California · Solar Rights Act & Davis-Stirling

The panels an association cannot vote down.

The right to install solar is not in Davis-Stirling. It is in the Solar Rights Act, two sections earlier in the Civil Code, and the Act only adds to them. That matters because the numbers that decide whether a restriction is lawful are in § 714 — and so is the sentence that takes the membership vote off the table.

§ 714(a) voids any covenant, condition or restriction in a deed or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of real property — and any provision of a governing document — that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system. It reaches beyond community associations; a governing document is only one of the things it names.

"Reasonable restrictions" — with a price on them

§ 714(b) saves reasonable restrictions, declares it the policy of the state to promote solar and remove obstacles to it, and then does something the rest of this site rarely sees: it puts figures on the adjective. A restriction is unreasonable if it significantly increases cost or decreases efficiency, and § 714(d)(1) defines significantly:

1. Water and
   pool heatingMore than 10 percent of the cost of the system, but in no case more than $1,000 — or a decrease in efficiency beyond what the subdivision allows.
2. PhotovoltaicAn amount not to exceed $1,000 over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in efficiency exceeding 10 percent.

So the argument about whether an architectural condition is reasonable is, for solar, mostly an arithmetic one. A required screen, a mandated panel colour, a relocation to a shaded slope: price it, compare it with the system cost, and the section answers.

§ 714(c) keeps the safety side intact — the system must meet state and local health and safety standards consistent with Government Code § 65850.5, water-heating systems must be certified by an accredited listing agency, and an electricity-producing system must meet the California Electrical Code and the applicable IEEE and testing-laboratory standards.

What an association may still require

§ 714.1(a) gives the association four reasonable provisions, and they will look familiar from the antenna rules: approval for systems in the common area; approval to install on a separate interest owned by someone else; provision for the maintenance, repair or replacement of roofs and other building components; and a requirement that installers indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage.

That is the same conclusion § 4600(b)(3)(J) reaches from the other direction, which exempts a solar grant from the exclusive-use vote. Two statutes, written seven years apart, closing the same door — which tells you how often associations tried to walk through it.

When one roof serves several owners

§ 4746 is the Davis-Stirling layer, and it applies only to a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner. Two things the association shall require: that the applicant notify every owner of a unit in the building, and that the owner and each successive owner carry liability coverage at all times, with the certificate delivered within 14 days of approval and annually afterwards.

§ 4746(b)(1) permits a solar site survey by a licensed contractor or knowledgeable registered salesperson, determining the usable solar roof area — and its cost is expressly not part of the system cost for § 714 purposes, which is why it does not count against the $1,000 figures above. Subparagraph (B) is the provision that settles neighbours: the survey must determine an equitable allocation of the usable roof area among all owners sharing the same roof, garage or carport.

§ 4746(b)(2) then attaches the running responsibilities to the owner and each successor — damage, maintenance, repair, replacement, restoration after removal, and disclosure of the system to prospective buyers.