Original research
When your HOA cannot stop you removing the lawn
A 50-state table of statutes that stop HOA bans on drought-tolerant landscaping, the narrower related laws, and four city rules.
Written by HyreYard Research Desk Primary-source research
The finding
Nine states have a statute that stops an HOA banning drought-tolerant or water-efficient landscaping: California, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Utah, Florida, Maryland and Maine.
Illinois, Arizona, North Carolina and Oregon have narrower HOA rules on native plants, artificial turf or drought watering.
37 states have no statewide HOA landscaping override we could find as of September 5, 2026, so the covenants are the starting point. This is not legal advice.
Three layers that are not the same thing
The association’s documents. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, architectural guidelines and board rules. These bind you unless a higher law makes a provision void.
Municipal and utility rules. A city water-conservation ordinance, a water-district shortage order or a turf-rebate program. Albuquerque and San Antonio, for example, add HOA limits that New Mexico and Texas law do not.
A rebate is not a legal right to convert; it is a program with its own plant list and pre-approval.
State preemption. A statute that says the association may not prohibit a named kind of landscaping, or that a conflicting covenant is void. That is the only layer this table answers.
A section that suspends watering fines in a drought is not a turf-removal right, and one that protects native plants is not a xeriscape right. We keep those in their own rows.
HyreYard does not landscape, irrigate, pull permits or take a dispute to a board. Nothing here is legal advice. If a board has already issued a violation, the useful next step is the current statutory text and, where the stakes warrant it, a lawyer licensed in that state.
What “preemption” actually means on this page
People ask some version of “can my HOA require grass.” There is no national yes or no. The answer is a section number, or the absence of one.
HyreYard analysis. All nine statutes stop an association treating a water-efficient yard as a violation by itself. All nine still let it regulate appearance, weeds, irrigation hardware and a review process. They differ on what “water-efficient” includes.
Nevada names decorative rock and artificial turf. Washington names stone and landscaping rock but not synthetic turf. California names low-water plants and, separately, artificial turf. Florida protects “Florida-friendly landscaping,” a defined set of principles, not a rock yard.
Maryland and Maine treat a turf-grass mandate as an unreasonable limitation. Utah’s conversion right is written for a detached dwelling. Colorado’s extra floors (the 20% hardscape cap, the 80% drought-tolerant option, three pre-approved designs) apply to detached single-family communities, not to every condominium.
That is why a 50-state table is the honest unit and a single sentence is not.
The nine drought-tolerant statutes
Nine states have code that, as retrieved September 5, 2026, stops an HOA banning drought-tolerant, water-efficient, xeriscape, Florida-friendly, water-wise or low-impact (including xeriscape) landscaping. Read the “HOA may still” column before treating a conversion as a right.
California
Citation: Cal. Civ. Code § 4735
Turf removal: Yes: as replacement with low water-using plants. Artificial turf is separately protected.
What is protected: A governing-document or architectural/landscaping-guideline provision is void and unenforceable if it (1) prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, low water-using plants as a group or as a replacement of existing turf; (2) prohibits artificial turf or any…
The HOA may still: Landscaping rules in the governing documents, to the extent they fully conform with subdivision (a). Recycled-water exception to the drought-fine bar.
How it is enforced: The conflicting provision is void and unenforceable. No attorney-general action is named in § 4735; enforcement is a private civil matter under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest…
Colorado
Citation: C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5; C.R.S. § 37-60-126(11)
Turf removal: Yes.
What is protected: An association shall not prohibit the use of xeriscape, nonvegetative turf grass, or drought-tolerant vegetative landscapes as ground covering on property for which a unit owner is responsible. C.R.S. § 37-60-126(11) declares a restrictive covenant that…
The HOA may still: Design or aesthetic guidelines that apply to nonvegetative turf grass and drought-tolerant vegetative landscapes, and that regulate type, number and placement of drought-tolerant plantings and hardscapes: subject to the…
How it is enforced: Shall-not-prohibit under CCIOA; companion water-conservation statute declares conflicting covenants unenforceable. No attorney-general action is named in these sections.
