Maryland HOA Architectural Review

Quick-Reference Architectural Authority Table

Section 1: Overview — How architectural review works in Maryland

Maryland governs its community associations through two full statutes — the Maryland Homeowners Association Act and the Maryland Condominium Act — yet neither one gives an association its power to review exterior changes.¹ That power lives in the recorded declaration. The applicable statute simply layers disclosure, dispute-resolution, and specific carve-out rules on top of it. The Homeowners Association Act (Md. Code, Real Property Title 11B) governs planned communities, the Condominium Act (Real Property Title 11) governs condominiums, and the Cooperative Housing Corporation Act (Corporations and Associations Title 5, Subtitle 6B) governs cooperatives. In Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, a local common-ownership-community code adds one more layer.³

Neither statute sets a general deadline for deciding an architectural application, creates a deemed-approval rule, or demands a written denial. Those protections apply only where the declaration creates them — with one narrow statutory exception for electric-vehicle-charging applications.² What the statutes do provide is a strong pro-solar provision that voids covenants imposing unreasonable limitations on solar collector systems, subject to a historic-property exception, plus statutory carve-outs for electric-vehicle charging equipment and composting.⁵ Federal law adds three more protections: an American-flag display right, the FCC over-the-air reception device rule, and a Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right. Maryland runs no statewide HOA regulator, though the two county commissions operate locally.¹⁰ Architectural disputes travel through the Circuit Courts, then the Appellate Court of Maryland, then the Supreme Court of Maryland — the current names for courts that Maryland renamed in December 2022.¹¹ The sections that follow lay out the framework, the compliance obligations, and recent activity.

Section 2: The architectural-review framework

2A. Source and scope of architectural authority

Architectural control in Maryland begins with the recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. That document typically requires an owner to win approval before altering a lot's exterior, and it hands the review to the board of directors or to an architectural committee. The declaration — not the statute — is the operative grant of authority. Maryland courts treat that declaration as a contract, and it binds every owner who takes title within the community.⁴

Which statute supplies the surrounding rules depends on the community type. The Maryland Homeowners Association Act, codified at Real Property §§ 11B-101 through 11B-118, governs planned communities where someone holds authority to enforce a declaration.¹ The Maryland Condominium Act, Real Property §§ 11-101 through 11-143, governs condominium regimes, and § 11-142 spells out how the Act reaches condominiums created before July 1, 1982.¹² The Cooperative Housing Corporation Act, Corporations and Associations §§ 5-6B-01 through 5-6B-33, governs cooperatives.¹³ Most associations of every type also organize separately as nonstock corporations under Corporations and Associations Title 5.

A county overlay applies in two jurisdictions. Montgomery County created a Commission on Common Ownership Communities under Chapter 10B of the County Code; it registers communities, educates boards, and delivers binding dispute resolution.³ Prince George's County regulates common-ownership communities under Subtitle 13 of its code, which likewise runs a common-ownership-community commission and a dispute-resolution program.¹⁴ These regimes stay local. They do not reach statewide, and an association outside those two counties answers only to the state statutes and its own documents.

The order of precedence runs from the applicable state statute, to the recorded declaration, to the bylaws, and then to the rules and architectural guidelines adopted under them — with any county common-ownership-community requirements layered on top. A rule or guideline that conflicts with the declaration or the governing statute cannot stand, and a declaration term that collides with a mandatory statutory provision or a protected carve-out gives way to the statute.

2B. The approval process and standards of review

Maryland imposes no general statutory deadline for deciding an architectural application, no deemed-approval rule, and no requirement that a denial arrive in writing or state its reasons. These process protections come straight from the declaration. So a professional reviewing an application should start with the declaration and any adopted architectural guidelines, because that is where the timeline, the form of the decision, and any appeal right take shape. The one statutory deadline here stays narrow: an electric-vehicle-charging application that the association does not deny in writing within 60 days is deemed approved, and that rule does not stretch to architectural applications generally.²

The governing standard is reasonableness within the four corners of the association's authority. Maryland courts enforce a recorded covenant when it is valid and the association acts within the power the declaration grants. Architectural standards, in turn, should be reasonable, applied consistently, and grounded in the declaration rather than improvised. Maryland's intermediate appellate court applied that framework to solar in Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Association, where it upheld an architectural committee's rear-roof-only solar policy as a reasonable limitation.¹⁵

What the statutes add is procedural rather than substantive. The Homeowners Association Act requires disclosure to purchasers on the initial sale and on resale, gives building codes and local zoning full force while providing for alternative dispute resolution at § 11B-104, lays out a dispute-settlement procedure for enforcing the governing documents at § 11B-111.10, and guarantees access to books and records at § 11B-112.¹⁶ The Condominium Act carries a parallel dispute-settlement procedure at § 11-113.¹⁷ In Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the county commission opens an additional dispute-resolution channel, and in Montgomery County a party generally must exhaust the association's own procedures before filing with the commission.³ So a defensible decision follows a clear sequence: identify the governing statute and any county overlay, ground the review in the declaration and guidelines, apply the standard consistently, and follow the statutory and county dispute-resolution procedures when a conflict arises.

