South Dakota HOA Architectural Review

Section 1: Overview, how architectural review works in South Dakota

Start with how South Dakota organizes this area of law, because it explains everything that follows. The state governs condominiums under a condominium statute that applies only when a project chooses to opt in, and it has passed no dedicated homeowners association act at all. So architectural authority lives in the recorded master deed or the recorded covenants, not in a state code.¹ That means your first job is to classify the community. A condominium falls under the South Dakota Condominium Law only when a developer or the co-owners record a master deed that expressly declares the project subject to Chapter 43-15A.² A non-condominium community runs on its recorded covenants, and the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act supplies the corporate governance whenever the association is incorporated.³ On solar, South Dakota offers a voluntary framework for written wind and solar easements that owners can agree to; it does not override anti-solar covenants.⁴ The state plays only one association-specific role, and it comes at the front end: the Real Estate Commission oversees condominium developers, who must hand a public report to buyers before any binding sale. After that, no state agency regulates how an HOA operates.⁵ Disputes go to the Circuit Courts, and appeals run straight to the South Dakota Supreme Court, because the state has no intermediate appellate court.⁶ Enforcement, then, is private and contractual — pursued through the courts under the recorded documents. The sections that follow lay out where that authority comes from, how review works and by what standard, the statutory and federal limits, the day-to-day compliance duties, and where South Dakota lands nationally.

Section 2: The architectural-review framework

2A. Source and scope of architectural authority

Architectural control in South Dakota starts in the recorded documents — the master deed for a condominium, or the covenants for a non-condominium homeowners association — and the board, the council of co-owners, or a named architectural committee administers it.¹ The statutory landscape is narrow. The South Dakota Condominium Law, Chapter 43-15A, governs a condominium only when the project expressly opts in by recording a master deed that declares the property subject to the chapter and spells out what the statute requires: the land and building descriptions, the units, the common areas, and an insurance provision.^2,7 South Dakota has enacted no dedicated HOA or planned-community act. Non-condominium associations run on their recorded covenants, and the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act (Title 47, Chapter 47-22) fills in corporate matters such as directors, meetings, and members' inspection of records.^3,8 Two practical points follow. First, classification controls everything: the Condominium Law does not reach a non-condominium HOA, and it does not reach even a condominium unless that condominium recorded the electing master deed. Second, the order of precedence depends on the type. For an electing condominium, the Condominium Law controls where it speaks, then the recorded master deed, then the bylaws and rules. For a non-condominium HOA, the recorded covenants control, then the bylaws and architectural guidelines, with the Nonprofit Corporation Act supplying corporate governance. One more point is worth noting: Chapter 43-15A says nothing about architectural review, alterations, or approving exterior improvements. That silence confirms the rule — the design-review function rests entirely in the recorded governing documents.¹

2B. The approval process and standards of review

South Dakota imposes no statutory deadline for architectural applications, no deemed-approval rule, and no written-denial requirement. Every one of those process terms comes from the recorded master deed or the recorded covenants, not from a state code, because neither the Condominium Law nor any HOA statute provides them.¹ On the standard of review, South Dakota courts treat a recorded covenant as a contract and read it under ordinary contract rules, looking for the intent of the parties, and they enforce a valid restriction as written. As the Supreme Court put it in Hood v. Straatmeyer, quoting Countryside South Homeowners Ass'n v. Nedved, "A covenant is a contract between the governing authority and individual lot owners."⁹ A court will generally uphold an architectural restriction when it serves a legitimate purpose, falls within the association's authority under the governing documents, and is applied reasonably and consistently. The 2025 decision in Hood v. Straatmeyer — argued November 8, 2023, and decided March 5, 2025, on appeal from the Meade County Circuit Court — shows the limit. The Court held that "the right to enforce [a] restrictive covenant[] may be lost by waiver or acquiescence of violation of the same," and it affirmed that "it is within the equitable power of a circuit court to declare a covenant void upon a showing that enforcement of the covenant would be inequitable in light of widespread, unchallenged violations which undermine the purpose of the covenant."⁹ Enforcement rests on the recorded documents, and the parties pursue it through the courts. The state's only administrative role is front-end: a condominium developer must notify the Real Estate Commission and deliver its public report to a prospective buyer before a binding sale — a consumer-protection step, not architectural regulation.⁵ South Dakota has no agency that oversees ongoing HOA operations. For the professional reader, the sequence is straightforward: classify the community, confirm any condominium election, ground every process step in the recorded documents, and enforce consistently — because consistent enforcement is what preserves the right to enforce at all.

