A bill would ban requiring turf grass
A bill would ban requiring turf grass
2026-09-15 · Pennsylvania · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
What would happen. HB 1878 would prevent a Pennsylvania deed restriction or covenant from prohibiting an owner from installing managed native conservation landscaping. It is not law. It was referred to the House Housing and Community Development Committee on 25 September 2025 and has had no action since.1
The prohibition
The bill would add a new Chapter 56 to Title 68. Verbatim: "no deed restriction, covenant or binding agreement running with the land may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting an owner from installing managed native conservation landscaping on the owner's property."2
Note the phrase "or have the effect of prohibiting." That reaches a restriction which does not ban native planting outright but makes it impracticable — which is most of them.
What associations would keep, and lose
Associations could still set "reasonable restrictions concerning the management, design and aesthetic guidelines." But the bill then defines four things as unreasonable per se. A restriction is unreasonable if it significantly increases cost, significantly decreases efficiency or viability, "Requires cultivated vegetation to consist in whole or in part of turf grass," "Prohibits managed native conservation landscaping from being used in the front or visible areas of a property," or "Limits the use of managed native conservation landscaping to a percentage of the owner's property acreage."2
Those three named items are the standard content of a Pennsylvania landscaping covenant. A great many declarations require turf, confine anything unconventional to rear yards, or cap the proportion of a lot that may be planted otherwise.
What is preserved
Associations would retain full control over common elements and common areas — the bill reaches the owner's own property. Historic properties are exempt.
Why this fight is about the front yard
Because that is where the disagreement actually lives, and the bill says so by naming it.
Most Pennsylvania associations would tolerate a meadow planting behind a house. The dispute is over the visible frontage, where the community's collective aesthetic interest is strongest and where an individual owner's ecological interest is identical. By deeming a front-yard prohibition unreasonable, the bill resolves the question in the owner's favour on exactly the ground the association most wants to hold.
The turf-grass clause does the same work from the other direction. An association cannot achieve indirectly, by mandating lawn, what it is forbidden to do directly.
The drafting gap that affects a board
The bill does not define "managed native conservation landscaping" in the text quoted above, and the distinction between a managed native planting and an unmaintained yard is the entire practical question.
The word doing the work is managed. A native meadow is a designed, maintained landscape with species selection, seasonal cutting and weed control. An abandoned lawn is not, and nothing in the bill obliges an association to accept one. But the boundary between them is a judgement, and judgements are what generate enforcement disputes.
The practical consequence if this became law is that associations would move from arguing about whether native planting is allowed to arguing about whether a particular planting is managed. That is a better argument to be having — it is about condition rather than about permission — but it still requires standards, and the association that has written them will do better than the one that has not.
What a board can do now
This is a subject where boards benefit from moving before the legislature does, because the underlying pressure is not going away and the bill names the issues correctly even if it never passes.
A workable Pennsylvania approach has four components. Permit native planting expressly, so the question stops being whether. Require a plan and approval through the architectural process, which is the association's legitimate interest. Set maintenance standards in terms of condition rather than species — defined edges, height limits at boundaries and sightlines, no noxious weeds, seasonal cutting. And require setbacks from pavements, driveways and neighbouring lots so the planting does not impose on anyone else.
That framework gives an owner what they actually want and gives the association what it actually needs, and it is available today without waiting for Harrisburg.
The adjacent Pennsylvania pressures
Two worth connecting, because they point the same way.
Municipal stormwater is the first. Pennsylvania townships are under sustained pressure to manage runoff volume, and the Department of Environmental Protection's draft replacement permit shifts the programme's focus toward "the reduction or management of runoff volume, rather than directly on pollutant loads." Native landscaping with deep root systems infiltrates more and runs off less than turf. An association enforcing a turf requirement is, at the margin, increasing the runoff its own basin has to hold.
Water is the second. A covenant requiring turf in a community with irrigation is a covenant requiring water use, and that is a harder position to defend each year.
What to watch next
The session ends 30 November 2026 with no carryover, and HB 1878 has been in committee for a year without a hearing. It has thirteen co-sponsors including at least one Republican, which is the usual profile for Pennsylvania association bills and has not proved predictive of movement.
The wider pattern holds: Title 68 was not amended at all in the 2025-2026 session, and every association bill of substance is sitting in a committee that has not voted on it.
Related Pennsylvania HOA Topics
Stay on top of Pennsylvania HOA law
Every week: new Pennsylvania legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.