Can my HOA make me keep my grass?

What Utah Code § 57-8a-231 says

The load-bearing sentence is at § 57-8a-231(3)(b): "Except where reasonably necessary for erosion control, an association may not require a lot owner to install or keep in place lawn or turf in an area less than eight feet wide." That is the rule on park strips, side yards and the strip between the driveway and the fence.

Subsection (2) goes wider. 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. Read the words. It says detached dwelling. An attached townhome in a planned community is not covered by subsection (2), even though the eight-foot rule in (3)(b) still applies to every lot owner.

Subsection (3)(a) is the part boards lean on, and it is real. The association may still require site plan review, may require plants to be kept in healthy condition, and may set its own water-wise design requirements, including restrictions on mulches that harm its operations and restrictions on plant material other than water-wise plant material. Rock color, mulch type and a plant list are all still on the table.

• § 57-8a-218(15)(a): where owners maintain their own landscaping, the association "shall" adopt rules supporting water-wise landscaping.
• § 57-8a-218(15)(b): a rule may not prohibit or restrict converting a grass park strip to water-wise landscaping, may not prohibit low water use on lawns during a drought, and, as of H.B. 215 (2026), may not prohibit removing vegetation from a lot inside a designated wildland-urban interface area.
• § 57-8a-231(4): if the association fails to adopt the rules required by § 57-8a-218(15) within 90 days of written notice, an owner may sue for injunctive relief, $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus costs and attorney fees.

Condos and townhomes are under a different chapter

§ 57-8a-231 lives in Title 57, Chapter 8a, the Community Association Act. It does not apply to condominiums, which are under Chapter 8. As of May 6, 2026, condo owners have a parallel protection.

§ 57-8-8.1(8) says that for any area where unit owners, not the association, do the landscape maintenance, the association "shall adopt rules supporting water wise landscaping," "may not prohibit low water use on lawns during drought conditions," and, except where reasonably necessary for erosion control, "may not prohibit or restrict the conversion of a grass park strip of less than 8 feet wide to water-efficient landscaping." § 57-8-10(9)(c) and (d) say the same thing about what a condominium declaration may contain.

Which chapter you are under is now a bright-line test. Under § 57-8-2 and § 57-8a-103 as rewritten in 2026, the declaration controls if it says which chapter applies; if it is silent, a plat designated as a condominium plat means Chapter 8.

The city ordinance sets a ceiling of its own

Whatever your CC&Rs say, St. George City Code § 10-7-7 caps residential lawn at "eight percent (8%) of the total lot size, regardless of zoning, up to a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet for lots up to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet." Lots over 20,000 square feet may have up to 2,000 square feet. Lots under 7,500 square feet may have up to 600 square feet "even if that amount exceeds eight percent (8%) of the lot size." The code then says "Lawn is prohibited in park strips, all landscape areas less than eight feet (8') wide, and on any slope that exceeds fifteen percent (15%)." Each single-family dwelling also needs two water-conserving trees at a minimum 1½-inch caliper, and § 10-23-3 separately requires at least one water-conserving tree of that caliper in the front yard. A water-conserving tree is one on the water district's approved list or one that meets the water-wise definition in Utah Code § 10-9a-536, so it is not a closed city list.

The neighbouring towns are not copies of St. George, and the differences are checkable. Washington City has a hard ceiling St. George does not: no lot, whatever its size, may exceed 1,500 square feet of grass. Santa Clara, Hurricane and Toquerville allow 2,500. Slope limits run 15, 20 and 25 percent depending on the town. Two towns require trees at a house and four do not. Never carry one town's number to another.

Put the two layers together and you get the most useful sentence on this page: an association in St. George or Washington City cannot lawfully require more lawn than the city permits. The statute bars requiring turf in any strip under eight feet. The city bars lawn in the same strips and caps the total.

• St. George (City Code § 10-7-7, with the same standard at § 10-23-3): 8 percent of the lot, maximum 1,500 square feet up to a 20,000 square foot lot, 2,000 square feet above that, 600 square feet floor under 7,500. No lawn in park strips, in areas under 8 feet wide, or on slopes over 15 percent. Two water-conserving trees at 1½-inch caliper, one of them in the front yard.
• Washington City (Ordinance 2023-29, City Code Title 8 Chapter 9, adopted 25 October 2023): 8 percent up to 1,500 square feet, 600 square feet for lots under 7,500, and "No lot, regardless of its size, may install grass areas that exceed 1,500 square feet of surface area on the lot." There is no large-lot allowance and no two-tree requirement. Grass is prohibited in park strips, in any landscape area under 8 feet wide, and on slopes over 15 percent (§ 8-9-3(ii)(A)(1)(b)). "Rehabilitated Landscaping" is defined to include "all landscaping funded in part, or completely, by Washington County Water Conservancy District's landscape conversion program," so a rebated conversion here is governed by the city code as well.
• Santa Clara (City Code Title 17 Chapter 17.92, § 17.92.030.B): 8 percent up to a maximum of 2,500 square feet, 600 square feet for lots under 7,500, and lawn prohibited in park strips, in areas under 8 feet wide, and on slopes over 20 percent. The 16 percent cap in the original February 2022 text has been repealed; cite the section, not the year.
• Hurricane (City Code Title 10 Chapter 32, § 10-32-12.B.5): 8 percent of the lot or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, 600 square feet under 7,500, no lawn less than 8 feet in any dimension or on a slope over 25 percent. No per-house tree requirement.
• La Verkin (City Code Title 8 Chapter 8, § 8-8-3-2, as amended): 600 square feet for lots up to 7,500, 8 percent from 7,500 to 25,000, and a hard 2,000 square feet above 25,000. Grass prohibited in park strips, in areas under 8 feet wide, and on slopes over 15 percent. Two water-efficient shade trees at 1½-inch caliper per single-family dwelling. The chapter does not apply city-wide, so establish which part of the city the property is in first.
• Toquerville (City Code § 10-21-5.D.7): 8 percent or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, 600 square feet under 7,500, no lawn less than 8 feet in any dimension or on a slope over 25 percent, plus at least 40 percent water-efficient vegetative cover across the landscaped area.
• Ivins: not established. The 8 percent figure in Ivins City Code § 14.11.703 is written for resort development, not for a house, and the residential standard has not been located. We publish no Ivins lawn figure.