Florida
Citation: Fla. Stat. § 720.3075(4); Fla. Stat. § 373.185
Turf removal: Partial. A covenant that bans Florida-friendly landscaping, or that requires a grass-only lawn in conflict with those principles, is unenforceable. A yard of rock, shell or artificial turf is not, by itself, Florida-friendly landscaping as UF/IFAS defines the recognition program; the statute protects the defined principles, not a hardscape-only conversion.
What is protected: Homeowners’ association documents may not prohibit, or be enforced so as to prohibit, any property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping, as defined in § 373.185, or create any requirement or limitation in conflict with part II of chapter 373…
The HOA may still: Aesthetic and maintenance rules that do not prohibit implementation of Florida-friendly landscaping and do not conflict with a water-shortage order.
How it is enforced: Association clauses that prohibit Florida-friendly landscaping are against the public policy stated in § 720.3075(4). Section 373.185(3)(b) makes conflicting deed restrictions…
Maine
Citation: 33 M.R.S. § 1451
Turf removal: Yes: a turf-grass mandate is an unreasonable limitation by definition.
What is protected: A restriction may not put an unreasonable limitation on low-impact landscaping on any portion of a condominium or real estate subject to common ownership that is not itself common and that the owner has the exclusive right to use, so long as the owner…
The HOA may still: Reasonable design and aesthetic guidelines regarding the type, number and location of low-impact landscaping features. Does not apply to National Register historic property, or property determined eligible by the Maine…
How it is enforced: The restriction may not impose the limitation. No attorney-general action is named in § 1451.
Maryland
Citation: Md. Code, Real Prop. § 2-125
Turf removal: Yes: a turf-grass requirement is an unreasonable limitation by definition.
What is protected: A restriction on use may not impose unreasonable limitations on low-impact landscaping if the owner has exclusive use and maintains and regularly tends the landscaping. Low-impact landscaping includes bio-habitat gardens, pollinator gardens, rain gardens, and…
The HOA may still: Reasonable design and aesthetic guidelines regarding the type, number and location of low-impact landscaping features. Historic properties are exempted.
How it is enforced: The restriction may not impose the limitation. No attorney-general action is named in § 2-125.
Nevada
Citation: NRS 116.330
Turf removal: Yes, including decorative rock and artificial turf as named mulches.
What is protected: The executive board shall not, and the governing documents must not, prohibit a unit’s owner from installing or maintaining drought-tolerant landscaping within the physical portion of the common-interest community the owner has the right to occupy and use…
The HOA may still: Before installing, the owner must submit a detailed description or plans for architectural review if the governing documents provide that process. The landscaping must be selected or designed, to the maximum extent…
How it is enforced: The subsection must be construed liberally in favor of encouraging drought-tolerant landscaping. The board shall not unreasonably deny or withhold approval, or unreasonably…
Texas
Citation: Tex. Prop. Code § 202.007; Tex. Prop. Code § 202.008
Turf removal: Yes: drought-resistant landscaping and water-conserving natural turf are named.
What is protected: A property owners’ association may not include or enforce a dedicatory-instrument provision that prohibits or restricts a property owner from (1) composting vegetation or leaving grass clippings on grass, (2) installing rain barrels or a rainwater harvesting…
The HOA may still: Restrict the type of new turf to encourage or require water-conserving turf. Require a detailed description or plan for review to ensure, to the extent practicable, maximum aesthetic compatibility with other landscaping…
How it is enforced: Conflicting provisions are void. Section 202.008 is a fine bar, not a conversion right. No attorney-general action is named in these sections.
Utah
Citation: Utah Code § 57-8a-231; § 57-8a-218(15)
Turf removal: Yes, on a detached-dwelling lot. Park-strip conversion is separately protected.