2C. Statutory and federal limits on architectural authority

The strongest state limit is the solar carve-out at Real Property § 2-119. A restriction on use — defined to include a covenant, restriction, or condition in a deed, declaration, contract, or the bylaws or rules of a condominium or homeowners association — may not impose an unreasonable limitation on installing a solar collector system on a roof or exterior wall that the owner owns or has the exclusive right to use.⁵ The current text draws a bright line: a restriction counts as unreasonable if it raises the system's installation cost by at least 5% over the projected cost of the initially proposed installation, or cuts the energy it generates by at least 10% below the projected output. The owner carries the burden of proof, providing the association with satisfactory documentation that the restriction is unreasonable, prepared by an independent solar-panel design specialist certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners — or one who attests to having designed at least 30 systems in the prior three years. The section spares one category: it does not reach a restriction on historic property listed in, or found eligible for, the Maryland Register of Historic Properties, and an association keeps its discretion to prohibit or reasonably restrict solar installations in common areas or common elements. The provision began with House Bill 1191 in 2008 and has since been amended; the earlier version framed unreasonableness in terms of significant cost or efficiency effects, and that was the version the court tested in Blood.

Two more state carve-outs apply. The Homeowners Association Act voids any covenant, declaration provision, or rule that conflicts with — or effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts — installing electric-vehicle recharging equipment in a lot owner's deeded or designated parking space. Where approval is required, the Act directs the association to process the application like an architectural-modification application within 60 days, and it makes the owner responsible for permits, licensed installation, insurance that names the association as an additional insured, and electricity costs (§ 11B-111.8).² The parallel condominium provision sits at § 11-111.4.¹⁸ Both statutes bar an association from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting composting or a contract with a private composting collector (HOA Act § 11B-111.9; Condominium Act § 11-111.5).⁹ Maryland also protects candidate and ballot-proposition signs at § 11B-111.2, allowing only limited common-area and time, place, and manner restrictions.⁷ No Maryland HOA statute confirms a carve-out for drought-tolerant or native landscaping, rainwater harvesting, or clotheslines, so those stay declaration matters.

The federal overlays apply in Maryland just as they do elsewhere, and they add to state law rather than replace it. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 stops an association from preventing an owner from flying the US flag, subject to reasonable restrictions and the US Flag Code.⁶ The FCC over-the-air reception device rule, 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000, limits restrictions on covered antennas and satellite dishes one meter or less within an owner's exclusive-use area, and it puts the burden on the party trying to enforce a restriction.⁸ The Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A), requires an association to allow reasonable, owner-funded exterior modifications that a resident with a disability needs.¹⁹

Section 3: Compliance obligations in the architectural-review process

A. Adopting and maintaining architectural standards

The authority to adopt and enforce architectural standards is a DECLARATION obligation, not a statutory one. The standards must trace back to a power the recorded declaration grants, and they must stay within it.⁴ When an association adopts rules or guidelines, those cannot conflict with the declaration or the governing statute, and in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties the county common-ownership-community code requirements apply on top (Montgomery County Code ch. 10B; Prince George's County Code, Subtitle 13).³ This obligation is contractual — and, in the two counties, partly local.

B. Reviewing and deciding applications

The process for reviewing an application — any deadline, the form of the decision, and any owner appeal — is a DECLARATION obligation, because neither the Homeowners Association Act nor the Condominium Act imposes a general statutory deadline, deemed-approval rule, or written-denial requirement. When the application concerns electric-vehicle recharging equipment, though, a STATUTORY obligation attaches. The association must process it the same way it handles an architectural-modification application, may not willfully delay it, must approve or deny it in writing, and is deemed to have approved it if it fails to deny it in writing within 60 days (Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.8; § 11-111.4).²

C. Honoring statutory and federal owner protections

Honoring the carve-outs is a STATUTORY obligation. Under Real Property § 2-119, an association may not impose an unreasonable limitation on a rooftop or exterior-wall solar collector system — meaning one that raises installation cost by at least 5% or cuts energy generation by at least 10%. The owner backs a claim of unreasonableness with documentation from a certified specialist, and the section does not reach historic property listed in or eligible for the Maryland Register of Historic Properties.⁵ The association must also honor the EV-charging and composting carve-outs (§§ 11B-111.8, 11B-111.9 for HOAs; §§ 11-111.4, 11-111.5 for condominiums) and the candidate-sign protection (§ 11B-111.2). And as a federal matter, it must honor the American-flag display right, the OTARD rule, and the Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right (Pub. L. 109-243; 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A)).⁹

