▸ Missouri HOA Solar Law · RSMo 442.404

Your Missouri HOA cannot ban your rooftop solar. Here's the law, in plain English.

Missouri's solar protection statute is RSMo 442.404, enacted by Senate Bill 820 in 2022 and effective January 1, 2023. On January 23, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n that this protection applies retroactively to all covenants, including those recorded before the statute existed, and that HOA rules requiring rear-only solar panel placement are unenforceable. Written by an installer who handles HOA submission packets every week.

Quick facts on Missouri HOA solar law

Governing Statute RSMo 442.404.3

Original Bill Senate Bill 820 (2022)

Effective Date January 1, 2023

Retroactive? Yes (Eikmeier 2026)

Outright bans on solar Unenforceable

Rear-only placement rules Unenforceable when costly

Reasonable HOA rules Permitted

Applies to condos? No (homeowner roofs only)

Written by Joshua Hayeslip · Co-Founder, Solar Assure

Last updated April 26, 2026 ~12 min read

The short answer

Can a Missouri HOA actually stop me from installing solar?

No. Under RSMo 442.404.3(1), Missouri prohibits any deed restriction, covenant, or similar binding agreement from limiting or prohibiting solar panel installation on a rooftop the homeowner owns and maintains. The Missouri Supreme Court confirmed unanimously in Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n (Mo. banc Jan. 23, 2026) that this protection applies to all covenants regardless of recording date. Even pre-2003 subdivision CCRs explicitly banning solar are unenforceable as a matter of Missouri law.

The story most aggregator websites are still telling about Missouri HOA solar law is at least one year out of date. The protection has been on the books since January 2023, but the legal community spent two years arguing whether the statute applied to subdivisions whose covenants were recorded before that effective date. In January 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court resolved the question in favor of homeowners. RSMo 442.404 is now well-settled law and the Eikmeier ruling makes enforcement clear and predictable.

That said, the protection is not unlimited. HOAs retain authority to adopt reasonable placement rules and to require architectural review applications. The rest of this guide covers what HOAs can and cannot do, the four-part test the Eikmeier court applied to invalidate the rear-only rule, and the practical process for handling architectural review in any Missouri deed-restricted community.

The statute

RSMo 442.404.3, verbatim.

The Missouri solar protection is one of the strongest rooftop solar statutes in the country. The full text is short. Here it is.

RSMo 442.404.3 · Effective January 1, 2023

Solar panels and solar collectors

(1) No deed restrictions, covenants, or similar binding agreements running with the land shall limit or prohibit, or have the effect of limiting or prohibiting, the installation of solar panels or solar collectors on the rooftop of any property or structure. RSMo 442.404.3(1)

(2) A homeowners' association may adopt reasonable rules, subject to any applicable statutes or ordinances, regarding the placement of solar panels or solar collectors to the extent that those rules do not prevent the installation of the device, impair the functioning of the device, restrict the use of the device, or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device. RSMo 442.404.3(2)

(3) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only with regard to rooftops that are owned, controlled, and maintained by the owner of the individual property or structure. RSMo 442.404.3(3)

Three things to notice in the statutory text. First, subsection (1) prohibits not just outright bans but covenants that have the effect of limiting or prohibiting solar. This is the language that defeats indirect bans (rear-only rules, color restrictions that require non-existent equipment, fees that make installation uneconomic). Second, subsection (2) gives HOAs explicit authority to adopt reasonable placement rules, subject to a four-part test. Third, subsection (3) limits the protection to rooftops owned, controlled, and maintained by the homeowner, which is what excludes condominiums (where the association owns the roof) and rooftops the HOA maintains.

The bill that created RSMo 442.404.3 was Senate Bill 820, sponsored by then-State Senator Eric Burlison (now U.S. Congressman). An amendment by Senator Karla May added the four-month delay between Governor Mike Parson's June 29, 2022 signature and the January 1, 2023 effective date. The Missouri Supreme Court would later reference this delay in the Eikmeier ruling as evidence that the legislature intended the statute to apply to existing covenants, since the delay was designed to give HOAs time to come into compliance with their existing CCRs.

Eikmeier v. Granite Springs

The January 2026 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that strengthened the law.

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Robin Ransom, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed a lower court and held two things that homeowners and HOAs needed clarified. First, the statute applies retroactively. Second, rear-only panel rules are unenforceable when they reduce production and increase cost.