What is protected: An association may not enact or enforce a governing document that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, a lot owner of a detached dwelling from incorporating water-wise landscaping on the lot. Water-wise landscaping includes plant materials suited to…
The HOA may still: Site-plan or other review before installation; a requirement to maintain plant material in a healthy condition; water-wise design requirements, including restrictions on mulches considered detrimental to association…
How it is enforced: If the association does not adopt the rules required by § 57-8a-218(15) and fails to remedy within the statutory time, a lot owner may file an action in state court for injunctive…
Washington
Turf removal: Yes: stone and landscaping rock are in the statutory definition. Synthetic turf is not named.
What is protected: Governing documents may not prohibit the installation of drought-resistant landscaping, pollinator habitat (including beehives compliant with local regulation), or wildfire-ignition-resistant landscaping. “Drought resistant landscaping” means the use of any…
The HOA may still: Reasonable rules on placement and aesthetic appearance, so long as they do not render the protected landscaping unreasonably costly or otherwise effectively infeasible. Nothing in the section restricts a fire buffer in…
How it is enforced: Governing documents may not prohibit. Drought-period fines are barred. No attorney-general action is named in these sections.
Primary-source retrieval, September 5, 2026. Full protected-use and HOA-may-still text is in the dataset module and in each official section linked from Sources. Ellipses are a display limit, not an edit of the statute.
Utah’s conversion right is for a detached dwelling. Colorado’s 20%/80%/three-designs floors are for detached single-family communities. Washington’s WUCIOA installation subsection does not apply to condominium associations; they use RCW 64.34.394 until January 1, 2028.
Where the nine actually differ
What counts as the protected landscape. California protects low-water plants as a group and, in a separate paragraph, artificial turf. Nevada’s definition includes decorative rock and artificial turf. Washington’s is noninvasive dry-adapted vegetation, stone or landscaping rock; synthetic turf is not named.
Florida protects Florida-friendly landscaping as defined in § 373.185: a quality landscape that conserves water, is drought tolerant and follows listed principles. UF/IFAS’s recognition checklist, at retrieval, treated predominantly rock, mulch, shell or artificial turf as ineligible for its program badge. HyreYard reading: Florida is not a rock-yard statute.
Whether the association may still demand a plan. Texas § 202.007(d)(8) lets the association require a plan for aesthetic compatibility, and (d-1) says it may not unreasonably deny it or unreasonably call it incompatible.
Nevada requires plans where the documents provide architectural review, and tells the board to construe the section liberally. Utah allows site-plan review and water-wise design requirements. Colorado, after SB 23-178, requires detached-home associations to pre-approve at least three water-wise front-yard designs. In these states a plan requirement is not a veto.
Brown lawns versus removed lawns. California § 4735(c) bars drought-emergency watering fines, and (e) lets emergency conversions stay afterward. Texas § 202.008, effective September 1, 2025, bars fines for a green-turf covenant during a residential watering restriction and for 60 days after it lifts.
Washington and North Carolina bar drought-period watering fines; Oregon voids irrigation mandates during a listed drought. Apart from California’s (e) and the nine conversion statutes, none of these brown-lawn rules is a right to take the turf out.
Who can sue. Several of the nine work by making the conflicting provision void or unenforceable. Utah writes a lot-owner action in state court, with injunctive relief, if the association fails to adopt the water-wise rules § 57-8a-218(15) requires.
Arizona’s artificial-turf statute awards attorney fees to the prevailing party. We did not find an attorney-general enforcement hook in the landscaping sections themselves.
Municipal overlays the state table does not capture
A city can bind HOAs even where the state does not, and a state water-code rule can bind HOA common areas without touching a homeowner’s exclusive-use yard. These four are the municipal or common-area add-ons we verified. They are not a national city survey.
