Unenforceable HOA Rules in New Mexico: The Fake Xeriscape Statute (2026)

Name: Pollinator Patch
Author: Pollinator Patch

Quick answer

New Mexico has no statute protecting xeriscaping or native landscaping from HOA rules, despite a claim circulating online that one exists at a section numbered 47-16-7.1. That section does not exist. What New Mexico does have is the Homeowner Association Act (NMSA 47-16-1 to 47-16-18), which applies to nearly every homeowner association in the state, not just ones that opt in, and gives owners a real enforcement procedure: written notice of a violation, and an opportunity for a hearing or a written statement before a fine is imposed. The board has to give at least 14 days notice before that hearing. What the Act does not do, anywhere in its 18 sections, is say a word about what you may plant.

New Mexico is an arid state with a real, decades-old water conservation culture, so it is reasonable to expect a xeriscape protection on the books. Search around and you will find sites claiming exactly that, citing a specific section number. We checked. It is not there. This post explains what actually governs a New Mexico HOA, what real leverage the enforcement procedure gives you, and where the legislature has protected something else entirely while staying silent on landscaping.

The claim to check before you rely on it

There is no NMSA 47-16-7.1, and it is not about xeriscaping

A number of gardening and HOA advisory sites cite “Section 47-16-7.1 NMSA 1978” as a New Mexico law requiring HOAs to permit xeriscape landscaping. We could not find this section anywhere in the New Mexico Homeowner Association Act. The Act runs from 47-16-1 through 47-16-18, and the real 47-16-7 is titled “Board members and officers; duties; budget.” It has nothing to do with landscaping. No numbered subsection 47-16-7.1 appears in any statutory index we checked.

This is the same pattern that produced Arizona's A.R.S. §33-1808 myth, a flags-and-signs statute that gets repeatedly misdescribed online as a xeriscape law. If a New Mexico HOA cites a landscaping requirement, and you want to push back with a specific statute, verify the section number yourself before you use it. Citing a section that does not say what you think it says will cost you credibility with the board faster than having no citation at all.

What actually governs your HOA

The New Mexico Homeowner Association Act, NMSA 47-16-1 to 47-16-18, is the umbrella statute for homeowner associations in the state. Unlike Georgia's Property Owners' Association Act, which only applies if a community opts in, New Mexico's Act applies to essentially every homeowner association in the state by default. A narrow carve-out exempts associations formed before July 1, 2013 with fewer than 30 lots from a handful of financial-audit sections, but the enforcement procedure below is not one of the exempted sections, so it reaches nearly every homeowner. Condominiums are governed separately, by the New Mexico Condominium Act (NMSA Chapter 47, Articles 7A through 7D), which we did not find a landscaping provision in either.

None of it addresses what you can plant. The Act covers how an association is created, how its board is elected and run, what financial records members can see, how meetings are called, a section specifically protecting the right to fly a flag, and how covenants get enforced. Landscaping is not one of the topics the legislature chose to write into it.

The enforcement procedure: your actual leverage

What the enforcement section covers (summarized, not quoted)

We were not able to load the New Mexico Legislature's or NMOneSource's statute pages directly to quote 47-16-18 verbatim, so what follows is a summary of its requirements as reported by several independent legal-reference sources, not a direct quotation. Read the section yourself at the New Mexico Compilation Commission's NMOneSource (opens in new tab).

Lot owners and the association must comply with the Act and the community documents. Unless the community documents say otherwise, before an association can levy a fine or suspend common-area privileges for a violation other than unpaid assessments, it must give written notice and an opportunity to dispute the violation. Before the fine or suspension takes effect, the board has to offer the owner a chance to submit a written statement or request a hearing, and must give the owner written notice at least 14 days before that hearing. If the owner does not request a hearing or submit a statement, the fine or suspension may go into effect. A violation that poses an imminent threat to public health or safety is exempt from the notice-and-hearing requirement. The Act also lets an owner or the association use mediation or another non-litigation process to resolve a dispute, though nothing requires either side to agree to it.

This is real procedure, but it is lighter than some neighboring states

Compare this to Virginia, where the statute caps enforcement charges at $50 for a single violation or $10 per day up to 90 days, or Ohio, where the owner has a specific 10-day window to request a hearing or lose the right. New Mexico's Act does not cap fine amounts and does not specify how many days an owner has to request a hearing after notice, only that the board must give 14 days notice before the hearing itself happens. The specifics of your deadline to respond, and the dollar amount at stake, are more likely to sit in your own declaration and bylaws than in state law. Read your community documents for both.

Where the legislature acted, and where it stayed silent

New Mexico has not been quiet about property rights and energy. The Solar Rights Act voids a very specific kind of covenant.

The Solar Rights Act voids anti-solar covenants, and says nothing about plants

Under NMSA §3-18-32(B), part of New Mexico's Solar Rights Act framework, a covenant, restriction, or condition in a deed, contract, or other instrument that takes effect after July 1, 1978 and effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar collector is void and unenforceable. We verified the section number and this description through multiple independent legal references but could not load the primary statutory text directly, so treat this as a summary rather than a quotation and confirm the current text before relying on it.

