What the statute does not touch

Read the opening words again: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law or zoning ordinance.”

It overrides zoning. It says nothing about recorded covenants, declarations of restrictions, or an architectural control committee. Those are private contracts running with the land, not provisions of law or zoning ordinances, and the sections HB 1500 created sit in the chapters governing county, city and township zoning powers.

So an owner in a North Dakota association whose home burns has a statutory right against the city and no statutory right at all against the association.

The gap this opens, concretely

The statute's conditions are dimensional and locational. The declaration's are usually aesthetic and procedural. They do not overlap, and a rebuild can satisfy one and fail the other.

Materials. The rebuild may be the same size, height and footprint and still use siding, roofing or window materials the declaration does not permit. Carpenter v. Southbay, decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court in June 2025, confirms how firmly a roofing-materials covenant will be enforced.

Plan approval. The statute requires a building permit application within six months. The declaration usually requires committee approval before construction. Two approvals, two timetables, and the association's is the one with no statutory clock behind it.

The six-month trap. This is where an owner gets hurt. If the committee takes four months to respond and then requires changes, the permit application deadline can pass while the owner is still in the association's process — and the statutory protection is lost. It is conditioned on the application, not on the owner's good faith.

Rebuilding what the covenant no longer allows. The statute protects the right to rebuild a structure that zoning made nonconforming. It does not protect the right to rebuild something a covenant made nonconforming — an outbuilding, a fence line, a detached garage that predates a later amendment.

Where a board stands now, before a loss

Adopt a written expedited review for casualty rebuilds. A stated turnaround — thirty days, say — for plans submitted after a fire, storm or flood. The statutory six-month window is the reason, and a board that has not thought about it will be deciding under pressure with an owner's rights running out.

Say in advance what “rebuild as it was” means. Where the association would accept reconstruction to the pre-loss condition without full architectural review, write that down. Most disputes after a fire are about whether the owner may simply restore what was there.

Reconcile the declaration with the statute where you can. If the declaration itself contains a damage-and-destruction clause with its own percentages and timelines, compare them to HB 1500's. Conflicting clocks are a lawsuit.

Know who insures what. A rebuild that satisfies both the statute and the covenant still has to be paid for. Whether the master policy or the owner's policy covers the structure, and on what basis, decides whether any of this is academic. Our North Dakota insurance requirements page covers the split.

And where an owner stands

The city cannot stop you. The association may be able to. Go to the architectural committee first, in writing, dated — and file the building permit application inside six months regardless of where the committee's review has got to, because that deadline is the one that cannot be recovered. Our North Dakota architectural review page covers how the committee's authority usually works.

What to watch next

Watch for the first North Dakota dispute in which an owner argues that HB 1500 impliedly overrides a private covenant. On the text it does not — “provision of law or zoning ordinance” is not covenant language, and the sections live in the zoning chapters — but a total loss combined with a restrictive declaration is the fact pattern that will produce the argument. Watch, too, for declarations amended to add casualty-rebuild provisions matching the statutory conditions, which is the clean fix.