| Place | Citation | What it adds |
|---|---|---|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | Albuquerque Code of Ordinances § 6-1-1-8(C) | A property holders’ association shall not enforce a covenant that prohibits or restricts removing turf grass and installing xeriscape in compliance with the city’s planting restrictions, installing efficient irrigation including underground drip, or using rain barrels (with public-health caveats). The association may set efficiency criteria but cannot require a higher high-water turf share than the city cap. |
| Bernalillo County, New Mexico | Bernalillo County Code § 30-241 | Restrictive covenants that require turf grass or other high-water-use plants, or that otherwise restrict, limit or increase the cost of xeriscaping, efficient irrigation or water conservation, are contrary to public policy. |
| San Antonio, Texas | San Antonio City Code § 34-275(8) | A dedicatory instrument may not require the installation of an irrigation system, and may not require turfgrass to be planted or irrigated. This sits on top of Tex. Prop. Code § 202.007, not instead of it. |
| California (statewide, common areas) | Cal. Water Code § 10608.14 (AB 1572, 2023) | Potable irrigation of nonfunctional turf on HOA and common-interest-development common areas is prohibited beginning January 1, 2029. The section does not apply to exclusive-use residential yards and does not require the turf to be removed: it requires the potable irrigation to stop. Civil penalties for Water Code violations can reach $1,000 per day under § 1846. |
Retrieved September 5, 2026. Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles and other conservation cities were not read for this table and are not implied.
New Mexico’s statewide Homeowner Association Act (NMSA 1978, ch. 47, art. 16) has no xeriscape section. A blog that cites “NMSA 47-16 Right to Xeriscape” is citing a section that does not exist. Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are doing that work locally.
The 37 “none found” states, and the five with something to note
The 13 states with an HOA landscaping statute are in the two tables above. In the other 37 we found no statewide HOA landscaping override as of September 5, 2026. These five have a bill, a city rule or a near miss worth knowing.
| State | What we found | Finding | Against an HOA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho | Idaho Code §§ 55-3201–55-3213 (Homeowner’s Association Act): no landscaping section | No statewide HOA preemption found: 2024 grass-lawn bill died | No statewide right found |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 412.925 | Cities cannot ban managed natural landscapes; HOAs are not covered | Against the city, yes. Against an HOA, no statewide right found. |
| New Mexico | NMSA 1978, §§ 47-16-1 to 47-16-18 (Homeowner Association Act): no xeriscape section | No statewide HOA preemption found; Albuquerque and Bernalillo County add their own | No statewide right. Yes inside Albuquerque city limits under § 6-1-1-8(C), and Bernalillo County treats conflicting covenants as contrary to public policy. |
| New York | S. 7358 / A. 1890 (2025), Low Impact Landscaping Rights Act: vetoed October 16, 2025 (veto memo 37) | No statewide HOA preemption: 2025 bill passed and was vetoed | No statewide right found |
| Virginia | HB 528 (2024 session, continued to 2025): left in General Laws, November 18, 2024 | No statewide HOA preemption: conservation-landscaping bill failed | No statewide right found |
HyreYard 50-state statutory dataset, retrieved September 5, 2026: 9 drought-tolerant HOA preemptions, 4 related HOA statutes, 37 gaps. A gap is a finding, not a guess.
The other 32 states with no statewide HOA landscaping law found
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
How we searched each one. Searched the state’s property, real-property, planned-community, condominium and homeowners-association chapters on the official legislature site or Justia, plus 2023–2026 session bills, for xeriscape, drought-tolerant, water-efficient, water-wise, Florida-friendly, low-impact landscaping, and HOA turf mandates. Retrieved September 5, 2026.
Terms the statutes do not treat as synonyms
- Xeriscape
- Colorado’s code still uses the word and points at the seven principles Denver Water coined: planning, soil, hydrozoning, practical turf, mulch, efficient irrigation, maintenance. It is not “zero-scape” (gravel, no plants). Several other states never use the word and still protect the thing.
- Drought-tolerant / drought-resistant / water-wise / low-water
- The statutes pick different labels. Utah defines water-wise landscaping in § 57-8a-231(1). Washington defines drought-resistant landscaping as noninvasive dry-adapted vegetation, stone or rock. California says “low water-using plants as a group.” Do not swap the labels when you quote a section.
- Florida-friendly landscaping
- Fla. Stat. § 373.185: quality landscapes that conserve water, protect the environment, are adaptable to local conditions and are drought tolerant, with a listed set of principles. It is a defined term of Florida law, not a marketing phrase, and it is not a hardscape-only conversion.
