South Dakota HOA Pet Restrictions

South Dakota pet restrictions at a glance

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

South Dakota has no statute regulating homeowners association pets. Pet restrictions come from the recorded declaration or restrictive covenants and the rules an association adopts, and the main legal limit on them is fair housing law's assistance-animal requirement.¹ The governing framework is thin. Condominiums operate under the South Dakota condominium statute, SDCL chapter 43-15A, a traditional condominium act, while planned-community associations operate under their recorded restrictive covenants, with the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, SDCL chapter 47-22 et seq., supplying corporate formalities.² Neither source creates a general right to keep a pet: South Dakota has enacted nothing comparable to California's Civil Code section 4715, has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and has no comprehensive planned-community statute or HOA recording act.³ The dominant constraint is the assistance-animal reasonable-accommodation duty under the federal Fair Housing Act and the South Dakota Human Relations Act, SDCL chapter 20-13, enforced by the South Dakota Division of Human Rights within the Department of Labor and Regulation.⁴ Nationally, South Dakota sits with the large majority of states where pet authority is contractual rather than statutory, and where the federal assistance-animal requirement is the floor common to every jurisdiction. What follows sets out the source of pet authority, the federal and state fair housing overlay, South Dakota's dog and breed law, the operational rules an association may enforce, and the recent legislative and judicial activity that bears on pet questions.

Section 2: The legal framework for pet restrictions

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

Pet restrictions in South Dakota carry no statutory basis. The recorded declaration or restrictive covenants impose them, along with the rules a board adopts under them. For condominiums, rule-making authority flows from the South Dakota condominium statute, SDCL chapter 43-15A, a traditional condominium act under which the master deed or declaration and the bylaws set the substantive terms.² That chapter contains no pet-specific provision; a review of its sections shows no reference to pets or animals, so any pet rule in a condominium comes from the declaration, bylaws, or board rules, not the statute.² For planned-community associations, there is no dedicated South Dakota statute at all. The recorded restrictive covenants are the substantive source of pet authority, and the Nonprofit Corporation Act, SDCL chapter 47-22 et seq., supplies corporate formalities such as membership, meetings, and recordkeeping where the association is incorporated.⁵

South Dakota has no comprehensive planned-community statute, no HOA disclosure-and-recording act, and no recording-for-enforceability mandate beyond ordinary real-property recording. The chapter numbered next to the condominium statute, SDCL chapter 43-15B, governs time-share estates, not planned communities, underscoring the absence of a general common-interest code.⁶ South Dakota has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and it recognizes no statutory pet-keeping right. The recorded declaration or restrictive covenants is the governing instrument for a South Dakota community.

For any pet question, the order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law, mandatory, first; then the condominium statute's mandatory provisions for condominiums; then the declaration or restrictive covenants; then the bylaws; then board rules. The rule that actually governs a given community is the declaration or restrictive covenants, read against the applicable statute and the fair housing floor.

2B. Federal fair housing constraints: assistance animals

The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., bars disability discrimination in housing and requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, and 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).⁷ Homeowners associations and condominium associations count as covered housing providers. Permitting an assistance animal despite a no-pet policy or a pet restriction counts as a reasonable accommodation, and because assistance animals are not pets, no-pet bans, breed limits, size and weight limits, number limits, and pet fees and deposits simply do not reach them.

Under the Fair Housing Act, "assistance animal" has been read more broadly than "service animal" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The category has historically included both animals that perform tasks and animals that provide disability-related emotional support, with no training requirement for support animals. HUD's operative guidance had been the January 28, 2020 notice, FHEO-2020-01, which stated that assistance animals, including untrained emotional support animals, "are not pets" and instructed housing providers that pet fees could not be assessed for them.⁸ That posture changed in 2026. In a May 22, 2026 enforcement memorandum, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Craig W. Trainor announced that HUD is "permanently rescinding FHEO's 2020 notice regarding assistance animals" and that FHEO "will find reasonable cause and recommend charges only in cases involving animals individually trained to provide disability-related assistance," aligning federal enforcement with the ADA's training-based standard. The memo cites President Trump's February 2025 Executive Order 14219 and the federal decision Henderson v. Five Properties LLC.⁹ The change is narrow — an enforcement policy, not an amendment to the statute. The Fair Housing Act text is unchanged, private lawsuits remain available, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is unaffected, and state and local fair housing laws are unaffected.⁹

For a disability or disability-related need that is not obvious, an association may request reliable documentation. 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. An association may deny a specific assistance animal only on an individualized finding that the animal would impose an undue financial and administrative burden, fundamentally alter operations, or that the specific animal poses a direct threat or would cause substantial physical damage no other accommodation could reduce. Denial cannot rest on breed, size, or generalized fear, and the owner remains responsible for the animal's conduct and any damage it causes. The ADA generally governs public accommodations and government programs, not an association's internal residential operations, and does not displace the Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal protections for residents; the ADA may reach association facilities open to the public, such as a clubhouse rented to non-residents.