2C. Statutory and federal limits on architectural authority

On solar, South Dakota provides a voluntary framework for written wind and solar easements in Chapter 43-13, under which a property owner may grant and record a solar easement by agreement to protect access to sunlight.^4,10 That framework works by agreement, and it does not void a recorded master deed or covenant that restricts or prohibits solar installations. South Dakota has no HOA solar-restriction override. The state does, however, impose two statutory carve-outs that limit covenant authority. Under SDCL 11-5-7, "Any homeowner, regardless of any private covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements may display one portable, removable official United States flag, not larger than four and one-half feet by six feet and may additionally display the official South Dakota State flag or one portable, removable official flag . . . that represents the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, or Coast Guard, or a POW MIA flag."¹¹ And under SDCL 11-5-9, "A homeowner's association may not include or enforce a provision in a governing document that prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting the lawful . . . [p]ossession, transportation, or storing" of a firearm or its ammunition, or the lawful discharge of a firearm.¹² No standalone South Dakota carve-out is confirmed for political or campaign signs, for drought-tolerant or native landscaping, or for electric-vehicle charging as applied to community associations. Three federal overlays apply in South Dakota, as they do everywhere, and they add to state law rather than replace it: the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which bars associations from preventing display of the U.S. flag, subject to reasonable restrictions;¹³ the FCC's OTARD rule, which limits restrictions on covered antennas and satellite dishes one meter or less within an owner's exclusive-use area;¹⁴ and the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification right, which requires associations to permit owner-funded, reasonable disability-related modifications.¹⁵ The federal frameworks deserve a fuller treatment of their own.

Section 3: Compliance obligations in the architectural-review process

A. Adopting and maintaining architectural standards

The authority to adopt and maintain architectural standards is a GOVERNING-DOCUMENT obligation. It comes from the recorded master deed for an electing condominium, or from the recorded covenants and architectural guidelines for a non-condominium HOA — not from a state statute.¹ Where a covenant lacks its own amendment provision, South Dakota now supplies a default: modifying the declaration takes a two-thirds vote of the owners, a STATUTORY rule under SDCL 11-5-11.¹⁶ Associations should record their standards, keep them consistent with the declaration, and apply them uniformly.

B. Reviewing and deciding applications

Reviewing applications is a GOVERNING-DOCUMENT obligation. South Dakota sets no statutory decision deadline, no deemed-approval rule, and no written-denial requirement, so the timeline, the form of the decision, and any right of appeal all come from the recorded documents.¹ Boards should follow the declaration's process exactly and document their decisions, because the association's footing in any later lawsuit depends on the recorded terms and on consistent application.⁹

C. Honoring statutory and federal owner protections

These are STATUTORY and federal obligations. On solar, the state framework is a voluntary wind and solar easement mechanism, not an override, so an association need not permit solar against a valid covenant — though owners remain free to record easements by agreement.⁴ The state's flag-display carve-out (SDCL 11-5-7) and firearms carve-out (SDCL 11-5-9) limit covenant authority directly.^11,12 And federally, associations must comply with the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the OTARD rule for covered antennas and dishes, and the Fair Housing Act's reasonable-modification right.^13,14,15

D. Enforcement and dispute resolution

Enforcement is a GOVERNING-DOCUMENT obligation, and it runs through private litigation. The association enforces the recorded master deed or covenants in the Circuit Court, with appeal straight to the South Dakota Supreme Court and no intermediate appellate court in between.⁶ The only state administrative role belongs to the Real Estate Commission, whose front-end oversight of condominium developers is a STATUTORY consumer-protection duty that developers owe before a sale — not ongoing regulation of architectural decisions.⁵ Consistent enforcement is itself a compliance obligation, because South Dakota recognizes waiver and abandonment as defenses against a covenant that has been selectively enforced.⁹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

South Dakota's 2024 session produced the state's principal recent change to covenant authority: a firearms carve-out, now codified at SDCL 11-5-9.

