Michigan HOA Political Signs

Section 1: Overview — How political signs are regulated in Michigan HOAs

Michigan has no statute restricting an association's regulation of political signs, so an association may prohibit or restrict them, and the recorded governing documents control.¹ Count Michigan as a CC&R-primary state on this topic: the two statutes that reach community associations, the Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.)² and the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act (MCL 450.2101 et seq.),³ stay silent on political signs, and many Michigan communities turn out to be detached site condominiums governed by the Condominium Act rather than traditional covenant-only homeowners associations.⁴ The First Amendment does not constrain a Michigan association's sign rules, because an association is a private entity created by contract, not a government actor.⁵ Michigan has chosen to protect certain displays by statute, including a single United States flag (MCL 559.156a)⁶ and, more recently, solar energy systems under the Homeowners' Energy Policy Act (MCL 559.301 et seq.),⁷ but it has not enacted any comparable protection for political signs. That places Michigan alongside CC&R-primary states such as Alabama, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and sets it apart from protective-statute states such as California, Indiana, Kansas, and Maryland, which forbid associations from banning political signs while allowing reasonable time, place, and manner rules.⁸ A general legal blog claims Michigan protects political signs and that HOAs cannot ban them; Michigan law does not support that claim, and Michigan community-association attorneys say the opposite.¹ The sections ahead lay out the statutory framework, the constitutional questions, the role of the governing documents, the operational rules, and Michigan's national position.

Section 2: The legal framework for political signs

2A. Statutory protection in Michigan, and its absence

Michigan has enacted no political-sign protection for association residents. The operative rule holds that the recorded governing documents control, and an association may prohibit or restrict political signs where those documents so provide.¹ A widely circulated secondary-source claim says the opposite — that political signs carry protection under Michigan state law and that a Michigan HOA cannot ban them outright — but no Michigan statute supports it. Michigan community-association attorneys confirm the opposite: unlike some states, Michigan has no law protecting political signs, and the answer in any community comes from its governing documents.⁹ The reasonable-and-content-neutral framing that some secondary sources use describes the limits on government sign regulation, not the authority of a private association.

Two statutes reach Michigan community associations, and neither protects political signs. The Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.) governs condominiums, including detached site condominiums; it goes into detail on formation, governance, common elements, and enforcement, and it protects display of a single United States flag not greater than three feet by five feet on the exterior of a co-owner's unit (MCL 559.156a), but it contains no political-sign provision.⁶ The Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act (MCL 450.2101 et seq.) governs the corporate structure of most traditional HOAs, which are organized as nonprofit corporations; it functions as a corporate-governance statute, not an HOA-specific code, and it does not address political signs.³ Michigan has no comprehensive statute for traditional planned-community HOAs.¹

The distinction between community types matters. Many Michigan communities that look like conventional single-family subdivisions are legally detached site condominiums, established by recording a master deed, bylaws, and a condominium subdivision plan under the Condominium Act.⁴ A site or other condominium answers to the Condominium Act plus the master deed and bylaws, while a traditional platted-subdivision HOA answers to recorded covenants plus the Nonprofit Corporation Act. The governing framework, and the location where any permitted sign may be displayed, depends on the community's legal form.

Michigan has legislated targeted carve-outs while leaving political signs to the governing documents. It protects the U.S. flag (MCL 559.156a) and solar energy systems under the Homeowners' Energy Policy Act (MCL 559.301 et seq., 2024 PA 68, effective April 1, 2025).⁷ Neither protects political signs, and both belong to separate topics. A detailed statutory framework with specific carve-outs still leaves political signs to the recorded documents. The contrast with protective-statute states makes the point: California Civil Code section 4710 provides that governing documents "may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags, or banners on or in a member's separate interest," subject only to narrow limits, and section 4710(c) permits an association to "prohibit noncommercial signs and posters that are more than nine square feet in size and noncommercial flags or banners that are more than 15 square feet in size."⁸ Michigan has no equivalent.

