly site (thresholds at § 2-119(b)(2); common-area board authority at § 2-119(b)(4)(iii); historic exception at § 2-119(d)) ↩
2. Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Ass'n, 242 Md. App. 417 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019), Maryland Judiciary opinion ↩
3. Md. Code, Real Property § 2-126 (Accessory dwelling units restriction on use), as enacted by Chapter 197 (House Bill 1466), 2025 Laws of Maryland ↩
4. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.11 and § 11B-117(a)(2) (authority to treat an accessory dwelling unit as a separate lot for voting and assessments), Chapter 197 (House Bill 1466), 2025 Laws of Maryland ↩
5. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.8 (Installation of electric vehicle recharging equipment in a development) ↩
6. House Bill 303 (2025 Regular Session), Regulation of Common Ownership Community Managers (failed in committee), Maryland General Assembly committee testimony record ↩
7. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-101 et seq. (Maryland Homeowners Association Act), Maryland General Assembly Statute Text ↩
8. Md. Code, Real Property Title 11 (Maryland Condominium Act), § 11-101 et seq. ↩
9. Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-243, 120 Stat. 572 (U.S. Government Publishing Office) ↩
10. 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 (Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule), e-CFR / Legal Information Institute ↩
11. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) (Fair Housing Act reasonable modifications), U.S. Code ↩
12. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (ADA Title III, prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations), Office of the Law Revision Counsel ↩
13. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-104 (Building code or zoning laws; local laws; alternative dispute resolution) ↩
14. Md. Code, Real Property Title 11B (open meetings § 11B-111; books and records § 11B-112; dispute settlement § 11B-111.10; composting § 11B-111.9) ↩
15. Md. Code, Real Property § 11-111.4 (electric vehicle recharging equipment, condominiums) and § 11-111.5 (organic waste collection), Maryland Condominium Act ↩
16. House Bill 1466 (2025 Regular Session), Chapter 197, Land Use and Real Property - Accessory Dwelling Units - Requirements and Prohibitions (Land Use Article Title 4, Subtitle 5) ↩
17. Cal. Civ. Code § 4751 (accessory dwelling units; void and unenforceable governing-document restrictions), California Legislative Information ↩
18. Colorado HB 24-1152 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Colorado General Assembly ↩
19. House Bill 4 (2025 Regular Session), Restrictions on Use - Solar Collector Systems - Alteration (cross-filed with Senate Bill 120), effective October 1, 2025 ↩
20. House Bill 405 (2026 Regular Session), Condominiums and Homeowners Associations - Governing Documents - Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment, effective October 1, 2026 ↩
21. Vargas v. Franklin Farms Homeowners Ass'n, No. 0282, Sept. Term 2024 (Appellate Court of Maryland, unreported, filed April 22, 2025), Maryland Judiciary ↩
22. House Bill 292 (2025 Regular Session), Chapter 519, Cooperative Housing Corporations, Condominiums, and Homeowners Associations - Funding of Reserve Accounts and Preparation of Funding Plans (§§ 11B-112.2, 11B-112.3); cross-filed Senate Bill 63, Chapter 518 ↩