North Dakota HOA Pet Restrictions

North Dakota pet restrictions at a glance

Section 1: Overview — How pet restrictions work in North Dakota

North Dakota has no statute regulating pets in homeowners associations. Pet restrictions come from the recorded declaration or CC&Rs and from rules the board adopts under them, and the main legal limit on those restrictions is fair housing law's assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation requirement. The framework depends on community type: condominiums operate under the North Dakota Condominium Ownership Act, N.D. Cent. Code ch. 47-04.1,¹ a traditional condominium statute, while planned-community associations operate under their recorded CC&Rs, with the North Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, ch. 10-33, supplying corporate formalities where the association is incorporated.²

North Dakota has enacted no statutory right to keep a pet that overrides a no-pet declaration, in contrast to California, where Civil Code § 4715(a) provides that "No governing documents shall prohibit the owner of a separate interest within a common interest development from keeping at least one pet," and it has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.¹⁶ Pet-keeping in North Dakota is governed by the declaration or CC&Rs, constrained by fair housing law.

The dominant constraint is the assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation requirement under the federal Fair Housing Act⁴ and the North Dakota Human Rights Act,⁵ administered by the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights alongside HUD.⁷ Assistance animals are not pets, and pet rules do not reach them.⁸

Nationally, North Dakota sits with the large majority of states: a condominium-statute and CC&R-primary jurisdiction where the federal assistance-animal requirement is the floor common to every state. What follows sets out the source of pet authority, the fair housing overlay, the operational rules for associations, and recent legislative and judicial activity.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

2A. The condominium act, CC&Rs, and the source of pet authority

Pet restrictions in North Dakota carry no statutory basis. The recorded declaration or CC&Rs impose them, along with rules the board adopts under the governing documents. North Dakota law has no pet-specific provision, and none granting owners a right to keep a pet.

For condominiums, rule-making authority comes from the North Dakota Condominium Ownership Act. A condominium is created by recording a declaration, and the association administers the property through bylaws and rules and regulations under N.D. Cent. Code § 47-04.1-07.³ Pet rules typically appear in the declaration of restrictions, § 47-04.1-04, or in rules adopted under the bylaws.¹ For planned communities, there is no comprehensive statute. The recorded CC&Rs are the substantive source of any pet restriction, and the North Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, ch. 10-33, supplies corporate formalities — recordkeeping, member inspection rights — where the association is incorporated as a nonprofit.²

North Dakota has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, has no comprehensive planned-community statute, and has no statutory pet-keeping right.¹⁷ It uses the recorded declaration, and CC&Rs, as the governing instrument, and that terminology should not be replaced with another state's structure.

For any pet question, the order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory, first; then the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Ownership Act for condominiums; then the declaration or CC&Rs; then the bylaws; then board rules. The rule that actually governs a given community is the declaration or CC&Rs, read against the applicable statute and the fair housing floor. A restriction valid as a matter of contract and property law can still be unenforceable as applied to an assistance animal, because the fair housing requirement overrides it.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints: assistance animals

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing and requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services whenever necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).⁴ Homeowners associations and condominium associations count as housing providers for this purpose and are covered.⁸

Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or a pet restriction counts as a reasonable accommodation. Assistance animals are not pets, so no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees and deposits simply do not reach them.⁸

The term "assistance animal" under the FHA runs broader than "service animal" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It includes animals individually trained to perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement for a support animal.⁸ Applying the ADA's narrow service-animal definition to a residential accommodation request is the single most common error on this topic. HUD's operative guidance had been the January 28, 2020 notice FHEO-2020-01, which set out best practices for evaluating requests and documentation.¹⁸ HUD withdrew FHEO-2020-01 on September 17, 2025 as part of a deregulatory review carried out under Executive Order 14192 and Executive Order 14219, removed it from HUD.gov, and stated it should not be relied upon.¹⁹ HUD published a Federal Register notice finalizing the withdrawal, effective as of the September 17, 2025 date, and no replacement notice has been issued.²⁰ The withdrawal removed HUD's interpretive guidance, not the law: the FHA and its reasonable-accommodation duty remain fully in effect, and the 2004 HUD and Department of Justice Joint Statement, "Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act," dated May 17, 2004, remains available and still describes the accommodation and direct-threat analysis.²¹

