Handling Architectural Review Requests: What Florida Associations Can and Can’t Do

Florida associations must review architectural requests carefully to avoid legal disputes and claims of selective enforcement. Whether it’s a homeowner replacing windows or adding a pool, the board must follow both governing documents and Florida law. Mishandled requests can result in lawsuits, unwanted precedent, or costly disputes with neighbors.

This guide outlines what HOA and condo boards in Florida can and cannot do when managing architectural modifications. If your board needs help interpreting requirements, our attorneys can guide you through Florida’s association law with clarity and compliance.

What Is an Architectural Review and Why Associations Must Follow Procedure

Architectural review refers to the board’s process for approving or denying exterior changes requested by owners. These modifications may include paint color, fences, driveways, window replacements, landscaping, or even solar panels. Most declarations or covenants require written approval before changes begin. Failure to follow procedure may subject the owner to fines—or the board to legal pushback.

Boards have the legal right to review requests, but they must apply that authority uniformly and in line with their own governing documents. If approvals are given inconsistently or delayed beyond legal timeframes, owners may claim the association is acting arbitrarily. Having a structured review process with clear documentation helps mitigate these risks.

Architectural changes often include:

• Exterior paint or finishes

• Window and door replacements

• Structural changes like additions or patios

• Landscaping, fencing, or tree removal

• Installation of solar equipment or satellite dishes

Reviewing Requests in Compliance with Governing Documents

Associations must use their declaration of covenants and architectural review standards as the foundation for evaluating requests. Many governing documents outline specific steps: submission requirements, review timelines, approval criteria, and appeal options. Boards cannot apply new rules unless properly adopted and communicated to members.

Consistency is key. Granting a fence to one owner while denying a similar request from another—without explanation—can lead to enforcement challenges. We help boards interpret their documents and develop standardized forms or checklists for fair evaluation. Any criteria used for approval must be outlined in existing policy or architectural guidelines.

Documents to review include:

• Declaration of Covenants

• Architectural review guidelines or manuals

• Board resolutions related to design or aesthetics

• Prior approved modifications for precedent

Time Limits and Response Requirements Under Florida Law

Florida law generally requires that associations respond to architectural review requests within a “reasonable time,” which courts have interpreted to be around 30 days unless the documents state otherwise. Failing to respond within the allowed period may result in automatic approval in some cases. That means inaction could force boards to accept unreviewed changes.

Boards must document both the receipt date and the response. Using a tracking system—manual or digital—helps prevent missed deadlines. We assist with drafting response templates that acknowledge receipt, request additional information if needed, and document the final outcome. Clarity and timeliness reduce the likelihood of disputes later.

Response best practices:

• Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days

• Respond formally within 30 days

• Request missing materials immediately

• Keep a dated record of each communication

Fairness, Consistency, and Avoiding Selective Enforcement Claims

Selective enforcement happens when a board applies rules to one homeowner but ignores similar infractions by others. Florida courts may find association rules unenforceable if boards cannot show consistent application. Architectural reviews are one of the most common areas where selective enforcement claims arise.

Boards should maintain a log of past approvals and denials and ensure decisions are made based on clear, objective criteria. We help associations audit prior approvals to identify inconsistencies and reduce liability going forward. Transparency in the review process protects both the board and owners from misunderstanding or mistrust.

Ways to prevent selective enforcement:

• Maintain an architectural decision log

• Require written findings for each decision

• Establish internal consistency review before voting

• Consult prior approvals for precedent

Limits on Denials: When Associations Can’t Say No

Associations cannot deny requests based on personal preference or arbitrary aesthetic concerns. The denial must be tied to written standards in the governing documents. Florida law also limits the association’s ability to block certain installations—like solar panels—unless specific and valid restrictions apply.

Boards may also be required to approve changes that meet the criteria, even if individual board members dislike the look or material. We review architectural guidelines to ensure they are enforceable under Florida law and recommend updates when they are vague or outdated. Vague rules make denials difficult to justify in court.

Boards cannot deny requests for:

• Reasonable modifications protected under federal law (e.g., ADA adjustments)

• Solar panel installations without valid restrictions

• Requests that meet all published criteria

• Changes previously approved for other owners under similar conditions

Documenting Decisions and Communicating with Owners Properly

Boards should issue written decisions to all architectural requests, whether approved or denied. The decision should state the reason and cite the section of the governing documents that supports it. Boards must also keep copies of the request, supporting documents, and correspondence for their records.

Poor documentation is a common source of disputes. Without written proof, boards may struggle to enforce their decisions or defend against claims of misconduct. We help boards develop templates for approval and denial letters that comply with legal and policy requirements.

Include in your documentation:

• Original request and any photos or drawings

• Date of receipt and board review

• Written decision with cited policy language

• Any follow-up communication with the owner

Legal Consequences of Mishandling Architectural Requests

Boards that mismanage or ignore architectural requests can face serious legal consequences. This includes lawsuits for wrongful denials, claims of selective enforcement, or state complaints under DBPR jurisdiction. Owners may seek damages or injunctions to stop enforcement efforts.

In extreme cases, courts have ruled that boards lose their right to enforce architectural rules if they’ve failed to apply them fairly or consistently. We work with associations to prevent these outcomes by helping boards follow the proper review process and keep solid records. Prevention is significantly less costly than defending litigation.

Potential risks include:

• Loss of enforcement rights

• Court-ordered approval of denied requests

• Legal fees and damage claims

• Regulatory complaints to state agencies

How an Attorney Can Help Your Board Review and Enforce Modifications

Legal counsel plays a key role in ensuring architectural reviews are handled properly. We review governing documents, assess legal compliance, and help boards respond to challenging or complex requests. Our team also assists with revising outdated standards or writing clearer criteria to prevent future ambiguity.

If your board faces repeat disputes, unclear precedent, or conflicting approvals, legal guidance can bring your process back in line with Florida law. We also advise boards when to escalate issues or pursue enforcement options. Handling these situations early helps protect the association and homeowner relationships.

Legal support includes:

• Reviewing governing documents for enforceability

• Drafting or revising architectural guidelines

• Advising on difficult or time-sensitive requests

• Defending the board’s decisions if challenged