Are Your HOA Architectural Guidelines Legally Enforceable Under Current Maryland Law?

A board has enforced the same shed, fence and paint standards for fifteen years. Then a homeowner’s attorney asks two questions nobody can answer: which recorded document authorizes these architectural guidelines, and when did the association adopt them?

Enforceability rarely fails at the moment of denial. It fails earlier — in the recorded declaration that either grants approval authority or doesn’t, in a statute that quietly removed a subject from the board’s reach, and in a hearing procedure the board didn’t know applied. Maryland tests architectural guidelines across four layers, and all four have to hold. Our firm advises community associations and their architectural committees throughout Maryland, from Annapolis to the Baltimore and Washington suburbs.

Where Does a Maryland HOA’s Architectural Authority Actually Come From?

A Maryland homeowners association’s architectural authority comes from the recorded declaration, not from the Maryland Homeowners Association Act. Title 11B of the Real Property Article governs meetings, disclosures, assessments and enforcement procedure, but it does not create or regulate architectural review committees or exterior modification approval.

That absence surprises boards who assume a state statute backs their architectural guidelines. Title 11B defines a homeowners association as “a person having the authority to enforce the provisions of a declaration,” and defines the declaration as the recorded instrument creating that authority.

Maryland’s statute acknowledges architectural review exactly once, in passing. Real Property § 11B-111.8 requires an association to process an electric vehicle charging application “in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification” — presupposing a process the statute never creates. The guidelines binder is only as strong as the declaration clause beneath it.

Audit the declaration before the next denial:

1. Locate the express grant of approval authority and confirm it is in the recorded declaration.
2. Identify who holds it — the board, a named committee, or a declarant whose rights may never have been assigned.
3. Confirm the assignment of declarant rights to the association, in writing and recorded.

Do Unrecorded Architectural Guidelines Bind Homeowners?

Maryland law does not prescribe a procedure for adopting homeowners association rules, and Title 11B contains no requirement that rules be recorded to be enforceable. Enforceability instead depends on whether the recorded declaration authorizes the board to adopt supplementary standards and on how those standards were adopted.

The contrast with condominiums runs opposite to what most people assume. Real Property § 11-111 gives condominium rulemaking a detailed procedure: mail the proposed rule to unit owners, hold an open meeting for comment, adopt by majority vote of those present, and honor a fifteen-day petition window letting fifteen percent of owners force a special meeting. Architectural guidelines adopted by a homeowners association have no equivalent, which is a risk rather than a freedom.

Without a statutory procedure to point to, a board defending its architectural guidelines has only the declaration and its own record. Where the guidelines exceed what the declaration authorizes, the fix is § 11B-116 — amendment by sixty percent of owners in good standing, a heavier lift worth starting before a dispute rather than during one.

Adoption practices that survive a challenge:

• A written record of the meeting, motion and vote adopting each version of the guidelines.
• A version history showing what changed and when, so enforcement matches the standard in effect at application.
• Delivery to every owner, and inclusion in the resale package under §§ 11B-105 and 11B-106.
• Periodic legal review, since statutes keep narrowing what guidelines may reach.

Which Architectural Restrictions Has Maryland Law Taken Away From Boards?

Maryland statutes override architectural guidelines on solar collector systems, low-impact landscaping, electric vehicle charging equipment, clotheslines, display of the United States flag, political signs and composting. In each case the association keeps narrower authority over placement, appearance or process rather than a power to prohibit.

The citations matter here, because several circulate incorrectly. Real Property § 2-119 bars unreasonable limits on a solar collector system, defining unreasonable as one that “significantly increases the cost” or “significantly decreases the efficiency” — a qualitative test with no percentage threshold in the statute. Low-impact landscaping sits at § 2-125, not § 2-124, and forbids any guideline requiring “cultivated vegetation to consist in whole or in part of turf grass.” Electric vehicle equipment sits at § 11B-111.8, which deems an application approved if the association doesn’t deny it in writing within sixty days.

Two more are commonly misfiled. Flags fall under § 14-128, protecting “one portable, removable flag of the United States” and nothing else — not state, military or decorative flags — while the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act preserves reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Clotheslines sit at § 14-130, composting at § 11B-111.9, and candidate signs at § 11B-111.2, which requires display at least thirty days before and seven days after an election. Fair housing law adds another override: an association must permit reasonable modifications at the resident’s expense where necessary for full enjoyment, reaching ramps and grab bars whatever the architectural guidelines say.