For a disability or disability-related need that is not obvious, an association may request reliable documentation confirming the disability and the connection between the disability and the need for the animal. It may not require registration, certification, or licensing of the animal; a specific breed; professional training for a support animal; detailed medical records; or any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance for the assistance animal.⁹ Online "ESA registration" products carry no legal requirement and satisfy no standard.¹⁸

An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding that the accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden, would fundamentally alter operations, or that the specific animal poses a direct threat to health or safety or would cause substantial physical damage no other accommodation could reduce. A direct-threat determination must rest on an individualized assessment based on objective evidence, not on fear, speculation, or stereotype, and a denial cannot rest on breed, size, or generalized fear.²¹ The owner remains responsible for the animal's conduct and for any damage it causes.⁹

The ADA does not displace this analysis. It generally governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations, and its narrower service-animal definition does not control a resident's reasonable-accommodation request. The ADA may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents, but that is distinct from the housing analysis.¹⁸

2C. North Dakota law overlay

The North Dakota Human Rights Act, N.D. Cent. Code ch. 14-02.4,⁵ and the North Dakota Housing Discrimination Act, ch. 14-02.5,⁶ bar housing discrimination based on disability and back the same assistance-animal accommodation analysis. They are standard state anti-discrimination statutes operating alongside the federal FHA. The North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights enforces both, investigating complaints and, where probable cause is found, issuing charges; complainants may also file with HUD or bring a private action.⁷

North Dakota has a housing documentation statute framed in landlord-tenant terms. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-16-07.5 allows a landlord subject to a no-pets policy to require reliable supporting documentation when a tenant asserts a disability requiring a service or assistance animal. The documentation must confirm the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need, may come from a professional who does not operate in the state solely to certify animals — an anti-letter-mill provision — and may not be required where the disability or need is readily apparent or already known.⁹ Section 47-16-07.6 makes it an infraction to submit fraudulent disability documentation for a housing accommodation and allows eviction plus a damage fee up to $1,000.¹²

North Dakota has enacted a public-accommodations service-animal-access statute. N.D. Cent. Code § 25-13-02 entitles an individual with a disability to be accompanied by a service animal in public accommodations without an extra charge, and § 25-13-01.1 defines a service animal as a dog trained to work or perform tasks; that chapter governs public access, not housing.¹¹ North Dakota also has a service-animal misrepresentation statute: § 25-13-02.2 makes it an infraction to knowingly claim falsely that a pet is a service animal to gain admission to a public place or to obtain a housing accommodation.¹¹

On dogs, North Dakota regulates substantially at the local level. There is no statewide dog-bite statute and no statewide dangerous-dog classification statute; owner liability is largely common-law, turning on the owner's knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensity, as set out in Sendelbach v. Grad, 246 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1976).¹³ Municipalities such as Fargo, Bismarck, and Grand Forks maintain their own dangerous-dog and animal-control ordinances, and North Dakota permits local breed-specific regulation rather than preempting it statewide.¹⁰ Those are government regulations distinct from private CC&Rs; an association's authority over a dangerous animal comes from its governing documents and, for an assistance animal, from the FHA direct-threat standard.

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

Pet restrictions generally hold up when properly adopted in the declaration or CC&Rs and applied consistently: limits on the number of animals, size and weight caps, restrictions on type or breed, and leash and waste rules in common areas. For condominiums, compliance with the declaration, bylaws, and rules is required by N.D. Cent. Code § 47-04.1-08; for planned communities, enforceability rests on the recorded CC&Rs as a matter of contract and property law.¹⁴ Each restriction is limited by reasonableness, proper adoption, and consistent enforcement, and every one yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement.⁸

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

When an owner or resident requests an assistance animal, the association should treat the request as one for a reasonable accommodation and respond promptly and in good faith. If the disability and the need are obvious, no documentation may be requested. If either is not obvious, the association may request reliable documentation confirming the disability and the disability-related need, consistent with N.D. Cent. Code § 47-16-07.5 and the FHA.⁹ The association may not demand certification, registration, an ID card, a specific breed, professional training for a support animal, or medical records. A denial is defensible only on an individualized finding of undue burden, fundamental alteration, or a direct threat or substantial property damage no other accommodation could reduce; it may not rest on breed, size, or generalized fear.²¹

