Montana HOA Architectural Review

Section 1: Overview — How architectural review works in Montana

Montana has no comprehensive HOA statute. The state governs condominiums under an election-based unit-ownership statute, and it anchors architectural authority for planned communities in the recorded covenants — and, for condominiums, in the declaration.¹ So the first job in any professional decision is to classify the community. The Montana Unit Ownership Act governs a condominium only when its developer recorded a declaration electing that Act; a planned-community HOA relies instead on its recorded covenants, the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, and common law.²

One statute constrains covenant enforcement across both types of community. Under Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-901, an association may not enter into, amend, or enforce a covenant that puts more onerous restrictions on how a member may use the property than the restrictions that existed when that member acquired it — not without the member's written consent. The member may record an exception, and a successor owner does not inherit the prior owner's exception.³ The Unit Ownership Act carries that same limit over to condominium associations.⁴

Decision timelines, deemed-approval rules, and written-denial requirements are not statutory in Montana; they live in the covenants or the declaration.¹ Montana has no intermediate appellate court, so architectural disputes move from the District Courts straight to the Montana Supreme Court.⁵ The state carves out no HOA solar right, and no agency regulates community-association operations. The sections that follow lay out the framework, the compliance obligations, and the recent activity.

Section 2: The architectural-review framework

2A. Source and scope of architectural authority

Architectural-control authority in Montana starts in private governing documents, not in a general statute. For a planned-community HOA, it comes from the recorded covenants — the CC&Rs. For a condominium that has elected the Unit Ownership Act, it comes from the recorded declaration. In both structures, the documents delegate that authority to the board or to an architectural committee they name.¹

The statutory landscape is thin, and it splits by community type. The Montana Unit Ownership Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-101 et seq.) governs a condominium only when the owner or owners execute and record a declaration that submits the property to the Act.² No parallel statute exists for planned communities. Instead, HOAs organize as nonprofit corporations under the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-113 et seq.), which supplies corporate-governance rules — board composition, meetings, records, and member voting — but says nothing about architectural review.⁶ The rest of an HOA's authority rests on the recorded covenants and on common law.

Because the two tracks diverge, classification comes first. If a condominium never recorded an electing declaration, the Unit Ownership Act simply does not reach it. The order of precedence follows from that. For an electing condominium, the Unit Ownership Act controls, then the declaration, then the bylaws and any rules. For an HOA, the recorded covenants control, then the bylaws and any architectural guidelines, with the Nonprofit Corporation Act supplying corporate governance. In both structures, the Section 70-17-901 limit on newly tightened use restrictions sits above the governing documents, and those documents cannot override it — though a declaration may include a provision that waives a member's rights under the section.³ The practical consequence is plain: an association's architectural authority reaches only as far as its recorded documents take it. Where the covenants create no approval requirement and name no architectural committee, the association holds no freestanding statutory power to compel plan review — and Montana courts have applied that point directly.⁷

2B. The approval process, standards, and the Section 70-17-901 limit

Montana imposes no statutory application deadline, no deemed-approval rule, and no written-denial requirement on architectural review. Each of those process points comes from the recorded covenants or the declaration.¹ An association that wants a defensible timeline, a written-decision practice, or an internal appeal has to build those into its governing documents; the statutes will not supply them by default.

On the substantive standard, Montana courts treat recorded covenants and declaration terms as contracts. They enforce valid restrictions, read the meaning of a restrictive covenant from the writing alone where they can, and give the language its ordinary and popular meaning; where the words are clear and explicit, the courts apply them as written.⁷ For a board or committee, the takeaway is direct: architectural standards should be reasonable, applied consistently, and grounded in the specific text of the governing documents rather than in unwritten custom.

The Section 70-17-901 limit is the distinctive constraint. An association may not enter into, amend, or enforce a covenant, condition, or restriction in a way that puts more onerous restrictions on how a member may use the property than the restrictions that existed when that member acquired it — unless the member agrees in writing at the time of adoption or amendment.³ A member who claims the benefit may ask the association to record the exception with the county clerk and recorder. A successor-in-interest generally cannot claim the benefit for a restriction adopted before that successor bought in, so the exception effectively expires on sale.³ The limit reaches condominium associations through Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-507, which directs an association of unit owners to abide by Section 70-17-901.⁴ The guidance is direct: a newly adopted architectural or use restriction cannot be enforced against a non-consenting existing owner, so a board that tightens its standards should assume the change binds only the owners who consent in writing and the buyers who come later.