Run this preemption check against the architectural guidelines in the binder:

• Solar — does the restriction significantly raise cost or cut efficiency?
• Landscaping — does any provision require turf grass, expressly or by effect?
• EV charging — is there a written sixty-day decision process, or does the clock run out?
• Flags and signs — does the guideline reach beyond one U.S. flag or restrict candidate signs?

What Did the Accessory Dwelling Unit Statute Change for Architectural Committees?

Maryland Real Property § 2-126 provides that a restriction on use may not impose an unreasonable limitation on a property owner’s ability to develop or offer for rent an accessory dwelling unit, and defines an unreasonable limitation to include one that prohibits development of an accessory dwelling unit by effect.

Chapter 197 of the Laws of Maryland 2025 took effect on October 1, 2025, and it is the most consequential recent change to what a Maryland architectural committee may refuse. Most guidance circulating online predates it.

The phrase doing the work is “explicitly or by effect of the restrictions.” Architectural guidelines need not say the words “no accessory dwelling units” to fall within the statute. Setback standards, lot coverage caps, height limits and single-family use language can each be attacked as a prohibition by effect, and boards reading their standards with that question in mind usually find at least one. What survives is narrower: the statute does not bar restrictions on short-term rental of an accessory dwelling unit, and properties on or eligible for the Maryland Register are exempt.

Guideline provisions most likely to fail the test:

• Cumulative setback and lot coverage standards that leave no buildable envelope for a second unit.
• Second kitchen or separate entrance prohibitions, which target the use rather than the appearance.

What Does It Mean for an Architectural Decision to Be Reasonable?

Under Maryland’s standard from Kirkley v. Seipelt, a refusal to approve must rest on a reason bearing some relation to the other buildings or the general plan of development, and must be a reasonable determination made in good faith rather than one that is high-handed, whimsical or captious in manner.

Kirkley v. Seipelt, 212 Md. 127 (1957), remains the governing Maryland authority, and appellate courts still apply it. The dispute concerned metal awnings, and the Court upheld the approval covenant even though the developer had no written standards and no general plan of development. Boards sometimes read that as permission to decide by instinct. It runs the other way, since the covenant survived only by being subjected to a reasonableness limit.

Two refinements matter. Markey v. Wolf, 92 Md. App. 137 (1992), holds that disapprovals draw closer scrutiny than approvals, since approving plans doesn’t interfere with unrestricted use. And on reading the covenant, Maryland has moved from flat strict construction toward a reasonableness approach that, as the Court of Appeals put it in City of Bowie v. MIE Properties, Inc., 398 Md. 657 (2007), “permits the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the ambiguous covenant to effectuate the ascertainable intent of the parties.”

What makes a denial defensible:

• A stated reason tied to a specific guideline provision, recorded in the minutes at the time.
• Consistency with nearby approvals, documented rather than assumed.

What Procedure Must a Maryland Board Follow Before It Sanctions an Owner?

Maryland Real Property § 11B-111.10 bars a homeowners association from imposing a fine, suspending voting or infringing any other right until it has served a written cease and desist demand allowing at least fifteen days for abatement, then provided written notice of a hearing at least ten days out.

The demand has three required contents: the nature of the alleged violation, the action required to abate it, and an abatement period of not less than fifteen days. The hearing runs in executive session, the violator may present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and proof of notice must be entered in the minutes. Two qualifications catch boards off guard: the procedure applies “unless the declaration or bylaws state otherwise,” and the Columbia Association and Columbia village associations are carved out entirely.

There is no statutory fine cap in Maryland for homeowners associations or condominiums, and § 11B-115 addresses consumer protection rather than fines. Separately, § 11B-111 requires that all association meetings “including meetings of the board of directors or other governing body of the homeowners association or a committee of the homeowners association” be open to members. Architectural review committees are committees, and none of the eight closed-session grounds covers architectural deliberation.

The sequence to follow, in order:

1. Written cease and desist demand stating the violation, the required action and a fifteen-day minimum abatement period.
2. Written hearing notice set at least ten days after the hearing request was provided.
3. Executive session hearing with the right to present evidence and cross-examine.
4. Proof of notice entered in the minutes, along with the vote.

What Can a Board Actually Do When an Owner Refuses to Comply?

Maryland’s District Court has no equity jurisdiction under Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 4-402, so an association seeking an injunction to remove an unapproved structure must file in circuit court. Money-only claims for unpaid fines within the District Court’s thirty-thousand-dollar limit may proceed there instead.