When the rules disagree, the stricter one wins

The Washington County Water Conservancy District's Water Efficiency Standards, October 2023, contain a tiebreaker at §2: "These standards are not intended to conflict with Utah law. Any requirement in conflict with Utah law shall not apply. Where these standards conflict with a municipal ordinance or the requirements of a common interest community, the regulation providing the greatest water conservation benefit shall apply." A common interest community is an HOA. So Utah law overrides the Standards outright, and below that, where the District's standard is stricter than the association's design guideline, the District's standard applies, and where the city's ordinance is stricter still, the city's does. In St. George the 1,500 square foot cap and the 15 percent slope limit are the strictest of each pair, so those govern. Section 5 says the Standards cover "All landscape projects, including new installations and rehabilitations," so they are not a new-build rule.

The Standards have teeth. §3: "Failure to comply with these standards may result in termination or restriction of water service, assessment of fees to the property, and/or civil penalties, depending upon jurisdictional code." Loss of water service is the sharpest published consequence anywhere in this stack.

Do not assume the District's 50 percent plant coverage figure is your town's figure. Standards §5.E says "Each municipality shall establish and maintain a minimum standard for living plant cover to help mitigate heat island impacts and soil erosion," which is why the number moves from town to town. Where a municipality does set a coverage standard, Utah Code § 10-20-619(1)(e) excludes trees from it: "'Vegetative coverage' does not mean the ground level surface area covered by the exposed leaf area of a tree or trees." The District, by contrast, credits a tree at 350 square feet.

Two cities go further than the statute against HOA documents. Washington City Code § 8-9-3(iii) preempts association governing documents recorded after Ordinance 2023-29 passed on 25 October 2023 where they conflict with the city's landscape standards or have the effect of restricting compliance with them. Santa Clara City Code § 17.92.060 voids conflicting association documents recorded after that chapter passed. Both reach only documents recorded after those dates.

One separate document to know about if you are buying in a new subdivision. The District's Ultra Water Efficiency Standards of May 2025 are a stricter, largely optional standard for new development, applying to District retail customers on the regional system and where a municipality has adopted them by legislative action. Under them "Irrigated lawn is prohibited, except for community recreational facilities," and an excess water use surcharge applies above 8,000 gallons a month. They do not supersede the October 2023 Standards everywhere else, and in those subdivisions the lawn ban is usually enforced by the HOA under an easement the developer granted.

What the board still controls, and how to work with it

Site plan review is legal and normal. Coral Canyon's Design Review Committee meets the second and fourth Thursday of each month at 9 a.m.; applications are due the Friday before; homeowners are notified within 48 hours after the meeting. Staff may approve items from Coral Canyon's own pre-approved plant and paint lists, but the association's page says "a DRC form will still need to be filled out and submitted."

If a plan is denied, § 57-8a-109(4) requires the written denial to state "each governing document provision on which the association relied when denying the plan" and "the specific aspect of the proposed plan that does not conform to the specified governing document provision." A letter that says "does not meet community standards" does not meet that test. § 57-8a-109(2) adds that a plan fee may not exceed the actual cost of review.

Utah has no statutory deemed-approval rule. Some local documents have one: The Ledges at Cinder Bluffs §3.7 deems approval if the committee fails to act within 30 days; Sand Hollow Resort §3.10 runs 60 days plus a 14-day written demand. Kayenta's ACC Handbook (August 2021) says the opposite in terms: "Failure of the ACC to act within the ten (10) day period does not act as a deemed approval." Read your own document, with its revision date.

New rules have a procedure too. Under § 57-8a-217 the board must give owners 15 days' notice and hold an open forum before adopting a rule or design criterion, and owners holding 51 percent of voting interests can disapprove it at a special meeting within 60 days.

If the board says no anyway

The water district will write to them. Its FAQ says: "If your homeowners' association (HOA) compels you to have grass, email us at conservation@wcwcd.org. We will take reasonable steps to communicate with your HOA and ensure that they are aware of applicable state and local laws." The same FAQ adds that associations "may still have authority to enforce design standards for water efficient landscape."

The Office of the Homeowners' Association Ombudsman, Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 79, in the Department of Commerce, takes requests for advisory opinions at (801) 530-6670, weekdays 8 to 5. Know its limits. It issues opinions "only for issues relating to a violation of a state statute," and § 13-79-103(5) bars it from interpreting governing documents or deciding whether a rule is reasonable. The fee is $150, nonrefundable; you must file within one year and exhaust the dispute procedures in your governing documents first. An opinion is not binding, but under § 13-79-104(10) a court that later agrees with it may award attorney fees and, for a knowing violation, a civil penalty of up to $5,000. One published 2026 opinion took about three months. More than one online summary cites the wrong chapter number for this office; it is Chapter 79.

More under water-wise landscape

• Artificial turf, measured: 200 degrees on a 98 degree day
• Defensible space, water savings and your wildfire fee
• Getting a Level 2 charger installed here