2C. South Dakota law overlay: human relations act and dog law

The South Dakota Human Relations Act, SDCL chapter 20-13, bars housing discrimination based on disability and backs the same assistance-animal accommodation analysis as the federal Fair Housing Act.¹⁰ It is a standard state anti-discrimination statute operating alongside the federal law, enforced by the South Dakota Division of Human Rights, with the State Commission of Human Rights, and by HUD. Because the state statute is unaffected by HUD's 2026 federal enforcement change, disability-based housing complaints may still be pursued at the state level.¹⁰ South Dakota also has landlord-tenant provisions, SDCL 43-32-33 to 43-32-36, enacted in 2018, that let a landlord require reliable documentation of a disability-related need for a service or assistance animal, bar that request when the need is readily apparent, and allow eviction and damages for a knowingly false claim or fraudulent documentation; those provisions define "service animal" broadly to include emotional support and assistance animals, and they apply where there is a landlord-tenant relationship rather than to an owner-occupant of an association unit.¹¹

South Dakota has a public-accommodations service-animal access statute: SDCL 20-13-23.2 lets a person with a disability be accompanied by a service animal in places of public accommodation, and SDCL 20-13-23.4 bars a landlord from prohibiting a service animal in a rented residence, each a Class 2 misdemeanor if violated.¹² South Dakota also has a service-animal misrepresentation statute: SDCL 22-35-9, added by SB 82 in 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to intentionally misrepresent an animal as a service animal in a place of public accommodation.¹³ These are public-accommodations provisions distinct from the housing accommodation analysis.

On dog-bite liability, South Dakota has no statewide strict-liability statute. Common-law principles govern liability, under which an owner answers on a theory of scienter, knowledge or reason to know of the animal's dangerous propensity, or negligence.¹⁴ Dangerous-dog and vicious-dog regulation is handled primarily at the municipal and county level, supported by state provisions such as SDCL 40-34-13 to 40-34-15 and SDCL 7-12-29.¹⁵ On breed, South Dakota preempts breed-specific regulation by local governments: SDCL 40-34-16 bars any local government from enacting or enforcing an ordinance specific to a dog's breed or perceived breed. That preemption reaches local governments, not private associations, so an association may still adopt breed limits in its declaration or covenants, subject to the assistance-animal exception.¹⁶

Section 3: Operational rules and compliance obligations

A. Enforceable pet restrictions (what holds up)

When properly adopted in the declaration or restrictive covenants, ordinary pet restrictions generally hold up: limits on the number of animals, size or weight caps, restrictions on type or species, and leash and waste rules in common areas.² Breed restrictions adopted by a private association face no bar from SDCL 40-34-16, which limits only local governments.¹⁶ Every such restriction yields to the assistance-animal accommodation requirement and cannot be applied to an assistance animal.⁷

B. Handling an assistance-animal request

When an owner requests an assistance animal, the association should engage in a timely, good-faith, interactive process. Where the disability or the disability-related need is not obvious, the association may ask for reliable documentation of the disability and the need; it may not demand certification, registration, an ID card, a specific breed, or professional training for a support animal.⁷ Online "ESA registration" products carry no legal requirement and satisfy no standard. A denial is defensible only on an individualized finding that the specific animal is a direct threat or would cause substantial property damage no other accommodation could reduce, or that the accommodation imposes an undue burden or fundamental alteration; denial based on breed, size, or generalized fear is not defensible.⁷

C. Pet fees, deposits, and insurance

An association may charge pet fees or deposits for ordinary pets if the declaration or restrictive covenants authorize the charge.² It may not charge any pet deposit, pet fee, or extra insurance premium for an assistance animal — the standard set by the now-rescinded 2020 FHEO notice and long treated as the compliance baseline under the Fair Housing Act and the South Dakota Human Relations Act.⁷ HUD's 2026 enforcement change narrowed federal enforcement for untrained emotional support animals, but the fee prohibition remains the prudent standard, since the statute, private suits, and the state Human Relations Act continue to apply.⁹