Section 4-402 removes equity, jurisdiction over ownership of an interest in real property, and declaratory judgment power from the District Court. An order compelling removal of a deck or fence is equitable relief, so it belongs in the circuit court for the county — in Anne Arundel County, the Circuit Court in Annapolis. Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Association, 361 Md. 371 (2000), confirms a permanent injunction is the appropriate remedy where a covenant violation is established.

Liens are more complicated. The Maryland Contract Lien Act requires notice within two years of the breach, gives the owner thirty days to file a circuit court complaint testing probable cause, and requires the statement of lien within thirty days after that. One asymmetry deserves attention: § 14-201(c) defines recoverable damages to include “fines levied under the Maryland Condominium Act or the Maryland Real Estate Time-Sharing Act,” and says nothing about fines under the Homeowners Association Act. No Maryland court has resolved that omission, so get advice before treating a fine under the architectural guidelines as lienable. Even where a lien attaches, § 11B-117 caps the portion with priority over a first mortgage at four months of regular assessments not exceeding $1,200, excluding fines.

The escalation ladder, in the order it should run:

• The statutory cease and desist demand and hearing procedure.
• A District Court money claim for fines within the jurisdictional limit.
• A circuit court injunction action where removal or restoration is the objective.

How Do Maryland Counties Differ in Resolving Architectural Disputes?

Montgomery County’s Commission on Common Ownership Communities hears architectural disputes and applies the reasonableness standard from Kirkley v. Seipelt, with decisions final and binding unless reversed on appeal to the circuit court. Most Maryland counties, including Anne Arundel and Howard, have no equivalent county-level body.

Montgomery County’s framework sits in Chapter 10B of the county code and is the most developed in the state. The Commission’s published guidance applies the Kirkley test to architectural guidelines directly, asking whether the board had a reasonable basis related to the overall purposes of the association. Appeals run to the circuit court within thirty days.

Prince George’s County established its own Commission on Common Ownership Communities in 2015, with jurisdiction over disputes involving an association’s breach of its governing documents or its enforcement procedures, though assessment collection is excluded. Whether its decisions bind the parties is not clearly settled. Anne Arundel and Howard Counties have no equivalent commission, and Anne Arundel’s resource guide points residents toward the Anne Arundel Conflict Resolution Center, Maryland Legal Aid and the Attorney General’s complaint process instead.

Where a Maryland owner can challenge architectural guidelines:

• The association’s own hearing under § 11B-111.10, which is a prerequisite to sanctions.
• A county commission, in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties only.
• Circuit court, for injunctive relief and declaratory rulings anywhere in Maryland.

Review Your Community’s Architectural Guidelines Before the Next Denial

Architectural guidelines written a decade ago were drafted against a different statute. Solar, landscaping, charging equipment and accessory dwelling units have all moved out of a Maryland board’s reach since then, and a denial resting on an overridden provision is an expensive way to discover it.

Our knowledgeable attorneys review and update architectural guidelines and governing documents, advise boards and architectural committees on approval decisions and enforcement procedure, and represent Maryland community associations in covenant disputes. Contact our office today to schedule a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Maryland HOA Architectural Guidelines

Can an HOA Change Its Architectural Guidelines Without a Vote of the Homeowners?

It depends on what the recorded declaration authorizes. Where the declaration lets the board adopt and amend supplementary standards, a board vote may be enough. A change to the architectural guidelines that exceeds the declaration’s grant requires amending the governing documents, which Maryland sets at sixty percent of owners in good standing.

How Long Can a Maryland HOA Take to Decide an Architectural Application?

For most applications the deadline comes from the architectural guidelines and governing documents rather than a statute, so an association without a stated deadline should adopt one. Electric vehicle charging is the exception: failing to deny one in writing within sixty days is treated as approval.

What If a Homeowner Starts Work Before Getting Approval?

The association still has to follow the statutory demand and hearing procedure before imposing any sanction. Where completed work violates a valid covenant, a circuit court can order removal, though a board that waited years while the violation was open and obvious may face a harder case.

Can a Board Approve One Neighbor’s Fence and Deny an Identical One?

Not without a documented reason distinguishing them. Maryland requires a reasonable determination made in good faith, and inconsistent application of the architectural guidelines is the most common way a denial fails that standard. Track prior approvals so the committee can explain any difference.

Are Architectural Guidelines Enforceable Against a Renter?

Architectural guidelines run with the land and bind the lot owner, so the association’s remedies run against the owner rather than the tenant. Many associations require leases to incorporate the governing documents by reference for exactly this reason.