An ARC denial that took ninety seconds to draft in 2022 can cost an association tens of thousands of dollars in 2026. The 2024 amendments to FS 720.3035 — the Florida HOA architectural-control statute — added a written-denial-with-specificity requirement, a damages clause, and a mandatory attorney-fees provision when a board "unreasonably, knowingly, and willfully" infringes on a parcel owner's rights. Layer in HB 293 (Ch. 2024-205), which made hurricane-protection specifications mandatory and prohibited boards from denying compliant applications, and the 2024 legislative session quietly rewrote what an ARC committee can and cannot do. Most Florida boards have not caught up. This guide is what your association's lawyer wishes you knew before the next application lands.

This article is general information about Florida community-association law and is not legal advice. Drafting denial letters, amendment language, or architectural-control resolutions is fact-specific and requires a Florida community-association attorney who can review your declaration and applicable case law. Always engage counsel before issuing a contested denial.

0 days
The statutory deadline Florida law gives an ARC committee.
FS 720.3035 contains no time limit, no automatic constructive-approval clause, no "30-day rule." The deadline that matters is the one written into your declaration. Most older Florida HOA declarations contain a deemed-approval clause running 30, 45, or 60 days from a complete submission — and missing that deadline is the single most expensive mistake a board can make.

Why ARC denials are getting expensive in 2026

Your architectural review committee used to be a low-stakes board function. Disputes were settled by letter, lawsuits were rare, and the worst outcome for a wrong denial was usually being told to approve the change anyway. That changed on July 1, 2024.

Three Florida bills hit your association that year. HB 1203 added two new rules every denial letter must follow, and created a damages-plus-attorney-fees claim against your association when your board "unreasonably, knowingly, and willfully" infringes on an owner's rights. HB 293 forced your board to adopt hurricane-protection specs in advance and prohibits denying any application that meets them. And HB 1021 rewrote the parallel condo rules at FS 718.113. Most Florida boards processing applications today are still operating on procedures written before any of those bills existed. Practical analyses are available from Jimerson Birr and Shumaker.

You can only restrict what is in your declaration

This is the single most important sentence in Florida ARC law, and it is now built into the statute. FS 720.3035 says your committee's authority extends only to what is "specifically stated or reasonably inferred" in your declaration of covenants or in published guidelines your declaration authorizes.

Three words matter: "specifically stated." If your declaration does not contain a written restriction on fence height, you cannot deny a fence based on height alone. If your declaration does not contain a written restriction on roof color, you cannot deny on roof color. Your committee's job is to apply standards that already exist. It is not to invent new ones at the meeting.

This rule started with a 1987 Florida appellate decision called Young v. Tortoise Island. The owners proposed a French Provincial flat-roof home in a subdivision with no established uniform architectural style. The ACC denied based on "aesthetics, harmony and balance." The court reversed, holding that purely subjective aesthetic denials are invalid when the governing documents contain no objective standard and the community has no actual uniform style. The court called aesthetics, harmony, and balance "admittedly very personal and vague concepts." The Florida legislature built this holding into the statute in 2007. Forty years later, boards still occasionally try to deny on vibes, and they still lose.

6 things Florida boards can never deny

Some changes are off-limits to ARC committees regardless of what the declaration says. Six categories are protected by Florida statute or federal regulation. Memorize this list.

Six categories of exterior changes Florida HOA boards cannot deny infographic showing solar panels protected under Florida Statute 163.04 with the only allowed restriction being location within 45 degrees of due south, Florida-friendly landscaping protected under FS 373.185 and 720.3075(4)(b), up to two portable flags up to 4.5 by 6 feet plus a 20-foot freestanding flagpole protected under FS 720.304(2), pickup trucks and non-commercial work vehicles in the owner's driveway protected under FS 720.3075(3)(d), satellite dishes one meter or smaller in diameter protected under FCC OTARD rule 47 CFR 1.4000, and hurricane protection conforming to board-adopted specifications protected under FS 720.3035(6)
Six categories Florida boards cannot deny under statute or federal regulation. Click to zoom.