The case is Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2026 WL 202043 (Mo. banc Jan. 23, 2026). Colleen Eikmeier and William Love purchased a lot in the Granite Springs subdivision in Greene County. The subdivision's CCRs, recorded in 2003, included a provision that banned attachment to residences of "television, radio, citizens band, short wave or other antenna, nor any satellite dish greater than 18 inches in diameter, solar panel, clothesline or pole, or other unsightly projection." After RSMo 442.404 took effect in January 2023, the homeowners attempted to work with the HOA to lift the restriction. The HOA initially refused outright, then offered a partial concession: panels would be permitted only on the rear, non-street-facing portions of the roof.

The homeowners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Greene County Circuit Court ruled against them, holding that RSMo 442.404 applied only to covenants created after the January 1, 2023 effective date. The homeowners appealed.

Missouri Supreme Court holding (January 23, 2026): The unanimous court reversed and entered judgment for the homeowners on both issues.

(1) Retroactivity: RSMo 442.404.3 applies to all covenants, including those recorded before January 1, 2023. The four-month delay between signing and effective date showed legislative intent that HOAs use the window to update existing covenants. The statute does not violate Article I Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution (which prohibits retrospective laws and impairment of contracts) because Missouri's public policy of promoting solar energy adoption justifies the impact.

(2) Rear-only panel rules: The HOA's restriction permitting panels only on non-street-facing roofs adversely affects cost and efficiency under RSMo 442.404.3(2) and is therefore unenforceable. The homeowners' evidence (uncontradicted by the HOA) showed the rear-only placement reduced annual production from 11,492 kWh to 8,741 kWh (a 24 percent reduction) and would require a 32 percent larger system to achieve equivalent output, adding approximately 17,000 dollars in cost.

The opinion is authoritative for all Missouri HOAs and applies statewide. Renew Missouri (the nonprofit that represented the homeowners) called it "a decisive win for property rights." Solar Assure has not had a Missouri HOA case escalate to litigation since the ruling came down. Citing the statute and the Eikmeier ruling in HOA correspondence almost always resolves the matter without further dispute.

The four-part test

When does an HOA rule cross the line into "effective ban"?

RSMo 442.404.3(2) gives HOAs authority to adopt reasonable placement rules. The same subsection sets four limits. If a rule fails any of these tests, it is unenforceable.

Does it prevent installation?

Any rule that has the practical effect of stopping installation altogether fails this test, regardless of whether it explicitly bans solar. Rules requiring impossible equipment specifications, prohibitive bonding amounts, or unobtainable contractor certifications are effective bans.

Does it impair functioning?

Rules requiring shading, blocking, or covering of panels fail this test. Rules requiring non-functional equipment substitutes (decorative panels instead of producing panels) also fail. The statute protects the system's actual operation, not just its physical presence.

Does it restrict use?

Rules limiting hours of operation, requiring shutdown during peak times, or restricting connection to the home's electrical system fail this test. The statute protects the homeowner's right to use the device, not just to install it.

Does it adversely affect cost or efficiency?

This is the test the Eikmeier court applied. If a rule significantly increases system cost, requires a larger system to achieve equivalent output, or measurably reduces production, the rule fails. The 24 percent production reduction and 32 percent system size increase in Eikmeier were enough to invalidate the rear-only rule.

In practice, the fourth test is the one HOA disputes typically turn on. HOAs rarely impose explicit bans anymore. Those are too clearly unenforceable. The remaining battleground is HOAs trying to limit panel placement to the least-visible portions of the roof, even when those positions reduce output. The Eikmeier ruling makes clear that quantifiable production losses (which Solar Assure can model with Aurora Solar precision) are sufficient evidence to invalidate the rule.

What HOAs CAN do

Reasonable HOA rules are still allowed.

RSMo 442.404 does not strip HOAs of all authority over solar installations. The statute carves out reasonable placement rules. Here is what that looks like in practice.

