Section 2: The statutory framework

2A. The core solar statute and its carve-out: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22B-20

The operative rule sits in subsection (b). Except as provided in subsection (d), any deed restriction, covenant, or similar binding agreement that runs with the land that would prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the installation of a solar collector for a residential property is void and unenforceable.¹ The phrase "have the effect of prohibiting" carries real weight: a restriction need not name solar collectors to be void if, as applied, it blocks them. Subsection (a) states the legislative intent, which is to encourage the development and use of solar resources and to prevent covenants that could drive up the cost of owning a residence.¹

The protection carries two limits within the statute. Subsection (c) provides that the statute doesn't prohibit a covenant that regulates the location or screening of solar collectors, provided the covenant doesn't have the effect of preventing the reasonable use of a collector for a residential property.¹

Subsection (d), the visibility-and-location carve-out, provides that the statute doesn't prohibit a covenant that would prohibit the location of collectors that are visible by a person on the ground in three defined places: on the facade of a structure that faces areas open to common or public access; on a roof surface that slopes downward toward those same common or public areas that the facade faces; or within the area set off by a line running across the facade extending to the property boundaries and the common or public areas the structure faces.¹

In plain terms, an association may keep collectors off a street-facing roof and front elevation if its recorded documents do so expressly, but it may not push panels to a location that defeats their reasonable use.

Two further points stand out. The statute defines residential property as property whose predominant use is residential, and it excludes condominiums created under Chapter 47A or 47C located in a multi-story building with units having horizontal boundaries, meaning stacked condominium units.¹ Subsection (e) allows a court to award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in any civil action arising under the section.¹ Because § 22B-20 addresses deed restrictions and covenants generally, it applies across community types and isn't part of the Planned Community Act or the Condominium Act.¹ The General Assembly originally enacted the section by Session Law 2007-279, effective October 1, 2007, and amended it once by Session Law 2009-553.¹

2B. The UCIOA-influenced two-act framework

North Carolina governs common-interest communities through separate statutes rather than a single unified code. The Planned Community Act, Chapter 47F, applies to planned communities created on or after January 1, 1999.² A planned community of no more than 20 lots, or one restricted entirely to nonresidential use, falls outside the act unless its declaration opts in, and a defined set of provisions — including declaration interpretation, association powers, fines, and flag and political-sign display — applies to communities created before January 1, 1999, unless the governing documents provide otherwise.²

Condominiums answer to the Condominium Act, Chapter 47C, which is based on the 1982 Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act condominium provisions and applies to condominiums created after October 1, 1986.³ A defined list of Chapter 47C provisions also applies to condominiums created on or before that date, notwithstanding conflicting language in older declarations.³ Condominiums created before October 1, 1986 otherwise answer to the Unit Ownership Act, Chapter 47A.⁴

The characterization matters. North Carolina adopted UCIOA-derived acts, with Chapter 47C based on the 1982 UCIOA and Chapter 47F influenced by it, but it enacted them as a separate condominium act and a separate planned-community act, not as one consolidated Common Interest Ownership Act.^2,3 The acts stay distinct, and which one applies depends on the form of ownership and the date of creation.

On the corporate side, the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act, Chapter 55A, supplies the governance framework for associations organized as nonprofits. Planned-community associations created on or after January 1, 1999 must incorporate, and Chapter 47F treats the Nonprofit Corporation Act as a supplement except where it conflicts with the Planned Community Act.^2,5 Section 22B-20 overlays all of this. Because it sits in the general contracts chapter and voids offending covenants regardless of which act governs the community, its solar protection operates on top of the two-act framework rather than inside either act.¹

2C. The carve-out boundary and the role of governing documents

The boundary is straightforward to state and consequential to apply. An association may not prohibit or effectively prohibit solar collectors on residential property.¹ It may regulate the location and screening of collectors, and it may prohibit collectors in the visible street-facing locations described in subsection (d), but only if it doesn't prevent the reasonable use of a collector.¹ Section 22B-20 overrides conflicting covenants within its scope, while the carve-out preserves a defined zone of location authority.¹

The North Carolina Supreme Court sharpened the boundary in Belmont Association, Inc. v. Farwig, holding that an association cannot rely on general architectural or aesthetic authority to keep panels off a street-facing roof.⁶ The court read subsection (d) to require an express covenant prohibiting collectors in the listed locations; a general discretionary architectural power that merely has the effect of prohibiting them doesn't qualify for the carve-out, and a restriction that prevents reasonable use isn't saved by subsection (c).⁶ The practical consequence is that architectural review still applies to solar requests, but to invoke the location carve-out an association's recorded documents must expressly address solar collectors. General "harmony" or "aesthetics" language isn't enough.

Section 3: What a North Carolina association can and cannot do regarding solar

A. What an association cannot do

An association may not prohibit, or adopt or enforce a covenant that has the effect of prohibiting, the installation of a solar collector on residential property; such a provision is void and unenforceable under § 22B-20(b).¹ It may not use general architectural or aesthetic authority to deny a street-facing installation where the governing documents don't expressly restrict solar collectors, per Belmont v. Farwig.⁶ It may not impose a location restriction that prevents the reasonable use of a collector, even within the carve-out.¹

B. What an association may do

An association may regulate the location and screening of collectors, provided the regulation doesn't prevent reasonable use under § 22B-20(c).¹ It may, through an express recorded covenant, prohibit collectors that are visible by a person on the ground on the front facade, on a street-facing roof that slopes toward common or public areas, or in the front-yard zone defined by subsection (d).¹ Where the association maintains the exterior of a structure containing individual residences, a covenant may assign damage responsibility and indemnity to the owner and limit the association's maintenance duty for collectors absent a recorded written agreement.¹ These provisions run permissive, so they apply only if the governing documents adopt them.