2C. Statutory and federal limits on architectural authority

Montana adds few topic-specific statutory limits, so the analysis leans heavily on the covenants and on federal overlays. Start with solar: Montana carves out no HOA solar right. It offers only a solar-easement mechanism — a negotiated instrument that a property owner may record to protect a solar device's exposure — and that mechanism does not override an association's restrictions.⁸ Palmetto's "Solar Access Laws by State" survey confirms the point: Montana provides only the solar-easement mechanism at Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-301 and has no statute limiting an HOA's authority over solar installations.⁹ So the covenants and the declaration govern solar, subject to the Section 70-17-901 limit where a covenant is newly tightened, and subject to the federal overlays.

One state carve-out does exist, and people often miss it: political signage. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522 makes any covenant or rule that bars a sign advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or ballot issue contrary to public policy and unenforceable — though an association may still set reasonable rules on a sign's size, placement, and display period.¹⁰ Montana confirms no statutory carve-out for the flag beyond the federal Flag Act, none for drought-tolerant or native landscaping, and none for electric-vehicle charging; the covenants govern those items.

Because Montana layers on little else, the federal frameworks carry more of the analysis, and they add to state law rather than replace it. The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-243, 120 Stat. 572 — sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett and signed by President George W. Bush on July 24, 2006) provides that a condominium association, a cooperative association, or a residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy that would restrict or prevent a member from displaying the flag of the United States.¹¹ The FCC's over-the-air reception devices rule reaches most antennas and satellite dishes of one meter or less and limits what an association may restrict.¹² The Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification right requires associations to permit reasonable, disability-related exterior modifications.¹³ These federal frameworks operate on top of Montana law.

Section 3: Compliance obligations in the architectural-review process

A. Adopting and maintaining architectural standards

Architectural standards, and any committee that administers them, must be set out in the recorded covenants or the declaration; that obligation flows from the governing documents, not from a statute.¹ When a board adopts or amends a use restriction, Section 70-17-901 kicks in, and the change cannot be enforced against a non-consenting existing owner — a statutory constraint that reaches both HOAs and condominium associations.³ Associations organized as nonprofit corporations must also follow the corporate-governance rules of the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act when they act, and that too is a statutory obligation.⁶

B. Reviewing and deciding applications

In Montana, any application deadline, deemed-approval consequence, written-decision requirement, or statement-of-reasons requirement is a governing-document obligation; no statute imposes one.¹ Decisions should track the text of the covenants, because Montana courts read restrictive covenants as written and apply their ordinary meaning — a standard the courts draw from case law rather than statute.⁷ Consistency matters, both as a matter of contract and as a defense against a covenant-abandonment claim; enforce a rule unevenly, and an association can undercut its own position.¹⁴

C. Honoring statutory and federal owner protections

Associations must not enforce covenants that prohibit political or ballot-issue signs — a statutory limit under Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522 — though they may still apply reasonable rules on size, placement, and timing.¹⁰ Associations must permit display of the United States flag under the federal Flag Act, most compliant antennas and small satellite dishes under the FCC's OTARD rule, and reasonable disability-related modifications under the Fair Housing Act; these federal obligations, statutory and regulatory, apply no matter what the covenants say.^11,12,13 The Section 70-17-901 grandfathering limit is one more owner protection the association has to honor.³

D. Enforcement and dispute resolution

For a condominium that elected the Unit Ownership Act, the Act supplies a statutory assessment lien for common expenses and lays out the recording and foreclosure process.¹⁵ For an HOA, enforcement rests on the recorded covenants, the Nonprofit Corporation Act, and common law, and it runs through the courts; Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-210 names who may bring a covenant-enforcement action and codifies an abandonment defense — a statutory provision the Legislature amended in 2025.¹⁴ Section 70-17-901 stays available to an owner as a statutory defense against a newly tightened use restriction.³ Montana has no HOA regulator. The Secretary of State keeps corporate records for nonprofit associations but does not police community-association operations, so the governing documents and the courts resolve contested architectural matters.⁶

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

Montana's Legislature meets in regular session only in odd-numbered years, so the 2025 regular session is the most recent one. The recent activity touching covenant enforcement is modest.