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

An association may charge pet-related fees or deposits for ordinary pets only if the declaration or CC&Rs authorize the charge.¹ It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or additional insurance premium for an assistance animal, because the animal is an accommodation, not a pet, under the FHA.⁸ The owner remains liable for actual damage the animal causes.⁹

D. Enforcement and disclosure

Pet violations are enforced by board action under the governing documents: for condominiums under the declaration, bylaws, and rules, backed by N.D. Cent. Code § 47-04.1-08, and for planned communities under the recorded CC&Rs.¹⁴ Significant disputes proceed in the North Dakota District Courts, with most appeals going directly to the North Dakota Supreme Court.¹⁵ On disclosure to buyers, North Dakota requires a seller of property subject to the rules of a homeowners association or condominium project to provide the buyer with the declaration, bylaws, rules, recent minutes, and assessment information under N.D. Cent. Code § 47-10-02.3, so recorded pet restrictions reach a buyer through that disclosure and through the governing documents; beyond that statutory disclosure, terms are governed by the purchase contract.²²

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly meets biennially, in odd-numbered years, and the most recent regular session was the 2025 session, the 69th Legislative Assembly, which adjourned sine die on May 3, 2025.²³ Two 2025 bills addressed assistance animals; neither was enacted. No 2025 bill amended the Condominium Ownership Act in a way that changes pet authority.

B. Recent rulings

No North Dakota Supreme Court decision within the past 36 months addresses HOA or condominium pet restrictions or assistance-animal reasonable accommodation in housing. The closest North Dakota Supreme Court touchpoints are older and off-topic: Sendelbach v. Grad, 246 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1976), a dog-bite liability case establishing the common-law standard;¹³ N.D. Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Peterson, 2001 ND 81, a fair housing case on marital status rather than animals;²⁶ and Ceynar v. Barth, 2017 ND 286, a restrictive-covenant case not involving pets.²⁷ In the absence of controlling state precedent, the federal FHA and North Dakota Human Rights Act assistance-animal frameworks control.

C. Active legislative debates

The 2025 session showed continued legislative interest in tightening assistance-animal documentation and curbing misrepresentation, but both bills failed, and no such measure is pending, since the Legislative Assembly does not reconvene in regular session until 2027.²³

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

States fall into two groups on HOA pets. A small group grants a statutory pet-keeping right, and California's Civil Code § 4715, guaranteeing owners at least one pet, is the clearest example.¹⁶ North Dakota belongs to the large majority, where pet authority is based on the declaration or CC&Rs and no pet statute exists. Every state shares the same federal floor: the FHA's assistance-animal requirement. For multi-state operators, the practical implication is that in North Dakota, the binding pet rules come from the declaration or CC&Rs, the Condominium Ownership Act supplies the condominium framework, and the federal assistance-animal analysis applies uniformly. North Dakota's distinctive features are a traditional condominium statute paired with CC&R-primary planned communities, a small market concentrated in Fargo, Bismarck, and Grand Forks, and a Court of Appeals convened only temporarily for cases the Supreme Court assigns, rather than a standing intermediate court.²⁸

HOA Weekly's North Dakota Pet Restrictions coverage updates quarterly as the Legislative Assembly and the courts act. The federal Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal framework applies to North Dakota associations regardless of the state framework.