C. The carve-out analysis and approval process

The determinative question in most disputes is visibility. If a proposed collector would be visible from the ground on the front facade, on a roof surface sloping toward common or public access, or in the defined front zone, an association with an express solar covenant may restrict that location.¹ If no express covenant addresses solar, the association cannot deny the request on general architectural grounds, and if the only viable orientation for reasonable use is a restricted location, a location restriction that defeats that use stays unenforceable.^1,6 In practice, a solar request still runs through architectural review, and the measure is the specific text of the recorded documents rather than discretionary aesthetic standards.

D. Dispute resolution and remedies

A covenant that unlawfully prohibits a collector is void and unenforceable by operation of § 22B-20(b), so it cannot support an enforcement action, fine, or lien.¹ In a civil action arising under the section, a court may award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, a two-way provision that raises the stakes for both owners and associations.¹ Trial-level disputes proceed in the North Carolina Superior Court for general civil matters, with the District Court handling lower-value civil matters; appeals go to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, with discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court.⁶ The specialized North Carolina Business Court hears designated complex business cases and generally isn't the forum for routine association solar disputes.

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

House Bill 1212 (2025-2026 Session), "HOA Accessory Limitation Ban," sponsored by Representatives Ya Liu and Maria Johnson-Hostler, would amend the Planned Community Act and the Condominium Act to reach association solar authority.

B. Recent appellate rulings

No North Carolina appellate court has issued a published or unpublished decision interpreting § 22B-20 or addressing association authority over residential solar collectors in the past 36 months. The controlling interpretation remains Belmont Association, Inc. v. Farwig, 381 N.C. 306, 873 S.E.2d 486 (2022), decided June 17, 2022, which predates this window.⁶

In that 4-3 decision the North Carolina Supreme Court held that an association cannot use general architectural authority to bar a street-facing installation absent an express solar covenant, and that neither the subsection (c) reasonable-use exception nor the subsection (d) location carve-out saved the restriction at issue.⁶

The association's architectural review committee had denied approval on aesthetic grounds, voted to impose a fine of $50 per day, and filed a claim of lien on the owners' lot; the North Carolina Attorney General and the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, through the Southern Environmental Law Center, filed amicus briefs supporting the homeowners.⁶ Because it falls outside the 36-month reporting window, no case is tabulated here, but it governs current practice and is discussed in Sections 2C and 3.

C. Active legislative debates

The main recent proposal affecting association solar authority, House Bill 1212, would have restricted association regulation of solar panels through the Planned Community Act and Condominium Act; it stalled in House Rules after May 5, 2026.⁷ An earlier bill went at § 22B-20 directly: House Bill 856, "Clarify Deed Restrictions/Solar Collectors" (2025), would have repealed subsection (d) — the exception preserving covenants that restrict collectors visible from the street, an adjoining lot or common area — and replaced the subsection (c) "reasonable use" standard with a hard test under which location and screening rules could not reduce operating efficiency by more than 10% of original specification. It was referred to House Rules on April 10, 2025, received no further action, and died at the crossover deadline.⁹ Subsection (d) therefore remains in force, which is why a blanket-prohibition covenant is void while a street-visibility restriction frequently is not.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Solar-rights regimes fall into three broad categories: strong-protection states whose statutes void or sharply limit association solar restrictions — for example California Civil Code § 714, Florida Statutes § 163.04, Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1816, Colorado Revised Statutes § 38-30-168, Nevada, and Texas Property Code § 202.010; solar-easement-only states, which enable voluntary easements but don't override associations; and no-protection states, where the declaration controls.¹⁰ North Carolina belongs in the first category, because § 22B-20 voids covenants that prohibit or effectively prohibit collectors, but its visibility-and-location carve-out makes the protection conditional rather than near-absolute.¹

For multi-state operators, the practical implication is that a North Carolina community can lawfully keep panels off a street-facing roof only through an express, recorded solar covenant, a narrower path than a blanket ban and a different analysis than in states using cost-and-efficiency tests. Legislative momentum stays modest: House Bill 1212, which would have expanded owner rights, stalled in 2026, and § 22B-20 hasn't been amended since 2009.^1,7

HOA Weekly's North Carolina Solar Rights coverage is revised when we verify a change from the General Assembly and the North Carolina courts. No federal rule comparable to the FCC's OTARD rule extends to rooftop solar, since that rule covers antennas and satellite dishes rather than solar collectors, so North Carolina's state statute controls here.¹¹ The federal layer instead operates through financing, not authority: the 30 percent residential clean energy credit under 26 U.S.C. § 25D ended for solar systems completing installation after December 31, 2025, under the 2025 reconciliation act — a change to a homeowner's economics, not to an association's authority under § 22B-20.¹² HOA Weekly's federal solar and EV charging coverage tracks the credit and funding changes in full.