We explain HOA law in plain English, but we are not your lawyer and this is not legal advice. Here is why that matters.

South Carolina's entire Surfside response was a bill to create a study committee, and it sat in committee for 20 months

South Carolina · Legislation

South Carolina's entire Surfside response was a bill to create a study committee, and it sat in committee for 20 months

South Carolina's legislative response to the post-Surfside inspection question was a single bill proposing a study committee. It was prefiled on December 5, 2024, introduced January 14, 2025, referred to House Labor, Commerce and Industry, and never acted on again.1

What it would have done

H. 3235, from Rep. Gilliard, would have created the "Coastal Structural Stability Study Committee" to examine current measures for inspecting commercial buildings six floors or more in height constructed along the South Carolina coast and on the Charleston peninsula, evaluate their structural soundness, and develop recommendations.

The committee would have included four structural engineers appointed by the Governor and two homeowners association members from such buildings. Its report to the General Assembly was due January 1, 2027, and it would have dissolved on submission.

The limitation inside the bill

The text reaches commercial buildings of six floors or more. By its own terms it would not have reached residential condominium towers — the buildings the post-Surfside inspection debate is about.

So even the study, had it happened, would have been narrower than the problem. It is worth being precise about that rather than describing the bill as a condominium safety measure.

✓ Your South Carolina State Pass is active — the full analysis below is unlocked

What South Carolina has, and what it does not

The state has no milestone inspection regime, no structural integrity reserve study requirement, and no reserve funding mandate. There is no inspection cycle for a condominium building of any age or height, no filing, and no trigger that brings a building to anyone's attention in the ordinary course.

Several states adopted such regimes between 2022 and 2025. South Carolina adopted none of it, and the only vehicle that would have examined whether to do so never received a committee vote in twenty months.

A separate bill, H. 5535, would have required fire sprinkler systems in newly constructed multi-family dwellings permitted after July 1, 2026, and directed the State Fire Marshal to promulgate regulations designating appropriate systems. It was introduced April 15, 2026 — twenty-nine days before the session ended — and died in the same committee.2

One bill that sounds relevant is not. S. 116, the "Multifamily Dwelling Safety Act," expressly excludes from its definition of "multifamily dwelling" any "condominium or other property subject to the Horizontal Property Act." It is recorded here so it is not mistaken for condominium legislation. It also died.3

Why the gap is not one a city can fill

There is a statutory constraint pushing against local action. A local government generally may not require routine recurring inspections of buildings that comply with the Residential Code beyond what the State Building Code requires. So a coastal municipality concerned about its own ageing stock does not have a straightforward route to imposing a local inspection cycle.

The Dockside case in Charleston shows what the city could do: it required periodic engineering inspections of that specific building once dangerous conditions were identified, and in July 2023 it stretched the interval from every 45 business days to every 120. That is building-specific intervention after a problem is known, not a preventive cycle.

What is producing inspection pressure instead

The mortgage market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac retired Limited and Streamlined project review for loan applications dated on or after August 3, 2026, so an established project now faces a Full Review examining deferred maintenance, reserves, insurance and litigation. Fannie Mae identifies insufficient master property insurance and critical repairs — including failure to meet state or local inspection requirements — as the leading causes of ineligible status.

The last clause is worth reading twice in a South Carolina context. Where a state has inspection requirements, failing them makes a project ineligible. Where a state has none, there is no inspection record for a reviewer to rely on either.

The reserve floor rises from 10% to 15% of budgeted assessment income on January 4, 2027, against a state baseline that requires nothing.

What the committee would have reported on

Had H. 3235 passed, its report would have been due January 1, 2027. In the interval since it was filed, the Dockside condominium in Charleston was evacuated on 48 hours' notice, its owners voted against a $151 million repair, and the association filed for Chapter 11.

Everything filed this term must be refiled from first reading in 2027. See condo safety inspections in South Carolina.

Related South Carolina HOA Topics

← All South Carolina HOA Topics

  1. H. 3235 bill history and text, 126th General Assembly ↩
  2. H. 5535, fire sprinkler systems in new multi-family dwellings ↩
  3. S. 116, Multifamily Dwelling Safety Act, 126th General Assembly ↩

Stay on top of South Carolina HOA law

Every week: new South Carolina legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.

Check your inbox to complete your sign up.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.