HOA rule type	Generally permitted?	Notes
Architectural review committee submission	Yes	HOA can require homeowners to submit plans before installation. Review process must be reasonable and timely.
Reasonable processing fee	Yes (modest)	Fees comparable to those charged for other architectural reviews are permissible. Solar-specific premium fees are not.
Match panel color to roof color	Yes (when feasible)	Modern panels come in black-on-black and lighter colors. Color-match rules are permissible if comparable equipment is reasonably available.
Conduit color and routing standards	Yes	HOA can require conduit be painted to match siding, routed in less visible paths, etc. as long as cost impact is minimal.
Setback from roof edges	Yes (small setbacks)	Reasonable setbacks for fire access (3 feet from ridge) are typically required by code anyway.
Outright ban on solar panels	No	Direct ban violates 442.404.3(1) regardless of when CCRs were recorded.
Rear-only or non-street-facing rule	No (when costly)	Eikmeier struck this down where it caused 24% production loss and 32% system upsize.
Solar-specific premium fees	No	Fees not charged for comparable reviews fail the cost test.
Production limits or shutdown rules	No	Restricting use or impairing function violates 442.404.3(2).
Required equipment from approved-vendor list	Depends	Permissible only if list is reasonable, includes multiple options, and does not increase cost.
Required bonding or insurance beyond standard	Depends	Standard contractor liability insurance is fine. Solar-specific surety bonds are typically not.
Removal at sale or end of system life	Depends	Removal at end of life is reasonable. Removal at sale would likely fail the cost test.

What's NOT covered

Three situations where RSMo 442.404 does not protect you.

The statute is broad but not universal. These three categories of solar installations fall outside its protection.

Limit 1: Condominiums. RSMo 442.404.3(3) applies only to rooftops "owned, controlled, and maintained by the owner of the individual property or structure." In a condominium, the building roof is typically common element owned by the condominium association under the Missouri Uniform Condominium Act (RSMo Chapter 448), not by the individual unit owner. Condo solar must be negotiated within the condo declaration's framework, which generally permits the board broader authority over roof modifications. The handful of Missouri condo communities that have permitted unit-owner rooftop solar usually require formal declaration amendments and shared-cost or shared-benefit arrangements.

Limit 2: HOA-maintained roofs. Some single-family planned communities (especially "patio home" or "villa" developments) include CCRs under which the HOA maintains the roofs of all units in exchange for a monthly assessment. If your HOA, not you, is responsible for roof repair and replacement, RSMo 442.404.3(3) does not apply. Read your CCRs carefully. The relevant question is who owns, controls, AND maintains the rooftop. All three must be the homeowner for the protection to apply.

Limit 3: Ground-mount solar. The statutory text at RSMo 442.404.3(1) refers specifically to "the installation of solar panels or solar collectors on the rooftop of any property or structure." Ground-mount solar arrays are not covered. They remain subject to whatever HOA covenants and deed restrictions apply to ground installations and outbuildings. For nearly all Missouri suburban subdivision lots this is moot. Ground-mount is impractical due to lot size, shading, and aesthetic restrictions on outbuildings. Rooftop is the only realistic option, and rooftop is fully protected.

How to handle it

Six steps for navigating the HOA architectural review.

The process below assumes you are working with a Missouri-licensed installer like Solar Assure that prepares the architectural review packet on your behalf. If you are handling paperwork yourself, expect to add 2 to 4 weeks per step.

Read your CCRs and architectural review guidelines

Pull your subdivision's recorded CCRs and any HOA architectural review guidelines. Note any solar language, generic exterior modification language, and the architectural review process and timelines. If the CCRs flatly ban solar, that ban is unenforceable under RSMo 442.404.3(1) and Eikmeier.

Prepare the architectural review packet

The packet should include site plan with panel placement, elevation drawings showing visibility, panel and inverter specifications, conduit routing, anchoring details, and a cover letter citing RSMo 442.404. Solar Assure prepares this for our customers. Submit through the HOA's stated process with a copy to yourself.

Track the response timeline

Calendar the deemed-approval timeline if your CCRs include one (commonly 30, 45, or 60 days). RSMo 442.404 itself does not impose a deadline. If the HOA does not respond, send written follow-up that you will proceed under the deemed-approval clause.

If approved, proceed with installation

Save the approval letter in the home's records. The approval transfers with the home if sold. Begin utility interconnection under RSMo 386.890; HOA approval does not replace municipal permits or the utility's net metering application.

If pushed back, evaluate against the four-part test

If the HOA proposes restrictions, evaluate them against the four-part test from RSMo 442.404.3(2). Document any production loss, cost increase, or efficiency reduction with calculated numbers (Solar Assure provides Aurora Solar production modeling). Respond formally citing the statute and Eikmeier.

If the HOA refuses to comply, escalate

Renew Missouri maintains a list of Missouri attorneys familiar with RSMo 442.404 disputes. Most HOA solar disputes now resolve quickly once Eikmeier is cited. Solar Assure has not had a Missouri customer case escalate beyond initial correspondence since January 2026.

