Associations & Governments Impact Riparian Rights
Across Michigan, many inland lakes are organized around homeowner associations or governed in part by state agencies and township ordinances. While these groups often provide structure and community, they also frequently become flashpoints for riparian disputes. The challenge lies in understanding where private agreements and local regulations end — and where your riparian rights begin.
Owning lakefront property in Michigan does not mean you have complete freedom to do whatever you want along your shoreline. A variety of government agencies and private associations impose limits, each with its own jurisdiction and authority. Understanding how these layers interact is critical to avoiding costly mistakes and disputes.Lake associations, for example, may adopt bylaws governing dock placement, boat use, or access to shared property. These rules are typically binding only on members of the association and cannot override the riparian rights granted by law.
And then there are the government agencies.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is a serious state agency overseeing activities in and around inland lakes and streams. Under Part 301 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, EGLE regulates many aspects of dock and structure permitting. Various types of docks, seawalls, dredging, filling, and shoreline modifications often require state permits, even if the work seems minor to the landowner. EGLE also administers the state’s wetland protection program, which may restrict draining, filling, or altering wetland areas along or near the shoreline. Outside Legal Counsel is in regular litigation against this agency on behalf of clients.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) does not generally issue permits for shoreline work, but its influence should not be underestimated. DNR manages fish, wildlife, and recreational resources, and often works alongside EGLE on issues of conservation, habitat protection, and public access. If a project threatens fisheries, wetlands, or protected habitats, the DNR’s expertise frequently guides EGLE’s decision-making. In addition, the DNR has jurisdiction over state-owned bottomlands in the Great Lakes, where permits for construction must also comply with broader conservation goals.
Local governments add another layer of regulation through zoning ordinances, setback requirements, and special use restrictions. Many townships and counties have adopted shoreline protection rules that require natural vegetation buffers, limit the placement of buildings, and impose elevation requirements for structures near the water. A homeowner may therefore need both a state permit and local zoning approval before placing a dock, installing a seawall, or clearing vegetation. These ordinances cannot override state law, but they can impose stricter standards. It is not uncommon for a project to satisfy EGLE’s criteria but still run afoul of a township’s shoreline ordinance.
HOAs and POAs
Private associations, such as homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and property owners’ associations (POAs), also play a role. Through deed restrictions, covenants, or bylaws, these organizations can control the number and size of docks, regulate the appearance of shoreline structures, and require approval before any work is undertaken. Unlike state or local regulators, HOAs enforce their rules as private contracts, meaning disputes often lead to civil lawsuits among neighbors rather than regulatory proceedings. While these associations cannot waive the need for government permits, they can restrict activities more tightly than the state or township. Many riparian owners first feel the reach of regulation not through EGLE or the township, but through a letter from their HOA’s architectural review committee.
In addition, many lakes are governed by formal or semi-formal boards created under Michigan law. Lake improvement boards, or in some cases special assessment district boards, have authority to undertake projects affecting the whole lake, such as weed control, dredging, or water level regulation. These boards are usually established by counties or townships in response to petitions from property owners and are funded through special assessments on the surrounding land. Although they do not issue permits, their projects often dictate what individual owners can or cannot do. For example, a board’s weed management program may prohibit certain private treatments, or its efforts to stabilize water levels may affect shoreline uses.
Taken together, this web of state agencies, local governments, associations, and boards means that riparian rights in Michigan are always subject to overlapping constraints. A property owner contemplating even modest shoreline work must consider not only their common law rights as a riparian, but also EGLE’s permit requirements, DNR’s conservation oversight, township zoning ordinances, HOA covenants, and the broader policies of any lake board. Navigating this landscape requires careful planning, and sometimes legal guidance, to ensure that a project complies with every layer of authority while still preserving the fundamental rights that come with lakefront ownership.
For property owners, this creates a delicate balance. It is wise to cooperate with associations and respect reasonable local rules, but equally important to recognize when those entities overstep. A township ordinance that outright bans docks or an association that tries to grant riparian rights to backlot owners can often be challenged in court.