Unenforceable HOA Rules in Montana

A lot of guidance online implies every state has some law shielding native or drought-tolerant landscaping from an HOA. Montana does not, and citing a statute that does not exist is the fastest way to lose credibility with a board. What follows is what actually governs a landscaping dispute in Montana, and two real, recent statutes that give a Montana homeowner more to work with than the headline suggests.

This is a plain-English summary, not a fight plan. Most of these disputes end quietly once a homeowner reads their declaration closely and asks the association to apply it evenly.

The honest starting point: no landscaping statute

Texas has Property Code §202.007, which bars an HOA from prohibiting water-conserving and native landscaping. Washington bars a board from prohibiting drought-resistant landscaping or pollinator habitat outright. Montana has nothing comparable. No Montana statute says an association cannot require turf grass, cannot ban native beds, or has to approve a xeriscape plan.

So in Montana, the landscaping rules live in your subdivision's recorded declaration of covenants. The room to push back is about how that document is written, how the board has actually enforced it, and whether Montana's two general covenant statutes happen to help your situation.

Montana has no umbrella HOA act

Unlike Virginia or Ohio, which have a mandatory statewide act governing every association's notice and hearing procedure, Montana has never passed one. A January 2024 report from the Montana Legislature's own Local Government Interim Committee put it plainly: homeowners' associations in Montana "continue to operate primarily independent from the state," and three separate bills that would have created broader statewide HOA governance, House Bill 357, House Bill 683, and Senate Bill 479, were all introduced in the 2023 session and all died without passing.

The 2019 statute: a narrow anti-retroactive rule, not a landscaping shield

Montana's first statute defining "homeowners' association" in state law, Senate Bill 300 (2019), is now codified at MCA §70-17-901. It is genuinely useful for a specific kind of dispute, and it is easy to misread as broader than it is.

Two more limits are worth knowing before you cite this section. A successor buyer who purchases after a restriction is already in place cannot claim the protection retroactively, and the statute does not invalidate covenants that predate May 9, 2019, or create a right to sue over anything that happened before that date.

The 2023-2025 statute: abandonment and an inactive board

This is the section that gives a Montana homeowner the most concrete leverage, and it has nothing to do with what the covenant says. It is about whether the association has actually been enforcing it.

Silence is a choice: what Montana has protected instead

Montana's legislature has shown, more than once, that it knows how to override a private covenant when it decides to. It has done so for political speech and, to a much lesser extent, for solar, and it has never done it for planting.

MCA §70-1-522, passed in 2009, bars a homeowners' association from prohibiting a political sign supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure on an owner's property or on common areas where the owner holds an undivided interest, and it states outright that a covenant to the contrary is against the public policy of the state, unenforceable in court. That is a stronger remedy than a simple cap on what a board may require, and Montana has never written anything similar for a native bed or a xeriscaped yard.

Solar is a near miss rather than a clean win. Montana's only solar statute, MCA §70-17-301, lets a property owner create a solar easement, but it is a voluntary, written, recorded agreement between neighboring landowners, the same mechanism as any other easement. It does not override an HOA's power to restrict or require approval for a rooftop solar installation. Montana has no statute doing what Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Washington, or Wisconsin's solar sections do. Solar and landscaping sit in the same unprotected position here.

Where you do have leverage

No landscaping statute and no umbrella act does not mean no options. Four things carry real weight in Montana.

What the declaration actually says

Because so little state law fills in the gaps, the recorded declaration is doing almost all of the work. Boards sometimes cite a rule that is not actually in the recorded document, or stretch a general maintenance clause to cover something it does not clearly reach. A clause requiring a yard be kept neat is not the same as a clause requiring turf grass. Ask for the exact recorded provision, by section, not a summary from a newsletter or a board member's recollection.

Whether the board has actually been enforcing the rule

Given §70-17-210, this is the most Montana-specific angle available. If the association has never cited anyone for a native bed, or has not met in years, its own inaction may be a defense. Ask, in writing, when the covenant in question was last enforced against any owner, and whether the governing body has held meetings.

Even-handed enforcement

Selective enforcement carries real weight in Montana precisely because the association's authority rests on a private, recorded document it is expected to apply consistently, and because §70-17-210 now gives "equally and consistently enforced" a specific two-year meaning. If your native bed is cited while similar or messier yards nearby are not, document it with dated photos.

What changed when you bought

If a board is trying to newly bar renting your home or a home business you were told was fine at closing, §70-17-901 may apply directly, since those fall inside its definition of "types of use." It will not help with a landscaping rule, but it is worth checking if the dispute is broader than plants.

Cost-share programs can still offset a conversion. See what is currently available on our Montana rebate page before you plan the work.

