What the law actually says
Arizona has two statutes that matter here. A.R.S. section 33-439 says any covenant or condition that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy device is void and unenforceable as against public policy. For planned communities specifically, A.R.S. section 33-1816 says an association cannot prohibit a solar energy device, and any rule it does adopt about that device has to be reasonable.
One word does the heavy lifting, and that word is reasonable. The law lets an association pass rules about placement and appearance, but it draws a line: a rule cannot adversely affect the cost or the efficiency of the system in a way that matters. Read plainly, that means a board cannot push your panels onto a shaded north-facing slope, and it cannot pile on so much cost that the project stops penciling out. It can ask for tidy conduit and a screened inverter. It cannot quietly ban solar by making it unworkable.
The rules that still survive
Aesthetic guidelines do survive the statute, and most Phoenix boards lean on the same short list. An association can generally require you to submit plans for review, keep wiring and conduit painted to match the roof or wall, route lines out of sight where that is practical, and finish the work to a normal standard. These are usually easy to meet, and a good installer builds them into the job without being asked.
What an association cannot do is use those guidelines as a side door to a ban. If an appearance rule forces a layout that cuts your production noticeably, or if the review sits for months with no decision, that starts to look like the kind of restriction the law voids. The rough test many Arizona installers use is simple: does the rule change where a panel goes without changing whether the system pays off. If it only touches looks, it probably stands. If it touches output or cost, it is on shaky ground.
Where the fights still reach court
Most disputes never see a judge. They end when the installer sends the two statutes to the board and the board backs down. The ones that do escalate tend to involve ground-mounted arrays, which the law treats less generously than rooftop, or battery enclosures, or a home where a scenic-view or historic covenant collides with the one good south-facing roof plane. Arizona's protection is strongest for panels bolted to the roof, and it gets thinner the further you move from that.
If you hit a real wall, the path runs through the association's own dispute process first, then to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which hears certain homeowners association complaints, or on to superior court. Keep the paper: your application, the recorded covenants, dated emails, and the board's written reasons for any denial. A board that says no without pointing to a valid, specific rule is the board most likely to lose.
Worth watching this month
1. Read your community's covenants and architectural guidelines before you sign an install contract, so you know the submission steps instead of guessing at them.
2. Ask your installer to fold the Arizona solar-rights statutes (A.R.S. section 33-439 and section 33-1816) into the HOA application packet, since that alone settles most objections.
3. Watch the clock on your board's architectural review, because a request left unanswered past the community's own stated deadline can become the board's problem rather than yours.
4. If you are weighing a battery or a ground mount, get the association's written position early, since those are the pieces the statute protects least.
5. Track any change to your utility's rooftop export rate at the Arizona Corporation Commission, because the economics of your system, not the HOA, are the thing most likely to actually move.