A. Recent bills

The one enacted measure worth flagging is House Bill 325. It broadened who may bring a covenant-enforcement action — a party to the agreement or a successor, an owner of burdened or benefited property, or an HOA or governing body — and it refined the abandonment framework. Under the amended Section 70-17-210(3)(a), "an association or governing body of a real property development that has not met for a period of 15 years is prohibited from taking an enforcement action against the owner of an interest in real property subject to a covenant ... whose use of the property is substantially similar to the nature and scope of the use of other properties in the development," subject to exceptions.¹⁶ The bill creates no architectural-review process, no deadline, and no deemed-approval rule.¹⁴

Three more 2025 bills that would have revised covenant or HOA rules did not become law. HB 761 (revise residential covenant laws) and SB 431 (revise covenant laws) — both amending Section 70-17-901 — and SB 400 (owner votes to add, remove, or amend covenants) each died in the 2025 session.¹⁷

B. Recent rulings

In Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC v. State of Montana, the Montana Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Beth Baker, upheld the 2023 housing-reform statutes — SB 382, the Montana Land Use Planning Act; SB 323, on duplexes; SB 245, on mixed-use; and SB 528, on accessory dwelling units — against equal-protection and public-participation challenges. The Court then vacated, as an improper advisory opinion, the District Court's declaration that those laws could not displace more restrictive homeowner covenants. So the decision leaves the covenant-versus-statute question open, even as it confirms that restrictive covenants are private contracts carrying enforceable benefits and burdens.¹⁸

In Clover Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Spear, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner. It held that an addition did not violate the covenants' definition of a single-family dwelling — "a building used for residential occupancy by one family household." The Court found that language "clear and unambiguous," applied it as written, and noted that the covenants neither required HOA approval of construction nor provided a plan-submission process at the relevant time. The opinion is a noncitable memorandum decision and sets no precedent, but it shows Montana's text-first reading of covenants and the limits of an authority the documents never grant.⁷

C. Active legislative debates

Interest in HOA regulation has grown across recent sessions. Lawmakers have introduced multiple covenant and HOA-governance bills, and most have failed; no comprehensive HOA statute and no architectural-process bill has advanced, and the next regular session falls in 2027.¹⁷

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Montana sits at the lighter-touch end of the national spectrum. It is a thin-statute, covenant-primary state — no comprehensive HOA statute, no solar carve-out — set apart by the Section 70-17-901 limit on newly tightened use restrictions and by the absence of an intermediate appellate court.^1,5 For a multi-state operator, the implications are concrete: in Montana, the recorded covenants and the declaration define the architectural process, a newly adopted use restriction cannot be enforced against a non-consenting existing owner, and appeals run straight from the District Court to the Montana Supreme Court. That posture contrasts sharply with carve-out-heavy states such as California and Maryland, where detailed statutes dictate solar access, decision timelines, and other architectural constraints. In Montana, by comparison, the governing documents do most of the work.

HOA Weekly's Montana Architectural Review coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature and the Montana Supreme Court act. Federal frameworks — the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the FCC's OTARD rule, and the Fair Housing Act — apply to Montana associations in addition to state law.

Footnotes

1. Mont. Code Ann. Title 70, ch. 23 (Unit Ownership Act, condominiums) and, for planned communities, recorded covenants; no comprehensive Montana HOA statute ↩
2. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-101 et seq. (Unit Ownership Act; § 70-23-103 requires a recorded declaration to submit property to the Act) ↩
3. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-901 (homeowners' association restrictions; real property rights) ↩
4. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-507 (restriction on covenants by association of unit owners; incorporates § 70-17-901) ↩
5. Montana Judicial Branch, About Us (Montana has no intermediate appellate court; the Supreme Court hears direct appeals from the District Courts) ↩
6. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-113 (Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, short title); Title 35, ch. 2 generally ↩
7. Clover Meadows Homeowners Ass'n v. Spear, 2024 MT 102N, No. DA 23-0334 (Mont. May 14, 2024) (noncitable memorandum opinion) ↩
8. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-301 (creation of solar easements) ↩
9. Palmetto, "Solar Access Laws by State" (Montana has no HOA solar-access statute; solar easements only). Cross-verify with CAI solar-rights materials at caionline.org ↩
10. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522 (certain restrictions on political free speech contrary to public policy; enforcement prohibited) ↩
11. Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-243, 120 Stat. 572 (signed July 24, 2006) ↩
12. 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 (FCC over-the-air reception devices rule) ↩
13. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) (Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right) ↩
14. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-210 (covenant enforcement and abandonment; amended by Ch. 258, Laws of 2025) ↩
15. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-607 (claim for common expenses; priority of lien; recording) ↩
16. H.B. 325, 2025 Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2025) (enrolled text), amending Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-210 ↩
17. Montana 2025 Regular Session bill status for SB 400, HB 761, and SB 431 (covenant/HOA bills that did not pass) ↩
18. Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC v. State, 2026 MT 53, No. DA 25-0200 (Mont. Mar. 17, 2026) ↩