What your HOA can still require

Given how little Montana law limits an association on landscaping specifically, it helps to be realistic about what a board can enforce through a clearly written, actively enforced declaration:

• Turf grass, or a minimum percentage of lawn, where the declaration says so plainly
• Pre-approval of landscaping changes through an architectural review committee
• Maintenance standards covering dead plants, overgrowth, and edging
• Height limits near sidewalks, driveways, and street sight lines
• Rules about raised beds, borders, trellises, and other structures
• Restrictions on rooftop solar panels and their placement

The practical difference from a protected state like Texas or Washington is that a clearly written, consistently enforced Montana turf requirement is likely to hold up as written. The more productive path is usually to design something the review committee can approve, or to establish that the rule has gone unenforced long enough to raise §70-17-210, rather than to argue a landscaping statute overrides the declaration, because none does.

How to respond when the rules feel unfair

Even without a landscaping statute behind you, a calm and documented approach settles most of these disputes. Four steps, in order:

1. 1Ask for the rule in writing.Request the exact recorded provision the association is citing, by section. A verbal warning is not an enforceable violation, and seeing the actual language often reveals the rule says less than the board believes.
2. 2Ask when it was last enforced.Request the enforcement history for this specific covenant: dates, addresses, and outcomes. If the association cannot produce a consistent two-year record, or has gone years without meeting, §70-17-210 gives you a real statutory basis to raise abandonment or an inactive board.
3. 3Document uneven enforcement.Photograph comparable yards that have not been cited, with dates. Because a Montana association's authority rests almost entirely on the recorded declaration, evidence that it applies that declaration inconsistently carries real weight and frequently gets a citation withdrawn.
4. 4Submit a tidy plan.Give the architectural review committee something concrete to approve: a plant list, a simple layout, and a maintenance schedule. A neat, clearly intentional design is far easier for a board to accept than a request framed as a challenge.

When to involve a lawyer

Because Montana gives you so little to cite on your own, and because §70-17-210's abandonment and inactive-board defenses generally need to be established through a court or a recorded agreement, a short attorney consultation is worth more here than in a state with a landscaping statute. Consider one if:

• You are being fined and cannot tell whether the declaration actually supports the citation
• The association is threatening a lien
• You believe a covenant has gone unenforced long enough to raise abandonment, or the association has not met in years
• You suspect selective enforcement and want to know how strong that position is under §70-17-210's two-year standard

A Montana real estate attorney can read your declaration and tell you quickly whether a rule holds, and whether the association's enforcement history supports an abandonment or inactive-board argument. Given how completely Montana leans on the declaration itself, one consultation is often worth it before you commit to either a fight or a redesign.

People also ask

Does Montana have a law protecting native landscaping from HOAs?

No. Montana has no native-plant, pollinator, or xeriscape statute, and nothing comparable to Texas Property Code §202.007 or Washington RCW 64.38.057. If your recorded declaration clearly requires turf grass, Montana law generally lets the association enforce it. Your leverage comes from the declaration's wording, the association's enforcement history under MCA §70-17-210, and whether it enforces the rule uniformly.

What does MCA 70-17-901 actually protect?

A narrower thing than it sounds like. Since May 9, 2019, an association cannot retroactively impose a more onerous restriction on the "types of use" of your property than existed when you bought it, unless you agree in writing. The statute defines "types of use" as residential, agricultural, or commercial use, the ability to rent the property, and the ability to develop it. It does not define landscaping, plant choice, or turf coverage as a protected "type of use," so it generally does not stop a board from enforcing or tightening a landscaping rule.

Can a Montana HOA make me keep a grass lawn?

If the recorded declaration clearly requires turf grass or a minimum percentage of lawn, then generally yes, as long as the association has actually been enforcing that rule. Montana has no statute overriding a turf requirement the way Texas or Washington do. A vague tidiness clause is not the same as a turf mandate, though, and an association that has let the rule go unenforced for years may have a harder time reviving it under MCA §70-17-210.

Can an old Montana HOA covenant become unenforceable if the association stops enforcing it?

Potentially, yes, through two routes added by MCA §70-17-210 in 2023 and amended in 2025. An owner can raise an abandonment defense if the association has taken no enforcement action on a covenant for six years, the period set in MCA §27-2-202. Separately, if the association's governing body has not met for 15 years, it is generally barred from enforcing covenants against an owner whose property use is similar to others in the development, with specific exceptions for legal compliance, easements, infrastructure, court orders, utilities, and nuisances. Neither defense is automatic; it generally has to be established through a court or a recorded agreement.

Does Montana protect rooftop solar panels from HOA restrictions?

No. Montana's only solar statute, MCA §70-17-301, lets a property owner create a voluntary, recorded solar easement with a neighboring landowner. It does not override an HOA's authority to restrict or require approval for a homeowner's own rooftop solar installation. Unlike several other states in this series, Montana has no law putting solar in a protected position relative to a declaration.