Worked example

A Chesterfield homeowner with a 2003 deed restriction.

Below is a typical scenario for a Solar Assure customer in a deed-restricted west St. Louis County community. Numbers approximate.

10 kW Ameren residential install · Chesterfield · 2003 CCRs banning solar

System size10,000 watts (10 kW DC)

Solar Assure price at $2.70/watt$27,000.00

Midas Wealth 25% check (after install)−$6,750.00

Net cost to homeowner$20,250.00

The CCRs explicitly ban solar. Pre-2023, the homeowner would have had to either negotiate an HOA amendment (typically requiring 2/3 to 3/4 owner approval and often impossible to achieve) or skip solar entirely. After RSMo 442.404 took effect in January 2023, the homeowner's lawyer would have argued the ban is void for new installations. Pre-Eikmeier (before January 2026), some HOAs took the position the statute did not apply to pre-2023 covenants. After Eikmeier, that argument is no longer available.

Step 1: Architectural review submission~$50-150 fee

Step 2: HOA review window30-60 days

Step 3: HOA approves (with cite to RSMo 442.404 and Eikmeier)Typical outcome

Step 4: Permits + interconnection (handled by Solar Assure)2-4 weeks

Step 5: Installation + Ameren PTO1-2 days install

In practice, since Eikmeier came down in January 2026, the typical Solar Assure customer in a Chesterfield, Wildwood, Town and Country, or Frontenac HOA-restricted community sees architectural review approval within 30-45 days, with no production-reducing placement restrictions imposed. If a more aggressive HOA initially pushes back, citing the statute and the ruling resolves the matter. We have not had a Missouri customer case escalate beyond initial correspondence since the ruling.

Missouri vs Kansas

How Missouri's HOA solar law compares to Kansas.

Both states protect homeowner rooftop solar from HOA interference. The structural protections are similar; the case law histories are different.

Aspect	Missouri	Kansas
Governing statute	RSMo 442.404.3	None at state level
Originating bill	Senate Bill 820 (2022)	HB 2268 (2024) and SB 506/144 failed
Effective date of current text	January 1, 2023	n/a (no statute)
Outright bans on solar	Unenforceable	Enforceable (no state preemption)
Reasonable HOA placement rules	Allowed (statute)	Allowed (HOA discretion)
Effective bans (rear-only, etc.)	Unenforceable per Eikmeier	Generally enforceable
Statute applies to existing covenants?	Yes (Eikmeier 2026)	n/a (no statute)
Apply to condos?	No	n/a (no statute)
Apply to ground-mount?	No (rooftop only)	n/a (no statute)
Court-tested?	Yes (Eikmeier 2026)	n/a (no statute)

Missouri offers significantly stronger HOA solar protection than Kansas. Missouri homeowners benefit from RSMo 442.404 and the unanimous 2026 Eikmeier ruling. Kansas homeowners have no state-level statute and must negotiate within their HOA's CCRs. Three Kansas bills (HB 2268 in 2024, SB 506 in 2024, SB 144 in 2025-26) have proposed creating a similar protection, but none have passed. For Kansas-specific HOA solar guidance and practical strategies, our Kansas HOA solar guide covers the situation in detail.

FAQ

Common Missouri HOA solar questions.

Twelve questions Missouri homeowners ask us most often about HOA solar rights.

Can my HOA in Missouri ban solar panels?

No. Under RSMo 442.404.3(1), no deed restriction, covenant, or similar binding agreement can limit or prohibit, or have the effect of limiting or prohibiting, the installation of solar panels or solar collectors on the rooftop of a property the homeowner owns, controls, and maintains. The Missouri Supreme Court confirmed unanimously in Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n (Mo. banc Jan. 23, 2026) that this protection applies to ALL covenants, including those recorded before the statute's January 1, 2023 effective date. Even if your subdivision's CCRs predate 2023 and explicitly ban solar, the ban is unenforceable as a matter of Missouri law.

What is RSMo 442.404?

RSMo 442.404 is the Missouri statute governing several deed-restriction protections, including political signs, sale signs, solar panels, and chickens. The solar provisions are at subsection 3 (RSMo 442.404.3). The solar protections were created by Senate Bill 820, sponsored by then-State Senator Eric Burlison, signed by Governor Mike Parson on June 29, 2022, with a four-month delay before the January 1, 2023 effective date intended to give HOAs time to update their covenants and adopt reasonable rules. The statute is the primary residential solar protection in Missouri and applies statewide to all subdivisions, planned communities, and HOA-governed properties.