1. N.D. Cent. Code ch. 47-04.1, Condominium Ownership of Real Property (section listing) — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
2. North Dakota HOA Laws, Regulations & Resources (Nonprofit Corporations Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 10-33-01 et seq., governing incorporated condominium and homeowners' associations) — Homeowners Protection Bureau ↩
3. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-04.1-07, Administration — Bylaws — Rules and regulations — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
4. 42 U.S.C. § 3604, Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices (reasonable-accommodation duty at § 3604(f)(3)(B)) — Office of the Law Revision Counsel ↩
5. N.D. Cent. Code ch. 14-02.4, Human Rights — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
6. N.D. Cent. Code ch. 14-02.5, Housing Discrimination — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
7. North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights enforces the Human Rights Act (ch. 14-02.4) and Housing Discrimination Act (ch. 14-02.5); complaints may also be filed with HUD — City of Fargo, Fair Housing ↩
8. HUD FHEO-2020-01, Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act ("Assistance animals are not pets"; two types, service animals and support animals; support animals require no training) — reproduced by Animal Legal & Historical Center ↩
9. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-16-07.5, Disability documentation for service or assistance animal in rental dwelling (reliable documentation confirming disability and need; anti-letter-mill provision; no documentation where need is apparent or known) — Animal Legal & Historical Center ↩
10. The Role of Animal Control Laws in North Dakota Dog Bite Cases (local dangerous-dog ordinances in Fargo, Bismarck, and Grand Forks; municipalities set their own standards) — Larson Law ↩
11. N.D. Cent. Code ch. 25-13, Blind and Disabled Persons' Activities (including § 25-13-01.1 definitions, § 25-13-02 public-accommodations access, § 25-13-02.2 misrepresentation) — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
12. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-16-07.6, Service animals — Housing — Penalties for furnishing fraudulent disability documentation (infraction; eviction; damage fee up to $1,000) — Animal Legal & Historical Center ↩
13. Dog Bite Laws: 50-State Survey (North Dakota has no dog-bite statute; ND Supreme Court applies common-law liability standard, Sendelbach v. Grad, 246 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1976)) — Justia ↩
14. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-04.1-08, Compliance with covenants, bylaws, and administrative provisions (failure to comply is grounds for an action) — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
15. North Dakota Court System — Court of Appeals (Supreme Court hears appeals from District Courts; Court of Appeals hears only cases assigned to it) — North Dakota Court System ↩
16. Discussion of California Civil Code § 4715 (statutory right to keep at least one pet in a common interest development) contrasted with the HUD assistance-animal analysis — Richardson Ober LLP ↩
17. North Dakota HOA Laws (no specific statute governs homeowners associations; condominiums under ch. 47-04.1; incorporated associations under the Nonprofit Corporations Act, ch. 10-33) — HOA Management ↩
18. FAQs on Emotional Support Animals (FHEO-2020-01 issued January 28, 2020; documentation standards; no medical records; internet "registration" not sufficient) — Animal Legal & Historical Center ↩
19. HUD Announces Key Fair Housing Updates (September 17, 2025 memorandum withdrawing FHEO 2013-01 and FHEO 2020-01 as part of deregulation under President Trump's executive orders) — National Apartment Association ↩
20. HUD Withdraws Several Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidance Documents (withdrawal effective September 17, 2025; list includes FHEO 2020-01 and FHEO Notice 2013-01) — Compliance Cohort ↩
21. Joint Statement of HUD and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) (individualized direct-threat assessment; no exclusion based on fear, speculation, or stereotype; interactive process) — HUD ↩
22. N.D. Cent. Code § 47-10-02.3, Required disclosures — Seller to provide (seller of property subject to HOA or condominium rules must disclose declaration, bylaws, rules, recent minutes, and assessment information) — FindLaw ↩
23. Overview of the 2025 North Dakota Legislative Session (69th Legislative Assembly adjourned sine die May 3, 2025) — Primacy Strategy Group ↩
24. Senate Bill 2222 (69th Legislative Assembly, 2025), bill text (amending ch. 25-13 and § 47-16-07.5 on assistance animals and rental documentation) — North Dakota Legislative Branch; Senate second reading failed 1-44 on February 17, 2025 ↩
25. Senate Bill 2193 (69th Legislative Assembly, 2025), bill overview (assistance-animal definitions and certification; House second reading failed 12-81 on March 18, 2025) — North Dakota Legislative Branch ↩
26. N.D. Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Peterson, 2001 ND 81 (North Dakota Human Rights Act, ch. 14-02.4; marital-status housing claim) — Justia ↩
27. Ceynar v. Barth, 2017 ND 286 (restrictive covenants strictly construed in favor of free use of land; HOA covenant dispute not involving pets) — Justia ↩
28. North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 27 (Court of Appeals convened by the Supreme Court to hear only assigned cases) — North Dakota Court System ↩