What HB 1203 changed in 2024 (the written-denial rule)

HB 1203 (effective July 1, 2024) rewrote the procedural standards your committee must meet to issue a valid denial. Four changes matter most.

1. Every denial letter must now name two things

Every denial letter must now state, in writing, two specific things: the exact rule or covenant your committee relied on (cite the section number from the declaration or guidelines) AND the specific part of the proposal that does not meet that rule. Generic language like "the application does not conform to architectural guidelines" is no longer enough. A denial without both pieces is voidable — meaning the owner can challenge it and have it set aside — and creates damages exposure for your association.

Example: bad denial vs. good denial

Bad denial (voidable): "Your application does not conform to the architectural guidelines. Denied." Result: voidable, damages exposure to your association.

Good denial (defensible): "The proposed fence height of seven feet exceeds the four-foot maximum stated in Section 8.3.1 of the Architectural Guidelines adopted by the board on March 15, 2023. The committee cannot approve the application as submitted." Result: enforceable; your association is protected.

2. Interior changes the public cannot see are off the table

Your committee can no longer enforce a covenant or rule that limits the interior of a structure if the interior is not visible from the parcel's front, an adjacent parcel, an adjacent common area, or a community golf course. If a homeowner is repainting their kitchen, your committee has no authority to review it.

3. Central HVAC swaps no longer trigger ARC review

If a homeowner is replacing their central air-conditioning, refrigeration, heating, or ventilation system, your committee cannot require ARC review — as long as the new system is not visible from the same vantage points AND is substantially similar to a system your association has already approved or recommended. Replacing the HVAC compressor on the side of the house no longer triggers a submission.

4. Damages and attorney fees against your association

This is the financial teeth. An owner whose rights are "unreasonably, knowingly, and willfully" infringed may now recover damages AND attorney fees from your association. That is the clause that turns an ill-considered denial from a procedural inconvenience into a five- or six-figure liability. Boards that issue denials without legal review are taking risks that did not exist on June 30, 2024.

Hurricane protection: what your board must approve

The 2024 session was a sea change for hurricane-protection approvals. Two bills changed the rules for HOAs and condos simultaneously.

HOAs: HB 293 (Ch. 2024-205)

HB 293 added subsection (6) to FS 720.3035. The board must adopt hurricane-protection specifications in advance for each structure or improvement on a parcel. The specifications may include color, style, and other factors deemed relevant, and must comply with the applicable building code. Once the specifications are adopted, the committee may not deny an application that conforms to them. Defined "hurricane protection" includes ASCE 7-22 roof systems, permanent fixed storm shutters, roll-down shutters, impact-resistant windows and doors, polycarbonate panels, reinforced garage doors, erosion controls, exterior fixed generators, and fuel storage tanks.

The practical implication: if your board has not yet adopted hurricane-protection specifications, the committee is in a procedural box. It cannot apply specs that do not exist, and it cannot deny a hurricane-protection application without a clear specification-based reason. Adopting the specifications is now a fiduciary duty for the board, not an optional best practice.

Condominiums: HB 1021 (Ch. 2024-244)

For condos, HB 1021 amended FS 718.113(5) to require condo boards to adopt hurricane-protection specifications and prohibit refusing to approve a compliant installation. Critically, the same subsection clarifies that the installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation of compliant hurricane protection "is not considered a material alteration or substantial addition to the common elements or association property." That removes the supermajority-vote requirement that previously sometimes blocked individual unit-owner installations. The board may still require adherence to an existing unified building scheme for external appearance — but it cannot deny.

For more on Florida hurricane-related compliance, see our Florida HOA hurricane season checklist and the milestone inspection guide.

The 30-day rule that is not actually a law

Walk into almost any Florida HOA board meeting and ask how long your committee has to decide an ARC application. Most directors and many CAMs will answer "30 days." Some attorneys will say the same. They are wrong — or, more charitably, they are quoting a rule that exists in nine out of ten Florida HOA declarations but not in any Florida statute.