2B. The First Amendment and the state constitution

The federal First Amendment limits government, not private parties. Under the state-action doctrine, the Free Speech Clause constrains governmental actors and protects private actors; a private entity becomes subject to the First Amendment only in narrow circumstances, such as performing a traditional, exclusive public function.¹⁰ A homeowners or condominium association is a private entity created by contract. When an owner buys into the community, the owner agrees to the recorded governing documents, and enforcement of a covenant or bylaw counts as private contractual action, not state action. The First Amendment therefore does not limit a Michigan association's sign rules, and Michigan community-association attorneys make this point directly.⁵

The recurring misconception holds that free-speech guarantees entitle an owner to post political signs regardless of the governing documents. That's incorrect as applied to private associations. The reasonable-and-content-neutral standard some sources cite is the standard that governs government sign codes. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) and City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (2022) address the content-neutrality of municipal sign ordinances; they constrain governments, not associations, and supply no basis to challenge an association's sign rules.

A small minority of states read their state constitution's free-speech clause to reach private associations in limited circumstances. New Jersey stands as the leading example: in Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012), resident Wasim Khan, then running for Parsippany Town Council, posted two signs supporting his candidacy inside his own townhouse window and door, and the association ordered their removal under a rule that banned all residential signs except "For Sale" signs. The New Jersey Supreme Court held: "Balancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrook's private property interest against Khan's free speech right to post political signs on his own property, we conclude that the sign policy in question violates the free speech clause of the State Constitution."¹¹ Michigan's Constitution contains a free-speech clause (Art. I, § 5),¹² but no Michigan court has applied that clause to a private association's sign restrictions. Michigan follows the state-action doctrine, under which the state and federal free-speech guarantees do not extend to private conduct.⁵ Michigan courts instead enforce recorded restrictive covenants as valid contracts, treating a covenant as a valuable property right and enforcing unambiguous restrictions as written unless they contravene law or public policy.^13,14 Absent controlling Michigan authority to the contrary, the governing documents get enforced as private agreements.

2C. The role of CC&Rs and permissible restrictions

Because no Michigan statute protects political signs, the recorded governing documents serve as the operative rulebook. For condominiums, that means the master deed and bylaws; for traditional HOAs, the recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions.¹ The order of precedence runs from any applicable statute, down to the recorded governing documents, down to duly adopted rules and regulations. Where Michigan statute stays silent, as it does on political signs, the governing documents fill the gap; where a document provision conflicts with a controlling statute, the statute controls. Under the Condominium Act, each co-owner must comply with the master deed, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the project (MCL 559.165).¹⁵

Michigan courts enforce recorded restrictions that are valid and unambiguous, construing them strictly against the party seeking enforcement and resolving genuine doubts in favor of the free use of property.¹³ Equitable defenses such as changed conditions, technical violations without substantial injury, and laches can limit enforcement, and inconsistent enforcement can support a waiver or selective-enforcement defense. The display-location point follows from the community's legal form: an owner may generally display a permitted sign only within the owner's own unit or exclusive-use area — the lot or building envelope for a detached site condominium, a porch, patio, or balcony for an attached condominium, and typically the lot for a traditional HOA — and not in common areas or common elements.⁴ An association generally may regulate signs in the common areas and elements it controls without special covenant language.¹

Through its governing documents or validly adopted rules, a Michigan association may typically regulate placement, size, number, and duration windows, and may impose a total ban where the documents so provide.¹ Michigan attorneys advising associations recommend uniform, content-neutral rules, applied consistently, precisely because Michigan imposes no statutory sign standard and the litigation risk comes from selective or viewpoint-based enforcement rather than from a sign statute. The operational takeaway: in Michigan, the answer to whether a political sign may be posted sits in the community's recorded governing documents, read against the applicable statute's general provisions, not in a sign statute.

Section 3: Operational rules for Michigan associations

Because Michigan has no political-sign statute, the rules below flow from the recorded governing documents and the general condominium and corporate statutes, not from a sign-specific protection.

