What the board can actually require
In most communities, yes to both. If your declaration requires architectural approval before exterior modifications, a completed project with no application on file is a violation, and the board can generally require the owner either to submit for approval after the fact or to bring the property back into compliance, which may mean removal. But the order of operations matters more here than in almost any other enforcement scenario. Boards that document promptly, send a specific written notice, offer a retroactive-application window, and review the work on its merits are in a strong position. Boards that skip straight to a removal demand, or that sit on a known violation for years, often lose the remedy they wanted most.
This guide walks the workflow using a common example: an owner builds a six-foot cedar privacy fence over a holiday weekend, no application on file, and a neighbor emails the board Monday morning.
One fence, two problems: ARC and enforcement at once
A completed, unapproved modification is two cases in one. It is an architectural matter, because someone still has to decide whether the fence would have been approvable at all — height, materials, placement, effect on neighbors. And it is a violation, because the owner skipped a step the governing documents require. Treating it as only one or the other causes most of the trouble. A board that handles it purely as a design conversation quietly waives the approval requirement for everyone watching. A board that handles it purely as a violation, refusing to look at the fence itself, risks a decision a court will call arbitrary.
The workable framing is this: the missing application is the violation you enforce; the fence itself gets the same architectural review it would have gotten if the owner had applied on time. Keep those two tracks visibly separate in your notices and minutes, and each one holds up on its own.
The workflow when you find completed, unapproved work
Here is the sequence experienced boards follow, and how it plays out with the fence. The neighbor's email arrives Monday; a board member walks past Tuesday and photographs the fence from the sidewalk, noting the date, the approximate height, and the materials. A records check confirms no application was ever filed. The first notice goes out that week — not a fine, but a written statement that the fence violates the prior-approval requirement in the declaration, with an invitation to submit a retroactive application within thirty days or restore the yard to its prior condition. Several states make parts of this sequence mandatory, as the state-requirements table later in this guide shows; even where it is not mandatory, it is the version of events you want in front of a judge.
Note where fines sit: at the end, not the beginning. Texas bars fining an owner who cures within a reasonable period after notice, and Nevada and Virginia require a hearing before any fine lands. A retroactive application window is a cure opportunity, and most owners take it.
1. Discover — log the date the board first learned of the work. 2. Document — photograph from the street or common area; note dimensions, materials, and location. 3. Check the record — confirm no application was filed or approved, and save that confirmation. 4. Send written notice — cite the specific governing-document provision requiring prior approval; use tracked delivery where your state requires it. 5. Offer a retroactive-application window — typically 14 to 30 days to submit the existing work for review. 6. Review as if submitted on time — same standards, same criteria, documented reasoning. 7. Decide — approve, approve with conditions, or deny in writing with specific reasons and a cure path (modify or remove). 8. Escalate only per your adopted ladder — with a hearing before fines where state law requires one.
Review the retroactive application as if it were on time
The instinct to deny the application as a penalty for skipping approval is understandable and, at least in California, unlawful. Under Ironwood Owners Association IX v. Solomon and Civil Code section 4765, an association cannot deny an after-the-fact application, or obtain a removal injunction, merely because the owner built first and asked later. It must review the completed work on the usual merits — impact on the common area, neighbors, and the community — and show its decision was reasonable, made in good faith, and not arbitrary, with any disapproval delivered in writing, with reasons, and with a reconsideration procedure. Florida points the same direction: architectural decisions must reasonably and equitably apply the association's adopted written standards, and a denial must state with specificity the rule relied on and the specific aspect of the improvement that does not conform.
Outside those states, the same-standard review is best practice rather than statute, and practitioners describe the dynamic honestly from both sides. The owner has less leverage than a prospective applicant, because the board can lawfully treat the situation as a violation rather than a design negotiation. But the board's discretion runs to the merits only: if the six-foot cedar fence matches ten approved fences on the same street, denying it because of the paperwork failure is the kind of decision that reads as punitive. If it exceeds your published height limit, deny it on that ground, say so specifically, and pair the denial with a cure path — modify to conform, or remove.
Washington adds a recordkeeping obligation worth adopting everywhere: associations under its Homeowners' Association Act must retain for seven years the materials the board or committee relied on both for architectural decisions and for decisions to enforce. Keep the photos, the application, the criteria you applied, and the written decision together in one file.