What did the Missouri Supreme Court decide in Eikmeier v. Granite Springs?

In Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2026 WL 202043 (Mo. banc Jan. 23, 2026), the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously held two things. First, RSMo 442.404.3 applies to all covenants regardless of when they were recorded, including covenants in place before the statute's January 1, 2023 effective date. Second, an HOA rule requiring solar panels be placed only on rear, non-street-facing portions of the roof is unenforceable when the rule adversely affects the system's cost or efficiency. In the Eikmeier case, the homeowners proved that the rear-only placement reduced annual production from 11,492 kWh to 8,741 kWh (a 24 percent reduction), required a 32 percent larger system to achieve the same output, and added approximately 17,000 dollars in cost. The HOA offered no evidence to rebut these numbers. The opinion was written by Justice Robin Ransom.

What CAN my HOA still do about solar panels under RSMo 442.404?

Under RSMo 442.404.3(2), an HOA may adopt reasonable rules regarding the placement of solar panels, provided the rules do not (a) prevent the installation of the device, (b) impair the functioning of the device, (c) restrict the use of the device, or (d) adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device. In practice this means HOAs can require an architectural review committee application, can require panels match common roof colors where multiple options exist, can require conduit be routed in less visible paths where this does not increase cost, can require proper anchoring and venting consistent with neighborhood standards, and can require submission of plans before installation. What HOAs cannot do is adopt rules that have the practical effect of significantly reducing system size, output, or efficiency.

Does RSMo 442.404 apply to condominiums in Missouri?

No. RSMo 442.404.3(3) explicitly limits the solar protection to rooftops that are "owned, controlled, and maintained by the owner of the individual property or structure." Condominium roofs are typically owned and maintained by the condominium association as common element under the Missouri Uniform Condominium Act (RSMo Chapter 448), so RSMo 442.404.3 does not apply. Condominium owners who want solar must work within the framework of their condo declaration and Missouri condo law, which generally permits the condo board broader authority over roof modifications. Single-family homes in HOA-governed subdivisions are protected by RSMo 442.404.3 even if they share an HOA. The test is whether the homeowner owns and maintains the rooftop, not whether the property is in a planned community.

Does RSMo 442.404 cover ground-mount solar systems?

No. The statutory text at RSMo 442.404.3(1) refers specifically to "the installation of solar panels or solar collectors on the rooftop of any property or structure." Ground-mount solar arrays are not covered by the statute and remain subject to whatever HOA covenants and deed restrictions apply to ground installations and outbuildings. For most Missouri suburban subdivision lots, ground-mount is impractical anyway due to lot size and shade, and rooftop is the only realistic option. Solar Assure quotes ground-mount only for rural properties without HOAs and for unusual roof situations where rooftop placement is genuinely infeasible.

What if my HOA approved my solar plan but is now trying to revoke approval?

Once an HOA grants written architectural review approval, the homeowner has a strong contract-based reliance argument against later revocation, separate from RSMo 442.404. If the HOA's revocation argument is essentially a re-interpretation of its own existing covenants (rather than a properly adopted new rule), the revocation is likely both contractually and statutorily invalid. If the HOA has properly adopted new placement rules under RSMo 442.404.3(2) since granting your approval, those rules cannot be applied retroactively to undo a granted approval. Document everything in writing, do not modify the planned installation based on verbal pushback, and consult a Missouri real estate attorney if the HOA persists. Solar Assure walks customers through this process when it comes up.

Does RSMo 442.404 set a deadline for HOA architectural review?

No. RSMo 442.404 does not specify a deemed-approval deadline. If your HOA fails to respond to your architectural review submission within a particular timeframe, whether that creates an automatic approval depends entirely on the language of your subdivision's CCRs and any related HOA bylaws. Many Missouri HOA documents do include 30-day, 45-day, or 60-day review windows after which the application is deemed approved by default. Check your specific subdivision documents. Solar Assure typically submits architectural review packets with a written statement that we will treat the submission as approved if no response is received within the timeframe specified by the CCRs.

Which Missouri cities have the most HOA-restricted neighborhoods?