A. What an association may not do

An association may not enforce a restriction its governing documents do not actually contain; to prohibit or regulate signs in members' yards or homes, the documents must contain language authorizing it (governing documents; applies to condominiums, site condominiums, and traditional HOAs).¹ It may not enforce sign rules selectively or in a viewpoint-based manner, because inconsistent or discriminatory enforcement exposes the association to waiver and selective-enforcement defenses under Michigan covenant-enforcement law (Michigan case law on covenant enforcement; all community types).¹³ Michigan imposes no statutory prohibition on banning or restricting political signs, so the floor is the governing documents plus general enforcement law, not a sign statute.

B. What an association may regulate

Where the governing documents or validly adopted rules so provide, an association may regulate the placement, size, number, and duration of signs, and may adopt a total ban (governing documents; condominium and site-condominium rules flow from the master deed and bylaws under the Condominium Act, and traditional-HOA rules from the recorded covenants plus the Nonprofit Corporation Act).¹ Display stays limited to the owner's unit or exclusive-use area, not common areas or common elements, and an association may regulate or prohibit signs in the common areas and elements it controls (governing documents plus the Condominium Act's common-element framework; all community types).⁴

C. Enforcement and fining constraints

For condominiums, the Condominium Act authorizes fines as a remedy only after notice and a hearing, and only where the condominium documents provide for them (MCL 559.206; condominiums and site condominiums).¹⁶ Attorney fees and costs remain recoverable only to the extent the condominium documents expressly so provide (MCL 559.206; condominiums and site condominiums).¹⁶ For traditional HOAs, fining and enforcement authority derives from the recorded covenants and the corporate framework of the Nonprofit Corporation Act rather than the Condominium Act (recorded covenants plus MCL 450.2101 et seq.; traditional HOAs).³ Inconsistent enforcement remains a live risk across all community types, and self-help removal of a sign should track the remedies the governing documents and statute authorize rather than unilateral action.

D. Rule adoption and disclosure

For condominiums, the bylaws get recorded as part of the master deed, and co-owners must comply with the recorded master deed, bylaws, and rules and regulations (MCL 559.165 and MCL 559.153; condominiums and site condominiums).^15,17 For traditional HOAs, the bylaws may contain any provision for the regulation and management of the corporation's affairs not inconsistent with law or the articles of incorporation, and the operative use restrictions are the recorded covenants (MCL 450.2231 plus recorded covenants; traditional HOAs).¹⁸ Michigan governing documents that create use restrictions are recorded to be enforceable against successors, and associations should maintain records of adopted rules and enforcement actions.

This page does not state or imply that Michigan law guarantees a right to display political signs. It does not. Any protection an owner enjoys flows from the community's governing documents, not from statute.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No Michigan bill introduced in the past 24 months would create or affect political-sign rules for Michigan associations. Recent legislative activity affecting Michigan associations has concerned solar energy and covenant preservation, not signs. The Homeowners' Energy Policy Act (2024 PA 68, MCL 559.301 et seq., effective April 1, 2025) limits an association's ability to restrict solar energy systems and other energy-saving improvements; it stands as a solar and energy measure, not a sign measure.⁷ A 2025 amendment to the Marketable Record Title Act (2025 PA 13, amending MCL 565.101 et seq., effective September 29, 2025) addresses the preservation of recorded restrictive covenants in a property's chain of title; it stands as a title-preservation measure, not a sign measure.¹⁹ Neither appears here as political-sign legislation, because neither is.

B. Recent rulings

No published or unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court in the past 36 months has addressed the regulation of political signs in a community association. Michigan's community-association bar treats the question as governed by the recorded governing documents rather than by any decided political-sign case, and no on-point Michigan appellate decision turns up.⁵ Michigan trial-level disputes proceed through the Circuit Courts, with appeals to the Michigan Court of Appeals and discretionary review by the Michigan Supreme Court; the general covenant-enforcement principles those courts apply — enforcement of valid and unambiguous recorded restrictions as written — would govern a political-sign dispute in the absence of a sign statute.¹³