The pattern is the same one that shows up in Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin: the legislature was specific and forceful about overriding covenants for solar, and said nothing at all about landscaping. That is not an oversight. A legislature capable of voiding a covenant outright for one purpose and choosing not to for another has made a choice, and it means a New Mexico homeowner cannot borrow the solar precedent to argue a landscaping covenant is similarly void.

Two more angles we checked, and ruled out

Two things have mattered in other no-landscaping-statute states, so we checked New Mexico for both before writing this post.

A covenant-expiry or marketable-title statute

Massachusetts lets a post-1961 restriction expire after 30 years unless it is re-recorded, and Wisconsin gives covenants 40 years. A statute like that can matter more than any HOA procedure section, because an old turf covenant that was never renewed may simply be unenforceable regardless of what the declaration says. We searched for a comparable New Mexico marketable-title or restriction-expiry statute and did not find one. That does not mean nothing like it exists, only that we could not confirm it, so we are not claiming it here. If your subdivision is decades old, a title company or a New Mexico real estate attorney can tell you whether anything like this applies to your specific covenant.

A declaration amendment threshold

Ohio sets amending a declaration at 75 percent owner consent, filed with the county recorder, which gives a homeowner a concrete number to organize around if the fix is to change the document itself rather than fight one enforcement letter. We looked for an equivalent percentage written into the New Mexico Homeowner Association Act and did not find one specified in the Act itself. That likely means the threshold for amending your declaration is set in the declaration or bylaws rather than dictated by state law, so check those documents directly if a rule change, not a one-time exception, is the goal.

Where you actually have leverage

The exact wording of your declaration

Because state law is silent on landscaping, your recorded declaration and any architectural guidelines are the whole rulebook. A clause requiring a “well-maintained yard” is not the same as a clause requiring turf grass. Ask the board to point to the exact recorded provision it is enforcing, not a paraphrase or a rule adopted after the fact that was never recorded.

New Mexico's water reality, used as a design argument

You cannot cite a statute that does not exist, but you can make a practical case a board is likely to respond to. New Mexico cities and utilities, including Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, have run turf-reduction and water-conservation programs for years, and many HOAs already know their state is short on water. A submission that frames a native or water-wise planting as a defined, deliberate design (a plant list, a maintenance plan, and a note on why it reduces water use) reads as a serious proposal rather than a resistant one, even without a statute forcing the board's hand.

This matters more in New Mexico than in a wetter state, because a board that has watched its own common-area water bill climb is not automatically hostile to less turf, it is often hostile to an unplanned-looking yard. The distinction between “no lawn” and “a deliberate low-water design” is the one that decides most of these conversations, and it is entirely within your control regardless of what the statute does or does not say.

Even-handed enforcement

If your planting is cited while similar or messier yards nearby are not, document it with dated photos. Selective enforcement is one of the strongest arguments available anywhere in this cluster of states, and it works the same way in New Mexico as it does under any HOA's general obligation to apply its own rules consistently.

The notice itself

Under 47-16-18, the board must give you written notice and a chance to dispute a violation before it can fine you. A notice that skips straight to a fine, or that never identifies which recorded provision you supposedly violated, is a procedural defect worth raising, whether or not you ultimately win the underlying dispute about plants.

What your HOA can still require

Turf grass or a minimum percentage of lawn, if the declaration says so plainly
Pre-approval of landscaping changes through an architectural review committee
Reasonable maintenance standards covering dead plants, overgrowth, and edging
Height limits near sidewalks, driveways, and sight lines at intersections
Rules governing borders, raised beds, rock, and other hardscape elements
Setback and screening requirements

Rebates and cost-share can turn a plan into a funded project rather than a request. See the New Mexico rebate page for what is currently available in your area before you submit anything to a review committee.

How to respond when a rule feels unfair

1Ask for the exact recorded provision.Do not accept a paraphrase. New Mexico has no landscaping statute, so the declaration is the only source of authority the board has, and a general tidiness clause is not a turf mandate.
2Respond to the written notice, in writing, right away.Under 47-16-18 you are entitled to submit a written statement or request a hearing before a fine takes effect. Do this promptly rather than waiting, since the Act does not spell out a grace period the way Ohio's does, and your own bylaws may set a shorter clock than you expect.
3Bring a documented plan, not just an objection.A plant list, a simple layout, a maintenance schedule, and a short note on water savings gives the board something concrete to approve. Framing it around New Mexico's water reality tends to land better than framing it as a rights argument the state does not actually back.
4Photograph comparable yards.If your planting is singled out while similar or less-maintained yards nearby are not, dated photos are your strongest evidence at a hearing.

When to involve a lawyer

The board denies your written statement or hearing request outright
A fine or lien is imposed without the notice 47-16-18 requires
You cannot tell whether your community is governed by the Homeowner Association Act or the separate Condominium Act
The board is threatening to place a lien on your property

This is not legal advice.

We are a gardening app, not lawyers. This post summarizes publicly available New Mexico law as of 2026 and could not confirm the verbatim text of NMSA 47-16-18 or 3-18-32 against a primary source we could load directly, so treat the summaries here as a starting point, not a citation to paste into a demand letter. New Mexico has no landscaping-protection statute, and your recorded declaration controls what your association can require. If you are facing a fine, a lien, or legal threats, talk to a real estate attorney licensed in New Mexico.

Unenforceable HOA Rules in New Mexico

The short version