When a removal demand holds up — and when waiting costs you
Removal is a real remedy. A homeowner who built a nonpermitted structure such as a fence that is too tall or made from the wrong materials has a good chance of being ordered to take it down, and if a court sides with the association the owner can face an injunction requiring removal at their own expense, a bill for the association's attorney fees, and in the worst cases a lien for unpaid fines. That is precisely why the remedy deserves a clean procedural record behind it.
The clean record erodes with delay. The laches defense to a removal demand has two elements: unreasonable delay by an association that knew or should have known of the violation, and prejudice from the owner's detrimental reliance. Mere passage of time is not enough — but an association that ignores an unapproved improvement for several years while the owner invests significant time and money may be barred from later demanding removal. Waiver is the related risk: if the association enforces a restriction only against some owners, or previously permitted the same conduct, a court can find it has effectively waived its enforcement rights. Our guide on selective enforcement covers how boards protect themselves on that front.
Colorado turns the soft doctrine into a hard deadline: a one-year statute of limitations bars any action to enforce a building restriction or compel removal of an improvement, running from when the association knew or with reasonable diligence should have known of the violation. Most states have no bright line, which cuts the other way — the risk of waiting is real but unpredictable. Either way, the practical lesson is the same: discover, document, and notice promptly. The date you first knew is a fact you want to control, not reconstruct.
State requirements at a glance
The table below collects the state statutes most relevant to a retroactive-approval-or-removal case, current as of July 2026. If your state is not listed, that generally means the process comes from your declaration, bylaws, and adopted enforcement policy rather than a statute — follow your documents exactly, since they are what a court will hold you to.
This table is operational guidance, not legal advice. Statutes change, and several states have amended their community-association laws recently. Verify the current statutory text and consult association counsel before relying on any row here in an actual enforcement matter.
| State | What the statute requires | Statute / authority |
|---|---|---|
| California | The association cannot deny an after-the-fact architectural application, or obtain a removal injunction, merely because the owner built without prior approval; it must review the completed work on the merits (impact on common area, neighbors, community) and show its decision was reasonable, in good faith, and not arbitrary. Any disapproval must be in writing with reasons and a board-reconsideration procedure. | Cal. Civ. Code § 4765; Ironwood Owners Ass'n IX v. Solomon, 178 Cal.App.3d 766 (1986) |
| Florida | Architectural decisions must reasonably and equitably apply the association's adopted written standards; any denial must state with specificity the rule or covenant relied upon and the specific aspect of the proposed improvement that does not conform. | Fla. Stat. § 720.3035 |
| Colorado | A one-year statute of limitations bars any action to enforce a building restriction or to compel removal of a building or improvement, running from when the association knew or, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the violation. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33.3-123(2) |
| Arizona | Before enforcing the community documents (including collecting attorney fees), the association must send written violation notice; the owner may respond by certified mail within 21 days, the association must reply within 10 business days, and enforcement is barred until that exchange runs. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1803 |
| Nevada | Before imposing a fine for a violation, including an unapproved modification, the board must give written notice and hold a hearing at which the owner has a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard, unless the right is waived; association rules must also be reasonable and enforced uniformly. | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 116.31031, 116.31065 |
| Virginia | Before enforcing a violation the association must give written notice and time to cure; if uncorrected, the owner is entitled to a hearing before the board with at least 14 days' notice and the right to counsel, and a written decision must be delivered within 7 days of the hearing. | Va. Code § 55.1-1819 |
| Washington | For associations under the Homeowners' Association Act (those not subject to WUCIOA, Ch. 64.90), the association must retain for seven years the materials the board or any committee relied upon both to approve or deny design/architectural requests and to decide to enforce the governing documents. | Wash. Rev. Code § 64.38.045(4) |
| Texas | Before suing, fining, or suspending common-area rights over a violation, the association must send written notice by verified mail (certified, registered, or other tracked delivery); if the violation is curable and not a health or safety threat, it must allow a reasonable cure period and may not fine an owner who cures in time, unless the owner received such notice for the same type of violation within the preceding six months. | Tex. Prop. Code § 209.006 |
A notice letter that opens the retroactive door
The first notice should do three things: identify the violation with the specific provision it breaches, invite a retroactive application on a stated deadline, and name the alternative cure. Adapt the template below to your documents and your state's delivery requirements — Texas requires verified mail, and Arizona's response timeline should be honored wherever you operate there. For the mechanics of sending and logging notices generally, see our guide on how to send an HOA violation notice.