D. Enforcement and dispute resolution

Enforcement follows a STATUTORY procedure that can supplement the declaration. The Homeowners Association Act dispute-settlement procedure at § 11B-111.10 gives an alleged violator notice and a chance for a hearing before any sanction, requires at least 15 days to cure, makes the decision appealable to the Maryland courts, and lets the association or an owner sue for damages or injunctive relief, with counsel fees going to the prevailing party; the Condominium Act parallel sits at § 11-113.³ A court may appoint a receiver under § 11B-111.5. In Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the county commission opens an additional binding dispute-resolution route (Montgomery County Code ch. 10B; Prince George's County Code, Subtitle 13).¹⁴ The duty to follow these procedures before imposing a sanction is statutory, while the underlying violation usually arises from the DECLARATION.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

B. Recent rulings

C. Active legislative debates

The 2026 session brought renewed proposals to create a statewide common-ownership-community ombudsman unit and a residential owners' bill of rights — HB 402 and HB 537, for example — that would touch enforcement and dispute resolution. Both stayed contested rather than enacted.²³

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Maryland sits among the full-coverage community-association states, alongside California and Florida, but its architectural framework has a distinctive shape: two separate statutes for HOAs and condominiums, a strong pro-solar provision that voids covenants imposing unreasonable limitations, statutory carve-outs for EV charging and composting, and a county-level common-ownership-community overlay in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. For a multi-state operator, the practical takeaway is simple. In Maryland, the declaration governs the architectural process itself, the applicable statute supplies disclosure and dispute-resolution rules plus several carve-outs, and two counties add a local layer with their own commissions. Reading Maryland case law also demands attention to the 2022 renaming of the appellate courts — now the Appellate Court of Maryland and the Supreme Court of Maryland — because most existing opinions still carry the former names.

HOA Weekly's Maryland Architectural Review coverage updates quarterly as the General Assembly, the Appellate Court of Maryland, and the Supreme Court of Maryland act. Federal frameworks — including the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the FCC OTARD rule, and the Fair Housing Act — apply to Maryland associations on top of state and county law.

1. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-101 (Maryland Homeowners Association Act, definitions and applicability) ↩ ↩ ↩
2. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.8 (electric vehicle recharging equipment; 60-day deemed approval and written-decision rule at subsection (c)) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
3. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.10 (dispute-settlement procedure, notice and hearing, suit for damages or injunctive relief, counsel fees) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
4. Md. Code, Real Property Title 11B (declaration defined as the recorded instrument creating association authority); standard applied in Maryland case law ↩ ↩ ↩
5. Md. Code, Real Property § 2-119 (covenants restricting installation of solar collector systems; 5% cost / 10% efficiency thresholds; owner documentation by certified specialist; historic-property exception; common-area discretion) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
6. Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-243, 120 Stat. 572 ↩ ↩
7. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.2 (candidate or proposition sign) ↩ ↩
8. 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 (Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule; burden on party seeking to enforce a restriction) ↩ ↩
9. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.9 (homeowners association not to prohibit or unreasonably restrict composting) ↩ ↩ ↩
10. Montgomery County Code Chapter 10B (Commission on Common Ownership Communities; dispute resolution) ↩
11. Appellate Court of Maryland, noting the December 14, 2022 renaming of the Court of Special Appeals (Appellate Court of Maryland) and Court of Appeals (Supreme Court of Maryland) (Logan v. Dietz opinion) ↩
12. Md. Code, Real Property § 11-142 (Maryland Condominium Act, applicability to existing condominiums) ↩
13. Md. Code, Corporations and Associations § 5-6B-01 (Maryland Cooperative Housing Corporation Act, definitions) ↩
14. Prince George's County Code, Subtitle 13 (Housing and Property Standards; Common Ownership Communities Program and Commission) ↩ ↩
15. Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 242 Md. App. 417, 215 A.3d 415 (2019) (reported; No. 0476, Sept. Term 2018; filed Aug. 29, 2019) ↩ ↩
16. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-104 (building code and local-law effect; alternative dispute resolution); see also §§ 11B-105, 11B-106 (disclosure), § 11B-112 (books and records) ↩
17. Md. Code, Real Property § 11-113 (Maryland Condominium Act, dispute-settlement procedure) ↩
18. Md. Code, Real Property § 11-111.4 (condominium electric vehicle recharging equipment) ↩
19. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) (Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right) ↩
20. Maryland General Assembly, HB 405 (2026 Regular Session), Condominiums and Homeowners Associations – Governing Documents – Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment (effective Oct. 1, 2026; adds Real Property §§ 11-111.6, 11B-111.13) ↩
21. Maryland General Assembly, Chapter 289 (HB 855, 2026), Common Ownership Communities – Candidate or Proposition Signs – Display (approved by the Governor April 28, 2026; 45 days before start of early voting) ↩
22. Logan v. Dietz, 258 Md. App. 629 (2023) (reported; No. 1761, Sept. Term 2021; Appellate Court of Maryland) ↩
23. Maryland General Assembly, 2026 Regular Session legislation (common-ownership-community proposals including HB 402 and HB 537; not enacted) ↩