- Low-impact landscaping
- Maryland § 2-125 and Maine § 1451: techniques that conserve water, cut maintenance, prevent pollution and create habitat, including rain gardens, pollinator gardens and xeriscaping / reduced-irrigation gardening. Both statutes treat a turf-grass mandate as an unreasonable limitation.
- Nonfunctional turf
- California Water Code § 10608.12 / § 10608.14 (AB 1572): mowed grass that is not in a recreational or community-gathering area. The 2029 potable-irrigation ban applies to HOA common areas, not to a homeowner’s exclusive-use yard, and it requires the water off, not the sod out.
If a board has told you the lawn has to stay
The nine statutes recodify. Arizona’s Planned Communities Act was being cited, in 2026, to a § 33-1808.01 that does not exist: § 33-1808 is flags and signs. Open the legislature site linked in Sources.
A drought-period brown-lawn rule (Texas § 202.008, California § 4735(c), Washington, North Carolina, Oregon) is not a right to take the turf out. If the letter is about a yellow lawn during a restriction, quote the fine-bar section. If the letter is about a xeriscape plan, quote the conversion section.
Texas, Nevada, Utah and Colorado all contemplate a review. A plan that names plants, irrigation and coverage is harder to call incomplete. A weekend demolition without a submittal is the fact pattern boards win on, even in a preemption state.
Albuquerque and San Antonio add HOA limits the state table does not. A turf-rebate program is a third document: plant lists, pre-approval, photographs of living turf. The turf rebate calculator is arithmetic on a $/sf you look up. It is not an approval and HyreYard does not process rebates.
In 37 states we could not find a statewide HOA override. That means the covenants are the starting point, not that a conversion is illegal. It also means a board that says “state law requires grass” is making a claim we could not source. Ask them for the section.
Bills that look like law and are not
Passed a legislature, then died
New York. S. 7358 / A. 1890, the Low Impact Landscaping Rights Act, passed both houses in June 2025 and was vetoed on October 16, 2025 (veto memo 37).
It would have barred HOA rules that effectively prohibit pollinator, rain, habitat or native-plant gardens. A vetoed bill is not a statute, so it is not New York law.
Idaho. S. 1286 (2024) would have added a one-sentence bar on HOAs requiring a grass lawn, numbered as § 55-3213. It died. The number § 55-3213 was used instead for family daycare homes. Idaho’s Homeowner’s Association Act, through § 55-3213 as retrieved, has no landscaping-preemption section.
Introduced, then left on the table
Virginia. HB 528 (2024, continued to 2025) would have added Va. Code § 55.1-1820.2 on managed conservation landscaping and treated a turf-grass mandate as unreasonable. It was left in General Laws on November 18, 2024 and failed. A 2026 bill that reused the number HB 528 is about wrongful-death settlements, not yards.
Minnesota is the other near miss: § 412.925 is in force and requires cities to allow managed natural landscapes, but its text does not reach HOAs.
What this page is not answering
Backflow, graywater and tiered water rates are plumbing and utility questions, not this page’s. Wildfire defensible-space rules are a different family of statutes.
Washington puts wildfire-resistant landscaping in the same HOA section as drought-resistant landscaping, which is why the topics meet here; the defensible space study covers the fire side.
Whether a landscaper is licensed in your state is a different compilation. Whether a water retailer is paying for turf removal is a program, tracked on the turf-rebate programs page and worked as arithmetic on the calculator. Whether you may water this week is the restrictions tracker.
HyreYard holds a landscaper roster in seven states. This page does not use it. A statutory table titled to 50 states rests on 50 legislatures, not on our counts.
Method and limitations
Which US states currently have a statute that preempts a homeowners association, planned community or condominium association from banning drought-tolerant, water-efficient, xeriscape, Florida-friendly, water-wise or low-impact (including xeriscape) landscaping on a lot the owner controls: and, where one exists, what remains regulated and how the section is enforced.