[ASSOCIATION NAME] [DATE] Sent via [DELIVERY METHOD — use tracked delivery where required] Re: Unapproved exterior modification at [PROPERTY ADDRESS] Dear [OWNER NAME], On [DATE OF OBSERVATION], the board observed a [DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION, e.g., six-foot cedar privacy fence along the rear property line] at your property. Our records show no architectural application or approval for this work. Article [X], Section [Y] of the [DECLARATION / CC&Rs] requires written approval from the [ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE / BOARD] before any exterior modification. The absence of an approved application is a violation of that provision. You may resolve this matter in either of two ways by [DEADLINE — e.g., 30 days from the date of this notice]: 1. Submit a completed architectural application for the existing work. The [ARC / BOARD] will review it under the same standards applied to any application, and you will receive a written decision. 2. Restore the property to its prior condition and notify us in writing when complete. If we receive neither an application nor confirmation of restoration by the deadline, this matter will proceed under the association's adopted enforcement policy, which may include [NEXT STEP PER YOUR POLICY, e.g., a hearing before the board]. You may respond in writing or direct questions to [BOARD CONTACT NAME AND ADDRESS/EMAIL]. Sincerely, [NAME], [TITLE] On behalf of the Board of Directors, [ASSOCIATION NAME]
Where ViolationFlow fits
Everything above turns on dates and records: when the board first knew, when notice went out, when the retroactive window closed, what the committee reviewed, and what it decided. ViolationFlow keeps that as one case per lot, with a dated timeline, templated email notices whose sends are logged, and ARC request tracking with deadlines — so the fence's violation track and its architectural-review track live in the same file. The seven-year retention Washington requires, and the paper trail every state's laches analysis rewards, is simply what the case record looks like by default.
If the owner does not cure, escalation runs on the ladder your board configures — for example Courtesy at $0, First notice at $0, Second notice at $50, Hearing at $100, with amounts your board sets itself — and each step includes a cure period and posts to the fine ledger. Advancing a step is an explicit board action, never automatic, which matches the hearing-before-fine requirements in states like Nevada and Virginia. Owners can follow their own case through a private owner link, and if the matter ever reaches counsel or a court, the timeline exports as a PDF.
Frequently asked questions
- Can the board skip retroactive review and just demand removal?
- In California, no: under Ironwood v. Solomon and Civil Code § 4765, the association must review the completed work on the merits and cannot win removal merely because the owner skipped prior approval. Elsewhere the documents control, but notice-and-cure statutes in states like Texas, Arizona, and Virginia still require a cure opportunity first, and a retroactive-application window is the cleanest form of one.
- Can we deny the retroactive application because the owner didn't ask first?
- Not as the reason. Denial has to rest on the same substantive standards you would apply to a timely application — height, materials, placement, community impact — stated specifically in writing. A denial that functions as punishment for the paperwork failure is the kind courts call arbitrary, and Florida law expressly requires denials to cite the specific nonconforming aspect.
- The fence has been up for three years and prior boards ignored it. Can we still demand removal?
- Maybe, but the position is weaker. Laches bars removal where the association unreasonably delayed after it knew or should have known, and the owner relied to their detriment — years of silence while the owner invested in the improvement is the classic pattern. In Colorado, a one-year statute of limitations bars the removal action outright. Talk to counsel before demanding removal of long-tolerated work.
- If the owner submits an application and cures, can we still fine them?
- Often you shouldn't, and sometimes you can't. Texas bars fining an owner who cures within the notice period (unless they had a similar notice within the prior six months), and Nevada and Virginia require notice and a hearing before any fine. Most well-built fine schedules start the first steps at $0 anyway, reserving fines for owners who ignore the process.
- Does approving one unapproved fence retroactively obligate us to approve the next one?
- Not automatically, but consistency is the currency. If you approve retroactively, record the specific criteria the work met; if you deny the next one, your written reasons should distinguish it on those same criteria. A pattern of uneven outcomes without documented reasons is what supports a waiver or selective-enforcement defense later.
- What happens if the dispute goes to court and the association wins?
- The owner can face an injunction requiring removal at their own expense, liability for the association's attorney fees, and in the worst cases a lien on the home for unpaid fines. That leverage is exactly why the board's procedural record — prompt discovery, specific notice, merits-based review — needs to be airtight before anyone files.