Florida Statute 720.3035 contains no statutory deadline. No automatic approval after X days. The statute is silent on time limits. Florida law leaves the deadline entirely to your individual declaration.

Why this myth persists

Two reasons. First, most older Florida HOA declarations contain an automatic-approval clause running 30, 45, or 60 days from a complete submission. The clause is so common that practitioners assume it is statutory. Second, several Florida law firm blogs have asserted a "30-day reasonable time" rule as if it has the force of statute. It does not. The serious legal analyses — from Becker, Kaye Bender Rembaum, and Siegfried Rivera agree: the deadline lives in the declaration, not the statute.

Why the distinction matters

The decisive question your board must answer at the moment an application arrives is not "what does Florida law say." It is "what does our declaration say." Boards that operate on a generic "30 days" assumption end up either denying too fast (which creates written-specificity problems) or missing the actual declaration deadline. Missing the deadline triggers constructive approval — a legal term meaning the application is automatically approved by operation of contract law, even if the change would otherwise violate the declaration. Pull your declaration. Find the actual clause. Calendar the actual deadline.

What if your declaration is silent on the deadline?

Some declarations contain no deadline at all. In that case there is no automatic approval — but your committee is still required to act within a "reasonable" time. Florida courts have not set a bright line for what counts as reasonable when the declaration is silent, but sitting on a complete submission for six months with no documented good-faith deliberation is exactly the fact pattern that produces a court ruling in the owner's favor. The defensive move is to adopt your own internal rule (for example, 60 days from a complete submission) so your committee has a defensible workflow.

A 6-step Florida-compliant ARC workflow

The path from an application landing in the property manager's inbox to a defensible decision has six steps. Boards that follow it survive almost every challenge. Boards that skip steps lose.

Florida HOA architectural review board six-step compliance workflow flowchart for 2026 showing step 1 log the submission with a date stamp and document complete-application criteria, step 2 calendar the declaration's deadline immediately and set an internal target seven days before the actual deadline, step 3 review the proposal against published standards in the declaration not against subjective aesthetic preferences, step 4 hold a documented deliberation in a properly noticed meeting with deliberation memo prepared, step 5 issue a written decision citing the specific rule or covenant and the specific aspect of nonconformity as required by FS 720.3035(4)(a), step 6 file the decision with supporting plans and minutes in the records portal for the statutory retention period
The six-step workflow that survives a Florida ARC challenge. Click to zoom.

Try Mosaic alongside your current software. No Risk!

See how Mosaic works
Always Human Support • Florida Built • Easy Cancellation

Selective enforcement: how one approval kills the next denial

The single fastest way for your board to lose an ARC enforcement case is selective enforcement — meaning your board has approved similar requests in the past and is now denying a comparable one. The doctrine comes from a 1979 Florida Supreme Court decision called White Egret v. Franklin. The association knowingly permitted six unit-owners to live with children under 12 in violation of an age restriction. When it tried to enforce against a seventh family, the court ruled the association had waived its right — the restriction was valid on paper, but the selective application was not.

The 2024 legislature built this protection directly into the statute. Your association — and any ARC committee — cannot enforce any policy or restriction that conflicts with an owner's rights under the declaration, whether uniformly applied or not. Those last five words are the bite.

Example: how a prior approval kills today's denial

Three years ago your committee approved a six-foot vinyl fence at unit 4012. Today unit 4018 submits a nearly identical request and your committee denies it. Even if your fence covenant clearly limits height to four feet, the prior approval is now Exhibit A in the next legal challenge. The contesting owner's lawyer asks one question your committee cannot answer well: why does the same rule, applied to the same neighborhood, produce a different answer? The board's defense that it will apply the rule uniformly going forward will not save the denial — the "whether uniformly applied or not" clause closes that escape route.