Within Solar Assure's Missouri service area, HOA prevalence is highest in: Chesterfield (especially gated communities like Tapawingo, Forest Trails, and Country Life Acres), Wildwood, Town and Country, Frontenac, Ladue, Creve Coeur, and the higher-end Wentzville and Lake Saint Louis subdivisions. The Kansas City Missouri side has fewer single-family HOA subdivisions than the metro Kansas City Kansas side, but Brookside, Mission Hills, and Loch Lloyd contain HOA-governed communities. Cape Girardeau, Joplin, Springfield, and Jefferson City have less HOA prevalence in general. Wherever you are, RSMo 442.404 protects you and Eikmeier strengthens that protection.

How does Missouri's HOA solar law compare to Kansas?

Missouri and Kansas treat HOA solar restrictions very differently. Missouri's RSMo 442.404.3 (Senate Bill 820, 2022, effective January 1, 2023) prohibits HOAs from limiting or prohibiting rooftop solar and was unanimously confirmed retroactive by the Missouri Supreme Court in Eikmeier (January 23, 2026). Kansas, by contrast, has no state-level HOA solar protection statute. Per the Kansas Legislative Research Department, Kansas is one of 21 states without an HOA solar access law. K.S.A. 58-3801 (the Kansas Solar Easements Act of 1979) addresses solar easements between neighbors but does not cover HOA restrictions. Three bills proposing Kansas HOA solar protection (HB 2268 in 2024, SB 506 in 2024, SB 144 in 2025-26) have all failed to pass. Kansas homeowners in deed-restricted communities must negotiate within their CCRs. For Kansas-specific HOA solar guidance, read our Kansas HOA solar guide.

What if my HOA cites a "no exterior modifications" or "no roof attachments" covenant?

Generic covenants prohibiting "exterior modifications," "roof attachments," "rooftop equipment," or similar are unenforceable against solar panels under RSMo 442.404.3(1) because the statute prohibits any deed restriction that has "the effect of limiting or prohibiting" solar panel installation. The Missouri Supreme Court was explicit in Eikmeier that effective bans are treated the same as explicit bans. The Granite Springs HOA's covenant in that case did not even use the word solar. It banned "television, radio, citizens band, short wave or other antenna, nor any satellite dish greater than 18 inches in diameter, solar panel, clothesline or pole, or other unsightly projection." The Court still struck it down. If your HOA cites a generic exterior modifications rule, the rule is unenforceable as applied to solar.

Can my HOA charge me a fee for solar architectural review?

It depends on the fee. RSMo 442.404.3(2) prohibits rules that "adversely affect the cost or efficiency" of the solar device. A reasonable architectural review processing fee (typically 50 to 200 dollars in Missouri) that the HOA charges for similar reviews on other improvements is generally permissible because it does not significantly affect the cost of the system itself. A solar-specific fee that is not charged for comparable reviews would likely be challenged successfully. A high-dollar "solar premium fee" or "solar surcharge" would almost certainly fail under the cost or efficiency test established in Eikmeier. If your HOA proposes a solar-specific fee, ask in writing whether the same fee applies to other architectural review submissions of comparable scope.

Does Solar Assure handle the HOA submission for me?

Yes. For Solar Assure customers in deed-restricted communities, we prepare the complete architectural review packet, including system design with panel placement, electrical conduit routing diagram, panel and inverter specifications, color and finish details, and a cover letter that cites RSMo 442.404 and Eikmeier v. Granite Springs where appropriate. Joshua personally handles correspondence with the HOA architectural review committee on behalf of the homeowner. If the HOA pushes back with restrictions that violate RSMo 442.404.3(2), we cite the statute and the Eikmeier ruling directly. We have not had a Missouri HOA case escalate to litigation since the Eikmeier ruling came down in January 2026. The statute is now well-settled.

Have an HOA standing in the way? Let us handle it.

Solar Assure prepares HOA architectural review packets every week and handles all correspondence on the homeowner's behalf. If your HOA pushes back, we cite RSMo 442.404 and Eikmeier directly. No homeowner has had to escalate beyond initial correspondence since January 2026.

Open the calculator Call (636) 679-0998

josh@solarassure.net

Written by Joshua Hayeslip Co-Founder, Solar Assure · Lake Saint Louis, Missouri

Joshua co-founded Solar Assure with his wife Tori in 2022 after a decade in solar sales and installation. He prepares HOA architectural review packets personally for Solar Assure customers in deed-restricted communities and tracks Missouri legislative and court rulings (Senate Bill 820 in 2022, Eikmeier v. Granite Springs in January 2026, federal OBBBA tax law) as they break. Reach him at josh@solarassure.net or (636) 679-0998. Read more →