The most extensively specified atomic interface geometries for tetrahedrally coordinated compound semiconductors are those of the nonpolar (110) cleavage surfaces of zinc-blende structure semiconductors, specifically AlP, AlAs, AlSb, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InP, InAs, InSb, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, and CdTe. These geometries have been determined experimentally by a variety of techniques, low-energy electron diffraction intensity analysis and ion scattering, in particular. They have been predicted by several quantum chemical methods, including extended tight-binding, pseudopotential, and ab initio models. All of the structures are known to be qualitatively identical: a bond-length-conserving rotation in the top layer followed by a relaxation of this layer toward the substrate and possibly small counter rotations in deeper layers. The atomic rotation in the top layer is driven by a rehybridization of the surface chemical bonds to redistribute the charge in the dangling bonds of the unrelaxed surface into the remaining surface and back bonds. The magnitudes of the surface atomic relaxations scale linearly with the bulk lattice constants. Atomic geometries also are available for a few overlayer structures on these surfaces, i.e., p(1×1) structures of Al on GaAs and of Sb on GaAs and InP. An area of current research is the extension of such studies to the cleavage faces, (101̄0) and (112̄0), of wurtzite-structure compound semiconductors. Theoretical predictions are available for ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, CdS, and CdSe. Experimental structure analyses have been reported only for the (101̄0) surfaces of ZnO and CdSe. The relaxed geometries of these surfaces are analogous to those of zinc-blende (110), and are driven by the same mechanism of dangling-bond charge redistribution. Another active research area is the study of the polar surfaces of zinc-blende structure materials. These surfaces exhibit complex reconstructions which depend both on the surface stoichiometry and on the sample preparation procedure. Structure analyses have been reported for GaAs(111)-(2×2), InSb(111)-(2×2), GaP(111)-(2×2), GaAs(1̄1̄1̄)-(2×2), InP(1̄1̄1̄)-(1×1), and GaAs (100)-(2×4), as well as for GaAs(311) surfaces. These reconstructions also are driven by rehybridization of the surface chemical bonds, but the precise nature of this rehybridization differs from one structure to another. The electronic structures of all three classes of interface have been studied by a combination of photoemission spectroscopy and quantum chemical calculations. The interface states are dominated by the surface-relaxation-induced rehybridization and/or consequences of interface chemical reactions. In those cases for which the atomic geometries are known independently, the qualitative features of the observed interface-state eigenvalue spectra are well reproduced by the model calculations, although the models disagree both among themselves and with the measurements on several details.