For the foundational reasonableness test that applies to every ARC rule, the leading case is a 1975 Florida appellate decision called Hidden Harbour Estates v. Norman: "If a rule is reasonable the association can adopt it; if not, it cannot." A rule cannot be "arbitrary or capricious" or bear "no relationship to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of life" of the owners. Half a century later, this is still the test.

5 mistakes that cost boards real money

The cases that produce damages and attorney fees against Florida associations almost always trace to one of five mistakes. Each is preventable.

Solar panels and EV chargers: a different rulebook

Two categories of modern improvements have their own statutory frameworks that go beyond the general FS 720.3035 rules. ARC committees need to know them.

Solar panels (HOAs and condos)

State law overrides almost every HOA-level restriction on solar collectors, clotheslines, and other renewable-energy devices. Your board may direct the specific roof location only within an orientation to the south, or within 45 degrees east or west of due south — and only if that placement does not reduce panel performance. Anything beyond that (outright prohibition, mandated placement that hurts efficiency, color or material requirements that effectively preclude installation) is outside your authority.

Example: when can your board move solar panels?

An owner submits an application to install rooftop solar panels facing 38 degrees east of due south. Your board would prefer the panels face closer to due south for aesthetic consistency with neighboring homes. Can you require the change? Yes — but only if moving them does not reduce performance. If the installer's engineering report shows the original orientation captures 15 percent more annual energy than the board's preferred placement, your board cannot force the move. The 45-degree window is your board's authority ceiling. The performance-impairment limit is the cliff. Crossing it triggers attorney-fees exposure under the solar statute's prevailing-party clause.

The solar statute also has a prevailing-party attorney-fees clause that runs both directions. If the owner wins, your association pays fees. If your association wins, the owner pays fees. But because the substantive law heavily favors solar installation, the owner usually wins. Boards that deny outright, or that direct placement outside the 45-degree window, are guaranteed fee-shifters.

EV chargers in condos

FS 718.113(8) goes the other way: a condo declaration may not prohibit an EV charging station or natural gas fuel station in the boundaries of the owner's limited common element or exclusively designated parking area. The board may require: bona fide safety compliance, reasonable architectural standards on dimensions, placement, and external appearance (provided those standards do not prohibit installation or substantially increase the cost), use of a licensed installer, a certificate of insurance naming the association as additional insured, and reimbursement for any increased insurance premium attributable to the installation. Outright denial is not an option.

HOAs do not have an equivalent state preemption for EV chargers. ARC restrictions on EV chargers at HOA parcels remain subject to the general FS 720.3035 framework — meaning the board may restrict per the declaration, subject to reasonableness and selective-enforcement constraints. The rulebook differs between HOAs and condos here.

What every denial letter must say

FS 720.3035(4)(a) is the litmus test. Every denial letter going forward must satisfy three elements to survive challenge. This article does not draft sample language — that is your association's attorney's job — but it describes the elements the letter must contain.

A fourth element — not required by statute but advisable — is an internal-appeal pathway. If your declaration provides for an owner to appeal an ARC denial to the full board, the denial letter should state the appeal procedure and deadline. Owners who pursue the internal appeal often resolve the dispute without litigation. Denial letters that omit the appeal pathway invite owners to go straight to counsel.

When to call your association attorney

Most ARC submissions can be handled by the committee without attorney involvement. A handful cannot. Call counsel before issuing a denial in any of these situations:

The cost of fifteen minutes of attorney review is dramatically lower than the cost of defending a constructive-approval claim or paying prevailing-party attorney fees under FS 163.04(3) or FS 720.3035(4)(b). The association's insurance may or may not cover the resulting judgment. The board's fiduciary duty to the association is to prevent foreseeable losses, not to economize on prevention.