C. Active legislative debates

No active proposal to create a political-sign protection in Michigan associations has surfaced. The topic remains governed by the recorded governing documents.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Michigan sits in the CC&R-primary category for political signs. States divide into two broad groups on this topic. The first covers protective-statute states, which forbid associations from prohibiting political signs while allowing reasonable time, place, and manner rules; these include California (Civil Code § 4710),⁸ Arizona (A.R.S. §§ 33-1808 and 33-1261, under which an association may not prohibit a political sign on a member's property earlier than 71 days before an election or later than 15 days after the general election),²⁰ Colorado (C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5), Indiana (Ind. Code § 32-21-13),²¹ Kansas (K.S.A. 58-4601 et seq.), and Maryland (Md. Code, Real Property §§ 11-111.2 and 11B-111.2). The second covers CC&R-primary states with no political-sign statute, where the governing documents control; these include Michigan, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, and Massachusetts. Michigan has legislated specific carve-outs for flags and solar but not for political signs, so the recorded governing documents control, and the common secondary-source claim that Michigan protects political signs turns out to be incorrect.¹ Owners and boards commonly invoke the First Amendment, but an association is not a state actor, so the correct rule holds that the governing documents, not the federal free-speech clause, decide the question.⁵

HOA Weekly's Michigan Political Signs coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and the Michigan courts act. Federal frameworks including the FHA, ADA, FDCPA, SCRA, and OTARD apply to Michigan associations regardless of the state framework, but the federal First Amendment supplies no basis to challenge an association's sign rules.

1. Hirzel Law, "3 Best Practices for Regulating Political Signs in Your Condo or HOA" (governing documents control; freedom-of-speech challenge unlikely to succeed) ↩
2. Michigan Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978, MCL 559.101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
3. Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, Act 162 of 1982, MCL 450.2101 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
4. Hirzel Law, "Comparison Between Michigan Site Condominiums and Platted Subdivisions (Homeowner Associations)" ↩
5. Hirzel Law, "Expressing Opposing Views in a Condominium: Does Your Condominium Have the Right to Silence Free Speech?" (state-action analysis, citing Prysak v. R.L. Polk Co., 193 Mich App 1 (1992)) ↩
6. MCL 559.156a, Displaying United States flag on condominium unit (Michigan Legislature) ↩
7. Homeowners' Energy Policy Act, 2024 PA 68, MCL 559.301 et seq. (Michigan Legislature) ↩
8. California Civil Code § 4710, Display of noncommercial signs (California Legislative Information) ↩
9. Homeowners Protection Bureau, "Michigan HOA Laws" (Michigan has no HOA-specific statute; associations bound by governing documents; AG enforcement only where consumer-protection statutes are implicated) ↩
10. Constitution Annotated, "State Action Doctrine and Free Speech" (Congress.gov / Library of Congress) ↩
11. Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012) (New Jersey Supreme Court) ↩
12. Michigan Constitution of 1963, Art. I, § 5, Freedom of speech and of press (Michigan Legislature) ↩
13. Terrien v. Zwit, 467 Mich 56; 648 N.W.2d 602 (2002) (Michigan Supreme Court) ↩
14. Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Birmingham, 479 Mich 206; 737 N.W.2d 670 (2007) (Michigan Courts) ↩
15. MCL 559.165, Compliance with master deed, bylaws, rules, and regulations (Michigan Legislature) ↩
16. MCL 559.206, Default by co-owner; relief (levying of fines after notice and hearing; costs and attorney fees where documents provide) (Michigan Legislature) ↩
17. MCL 559.153, Bylaws governing administration of condominium project; recorded as part of master deed (Michigan Legislature) ↩
18. MCL 450.2231, Bylaws; adoption; amendment or repeal; contents (Michigan Legislature) ↩
19. Marketable Record Title Act, Act 200 of 1945, MCL 565.101 et seq., as amended by 2025 PA 13 (eff. Sept. 29, 2025) (Michigan Legislature) ↩
20. Community Associations Institute, state political-signage summary (Arizona A.R.S. § 33-1808 window: no earlier than 71 days before, no later than 15 days after the general election) ↩
21. Indiana Code § 32-21-13, Display of Political Signs on Property Subject to Restrictive Covenants or Homeowners Association Rules ↩