Lawrence legalised ADUs citywide and put in writing that it won't enforce covenants
Lawrence legalised ADUs citywide and put in writing that it won't enforce covenants
2026-09-10 · Kansas · Regulation
A Lawrence homeowner can now get a city permit for a backyard cottage and still be in breach of their subdivision's covenants — and the city has written down, in its own code, that this is not its problem. Lawrence's rewritten Land Development Code states its own start date at §20-101(b): “This LDC became effective on April 1, 2025.” The current text is the February 17, 2026 edition.1
It is the clearest statement of the covenant-versus-code relationship in any Kansas municipal code we have found, and a sentence every Kansas board can point to.
Section 20-105(d), in full
Under the heading “Conflict with Private Agreements and Covenants”: “This LDC is not intended to abrogate, annul, or otherwise interfere with any easement, covenant, or other private agreement or legal relationship otherwise in conformance with the LDC. Where the provisions of any private restriction are more restrictive or impose higher standards than the provisions of this LDC, the City has no duty to enforce the private restrictions, nor is the City obligated to adopt regulations consistent with private restrictions.”2
Three propositions in one paragraph. The code does not override covenants. The city will not enforce them. And the city does not have to align its rules with them.
What Lawrence permitted at the same time
Accessory dwelling units are an allowed accessory use across the residential districts, subject to the use-specific standards at §20-811(b).
Those standards are real but modest. Owner occupancy is required: “Either the principal dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit must be occupied by one or more of the persons who is/are the record owner of the premises.” Size is capped: “The maximum size of an interior or attached accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling in which it is located,” though an attic or basement ADU may occupy an entire floor level. Parking requirements vary with street frontage.
What a Lawrence-area board is now responsible for
Everything the city has declined to do. That is the practical import of §20-105(d), and it changes the association's workload rather than its rights.
The city will issue the permit without asking about covenants. Do not expect a call, a flag on an application, or a condition of approval. Lawrence has said it has no duty here and it means it.
Discovery is the association's job. An architectural committee that has relied on hearing about projects through the municipal process will not hear about these. The workable substitute is a submittal requirement in the association's own rules, plus a board or committee member who watches for construction activity.
Timing decides the outcome. An ADU objected to at the plan stage is a conversation. The same ADU objected to after it is framed is a lawsuit about a structure someone has already paid for. Nothing in Kansas law gives a board a second bite after acquiescence, and the equitable defences an owner will raise — waiver, estoppel, selective enforcement — get stronger with every week of visible construction the board did not act on.
Reading your own declaration against an ADU
The question is never “does the declaration ban ADUs” — almost no Kansas declaration uses the term. It is whether some provision reaches the thing being built. Four that commonly do:
A restriction to one single-family dwelling per lot. A prohibition on using an accessory structure as a residence. A minimum or maximum dwelling-count provision. And an architectural approval requirement covering any structure, which at minimum brings the project in front of the committee even if the committee cannot ultimately refuse it.
Four that commonly do not: a general “residential use only” clause, which an owner-occupied ADU satisfies on its face; a setback provision the city has already applied; a rental restriction, unless the ADU is being let; and a nuisance clause.
Where the declaration is silent, the honest answer to an owner is that the association cannot stop it, and saying so early is far cheaper than a fining letter that cannot be defended. Kansas requires that a board “may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action,” and K.S.A. 58-4608 expressly permits a board to decline where the restriction being enforced “is or likely is inconsistent with law” or where the association's legal position does not justify the expense.3
The state now says the same thing Lawrence does
Lawrence's savings clause predates SB 418 by a year, and the by-right housing development act adopted the same posture statewide in April 2026: nothing in it “shall be construed to invalidate or limit the legality, enforceability or effect of restrictive covenants or condominium association or homeowners association regulations.”
City and state have converged on one answer. Public land-use authority is contracting; private land-use authority is untouched; and enforcement of the private half is entirely on the association, at the association's expense.
What to watch next
Watch for the first Douglas County case in which an ADU built on a city permit is challenged under a subdivision covenant. Lawrence has been permitting them citywide since April 2025, which is long enough for the fact pattern to have matured.
Watch, too, for other Kansas cities to copy §20-105(d) verbatim. It is a well-drafted disclaimer and it does exactly what a city legal department wants.
Related Kansas HOA Topics
Stay on top of Kansas HOA law
Every week: new Kansas legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.