A companion 2024 enactment (SL 2024, ch. 44) added SDCL 11-5-11, which sets a two-thirds owner-vote default for modifying a declaration that lacks its own amendment provision — a rule that bears directly on how an association changes its architectural standards.¹⁶

B. Recent rulings

A second recent decision, Spring Canyon Properties, LLC v. Cal SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68 (Nov. 20, 2024), took up a restrictive covenant that regulated property maintenance and improvements, including a no-build area; it is available for editor verification by citation.¹⁸

C. Active legislative debates

As of July 15, 2026, no active South Dakota proposal would create an architectural-review-process statute, a solar override, or new sign, landscaping, or EV-charging carve-outs for community associations. Recent activity has stayed limited to the firearms and covenant-modification provisions described above.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

South Dakota sits among the lightest-touch states in the country for community-association architectural authority. It is a condominium-statute, covenant-primary state: the Condominium Law applies only by election, no dedicated HOA act exists, the solar provision is a voluntary wind and solar easement framework rather than an override of anti-solar covenants, and appeals run directly to a single Supreme Court with no intermediate appellate court. For a multi-state operator, the practical takeaway is clear. In South Dakota, the recorded master deed or the recorded covenants govern the architectural process; the condominium statute reaches a project only if that project recorded an electing master deed; the state does not void anti-solar covenants; and a single forum, the South Dakota Supreme Court, reviews any adverse trial ruling. That posture stands in sharp contrast to comprehensive or carve-out-rich states such as California, with its detailed common-interest statute and its solar-rights limits on associations, and Oregon, where planned-community legislation prescribes far more process.

HOA Weekly updates its South Dakota architectural-review coverage quarterly, as the Legislature and the South Dakota Supreme Court act. Federal frameworks — including the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act, the FCC OTARD rule, and the Fair Housing Act — apply to South Dakota associations on top of state law.

1. S.D. Codified Laws ch. 43-15A (Condominiums), full chapter, containing no architectural-review provision ↩
2. S.D. Codified Laws § 43-15A-3 (Establishment of condominium project, master deed or lease) ↩
3. S.D. Codified Laws ch. 47-22 (South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act) ↩
4. S.D. Codified Laws § 43-13-16.1 (Solar easement defined) ↩
5. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 43-15A-17, 43-15A-19 (Commission report required before offer to sell and delivery to purchaser) ↩
6. South Dakota Unified Judicial System, Court Structure (Circuit Courts and Supreme Court) ↩
7. S.D. Codified Laws § 43-15A-4 (Particulars required in master deed or lease) ↩
8. S.D. Codified Laws § 47-24-2 (Inspection of books and records by members) ↩
9. Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12 (South Dakota Supreme Court) ↩
10. S.D. Codified Laws § 43-13-17 (Granting of wind or solar easements) ↩
11. S.D. Codified Laws § 11-5-7 (Flag, display) ↩
12. S.D. Codified Laws § 11-5-9 (Firearms regulation, homeowner association restriction unenforceable) ↩
13. Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-243 ↩
14. 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 (Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule) ↩
15. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) (Fair Housing Act reasonable-modification right) ↩
16. S.D. Codified Laws § 11-5-11 (Modification of a restrictive covenant, two-thirds vote) ↩
17. 2024 Senate Bill 39 (firearms, homeowners' associations), South Dakota Legislature ↩
18. Spring Canyon Properties, LLC v. Cal SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68 (docket 30511) ↩