Key takeaways

Frequently asked questions

No. Florida Statute 720.3035 contains no statutory deadline and no automatic constructive-approval clause for HOA architectural review committee decisions. The widely repeated "30-day rule" is not in Florida law. Any time limit that applies to your association comes from your declaration of covenants. Most older Florida HOA declarations include an automatic-approval provision (commonly 30, 45, or 60 days from a complete submission), and missing that internal deadline is treated by Florida courts as constructive approval of the application. Boards should pull the declaration first to find the actual deadline before processing any application.
Six categories are protected by Florida statute or federal regulation regardless of what the declaration says. Solar collectors, clotheslines, and other renewable-energy devices under FS 163.04; the board may direct location only within the south-facing 45-degree window. Florida-friendly landscaping under FS 373.185 and FS 720.3075(4)(b). Up to two portable flags up to 4.5 by 6 feet plus a 20-foot freestanding flagpole under FS 720.304(2). The owner's pickup truck or non-commercial work vehicle in the owner's driveway under FS 720.3075(3)(d). Satellite dishes one meter or smaller in diameter and TV broadcast antennas under the FCC Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule at 47 CFR 1.4000. Hurricane protection that conforms to specifications the board itself has adopted under FS 720.3035(6).
Under FS 720.3035(4)(a), as amended by HB 1203 (Ch. 2024-221) effective July 1, 2024, every ARC denial must (1) be in writing, (2) state with specificity the rule or covenant the committee relied upon in denying the request, and (3) identify the specific aspect or part of the proposed improvement that does not conform to that rule or covenant. Generic language like "does not conform to architectural guidelines" is no longer sufficient. A denial that fails this test is voidable, and under FS 720.3035(4)(b), an owner whose rights are unreasonably, knowingly, and willfully infringed may recover damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
Generally no. Florida Statute 163.04(2) provides that a deed restriction, covenant, declaration, or similar binding agreement may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources from being installed. The statute does permit a board to direct the specific location on the roof — but only within an orientation to the south or within 45 degrees east or west of due south, and only if that direction does not impair the effective operation of the panels. Boards that deny solar requests outright, or that direct placement outside the 45-degree window, face prevailing-party attorney fees under FS 163.04(3). The same preemption applies to clotheslines and other renewable-energy devices.
No. Under FS 718.113(8), a Florida condo declaration or restrictive covenant may not prohibit a unit owner from installing an electric vehicle charging station or natural gas fuel station within the boundaries of the unit owner's limited common element or exclusively designated parking area. The board may require bona fide safety compliance, reasonable architectural standards on dimensions, placement, and external appearance (provided those standards do not prohibit installation or substantially increase the cost), use of a licensed installer, a certificate of insurance naming the association as additional insured, and reimbursement for any increased insurance premium attributable to the installation. The board cannot deny the installation outright or impose standards that effectively prohibit it.
If your declaration contains an automatic-approval clause, missing the stated deadline is treated by Florida courts as constructive approval of the application. The proposed change is deemed approved by operation of contract law, even if the change would otherwise violate the declaration. Boards that then try to enforce the denial face both the contract-based approval and, after HB 1203, potential damages and attorney fees under FS 720.3035(4)(b) if the enforcement is found to be unreasonable, knowing, and willful infringement of the owner's rights. The defensive workflow is: log the submission with a date stamp, calendar the declaration's deadline immediately, set an internal target date seven days before the deadline, and act in writing before the clock runs out.

Share this guide

Property Exemption
Property Exemption Team
Written and fact-checked using Florida Statutes Chapter 720 and Chapter 718, the published opinions in Hidden Harbour Estates v. Norman (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), White Egret Condominium v. Franklin (Fla. 1979), and Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Ass'n (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); the 2024 chapter laws for HB 1203 (Ch. 2024-221), HB 293 (Ch. 2024-205), and HB 1021 (Ch. 2024-244); the FCC Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule at 47 CFR 1.4000; and published analyses from Becker, Kaye Bender Rembaum, Siegfried Rivera, Pavese Law, Shumaker, and Jimerson Birr. All references reflect statutes and case law effective May 2026. This article is general information, not legal advice. About Mosaic