D. Enforcement and disclosure

Pet violations are enforced by board action under the condominium declaration and bylaws for condominiums, or under the recorded restrictive covenants for planned communities, and significant disputes proceed in the South Dakota Circuit Courts, with any appeal going directly to the South Dakota Supreme Court because the state has no intermediate appellate court.¹⁷ Consistent enforcement matters: the South Dakota Supreme Court has held that covenants can become unenforceable through waiver or acquiescence when violations are tolerated over time. On disclosure, a seller of residential property governed by a homeowners association must, before the buyer's written offer, disclose the association, provide the governing documents, and state assessments and recent special assessments, SDCL 43-4-44.1, enacted in 2024; a condominium developer's sale is subject to the public offering statement and public report requirements under SDCL chapter 43-15A.¹⁸ South Dakota has no dedicated HOA oversight agency, no state HOA complaint agency, and does not require community association manager licensing.¹⁹

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

The state's most notable recent legislative action addressed service-animal misrepresentation in public accommodations.

No qualifying South Dakota bill from the past 24 months amended the condominium statute or dog-bite law in a way that changes association pet authority.

B. Recent rulings

On the judicial side, the South Dakota Supreme Court's most consequential recent covenant ruling did not involve a pet restriction directly, but its reasoning reaches pet covenants.

The Court also addressed a "no build" restrictive covenant in Spring Canyon Properties, LLC v. Cal SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68 (2024), reinforcing that South Dakota covenant disputes turn on the instrument's terms read under equitable principles.

C. Active legislative debates

No active South Dakota proposal specific to HOA pet rules, assistance animals in housing, or dog-bite liability has turned up for the coming session; recent animal-related legislative attention has centered on service-animal protections and misrepresentation in public accommodations.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Among the states, treatment of HOA pets falls into two broad groups. A small group grants a statutory pet-keeping right, and California's Civil Code section 4715, a right to keep at least one pet, is the clearest example. The large majority, including South Dakota, leaves pet authority to the declaration or restrictive covenants with no pet statute, and every state shares the same federal floor: the Fair Housing Act's assistance-animal requirement. For a multi-state operator, the practical implication in South Dakota is that the binding pet rules come from the declaration or restrictive covenants, the condominium statute supplies the condominium framework, and the assistance-animal analysis applies uniformly. South Dakota's distinctive features are a thin, CC&R-primary framework with a traditional condominium statute and no comprehensive HOA code, statewide preemption of breed-specific local government ordinances, and no intermediate appellate court.

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

Footnotes

1. SDCL ch. 43-15A, Condominiums (South Dakota Legislature) ↩
2. SDCL ch. 43-15A, Condominiums (South Dakota Legislature); chapter contains no pet-specific provision ↩
3. California Civil Code § 4715 (contrast; not adopted in South Dakota) ↩
4. SDCL ch. 20-13, South Dakota Human Relations Act; SD Division of Human Rights ↩
5. SDCL ch. 47-22 et seq., South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act ↩
6. SDCL ch. 43-15B, Time-Share Estates (South Dakota Legislature) ↩
7. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) ↩
8. HUD FHEO-2020-01, Assistance Animals notice (Jan. 28, 2020), rescinded May 22, 2026 ↩
9. HUD FHEO enforcement memorandum (Assistant Secretary Craig W. Trainor) rescinding FHEO-2020-01 (May 22, 2026), analysis ↩
10. SDCL ch. 20-13, Human Relations Act; SDCL 20-13-20 unfair housing practices ↩
11. SDCL 43-32-33 to 43-32-36, service/assistance animal documentation (SL 2018, ch 259) ↩
12. SDCL 20-13-23.2 and 20-13-23.4, service-animal access provisions ↩
13. SDCL 22-35-9, misrepresentation of a service animal (SB 82, 2026) ↩
14. South Dakota common-law dog-bite liability (scienter or negligence); Sybesma v. Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d 355 (S.D. 1995) ↩
15. SDCL 40-34-13 to 40-34-15 (vicious dogs); SDCL 7-12-29 (dangerous dogs) ↩
16. SDCL 40-34-16, breed-specific local ordinance prohibition (SL 2014, ch 196) ↩
17. South Dakota Unified Judicial System (Circuit Courts and Supreme Court; no intermediate appellate court) ↩
18. SDCL 43-4-44.1, HOA seller disclosure (SL 2024, ch 177) ↩
19. South Dakota Real Estate Commission (no CAM licensing) ↩
20. SB 81 (2026), service-animal harassment protection ↩
21. Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12 (opinion, ujs.sd.gov) ↩