Official legislature code sites first, each listed under Sources. Justia’s 2025 code only where the official page returned a search shell or bot challenge, and only as a display of the same text. Municipal codes: Albuquerque (American Legal), Bernalillo County (PDF), San Antonio (Municode). No blog is a primary authority here.
A state is classed “drought-tolerant HOA preemption” only if a current section, retrieved September 5, 2026, stops an association prohibiting the named water-efficient landscape type on exclusive-use property. Related statutes (native-only, artificial-turf-only, drought-irrigation-only) are listed separately so they cannot be counted as conversion rights.
Searched the state’s property, real-property, planned-community, condominium and homeowners-association chapters on the official legislature site or Justia, plus 2023–2026 session bills, for xeriscape, drought-tolerant, water-efficient, water-wise, Florida-friendly, low-impact landscaping, and HOA turf mandates.
Recodification, an unindexed session law, or a municipal-only rule we did not read can exist. A later legislature can fill a gap. That is why the retrieval date is on every row.
The municipal overlay table is four verified add-ons, not a city survey. Treating it as complete would be a national claim this research does not support.
A trial-court letter interpreting § 202.007 in one Texas county is not in this table. Statute text is. Case law can narrow or widen what a board may still demand; we have not compiled it.
A disclaimer is not a substitute for the citations. It is also not a substitute for counsel if a fine, a lien or a hearing is already in motion.
Questions
Can my HOA require grass?
Which states have an HOA xeriscape or drought-tolerant landscaping law?
Does California Civil Code 4735 let me remove my lawn?
Can a Texas HOA ban xeriscape?
Does Arizona law protect xeriscape against an HOA?
If my state is “none found,” is a native-plant yard illegal?
Is this legal advice?
Written and audited by
HyreYard Research Desk
Primary-source research, data analysis and fact checking
We are a research desk, not a landscaping company. We read the statute, the municipal code, the water-district rule or the federal soil file ourselves, and we publish the figure with the document it came from and the date we retrieved it.
Where a number cannot be traced to a primary source, we publish the shorter page and say what we could not verify. This desk is new.
The counts below are what we can already stand behind, and every one of them is counted from the studies on this site.
- 255
- source documents cited, each linked
- 112
- government (.gov) domains among them
- 258
- citations carrying a retrieval date
- 10
- research studies published
How this desk works
- Primary sources only. A rule comes from the statute, ordinance, board or agency that issued it, cited by section, with the URL and the retrieval date. We do not cite a blog that cites a code.
- Coverage is a number. A table titled to fifty states has fifty sourced rows. A table of cities is titled to the cities we actually read. Gaps are published as gaps.
- Company counts stay inside seven states. Texas, Arizona, Washington, California, Oregon, Florida and North Carolina. Texas is the largest roster on the weakest evidence, a self-reported NAICS sales-tax permit, because Texas licenses no landscaper. National claims rest on federal or state agency data, never on our counts.
- Fact, calculation, analysis and recommendation stay labeled. "According to…" is a source. "HyreYard analyzed… and calculated…" is ours. "This suggests…" is interpretation. We do not present our reading as something the source stated.
- We do not landscape, irrigate, plant, cut trees or pull permits, and we take no payment for placement, ranking or a favorable mention. Nobody buys a position on this site.
Data as of State statutes and codes retrieved September 5, 2026. Authorship on this site is organizational: the analysis belongs to the desk rather than to a named individual, and we do not publish credentials we do not hold. Our editorial policy sets out how we source, date and correct what we publish.
Sources & retrieval dates
If the statute lets the lawn come out, the rebate is a separate number
A conversion right is not a cheque. If your water retailer publishes a $/sf and a cap, the calculator is arithmetic on those two figures. HyreYard does not process rebates and does not landscape.
This page is general information about state statutes and selected municipal codes, retrieved on the dates shown.
It is not legal advice, is not an opinion on any set of covenants, and is not a representation that a named association is violating the law.
HyreYard does not perform landscaping, irrigation, permit or legal work and has no commercial relationship with any legislature, water retailer or association named here.