Who Fixes What: Understanding Maintenance Obligations in California HOAs by Cyrus Koocheck, Esq.

One of the most common and consequential questions a homeowners association board will face is deceptively simple: who is responsible for fixing this? Whether the issue is a leaking plumbing line inside a wall, a damaged fence, a cracked patio slab, or a failed window, the answer is critical to understanding who actually performs the repair, who pays the contractor, and who bears liability if the problem is ignored. Yet despite how frequently this question arises, many boards either answer it by instinct or, worse, by looking at the building itself. Both approaches can lead to decisions that are not just wrong, but potentially place the association a

nd board at risk.

This article addresses how California law frames maintenance responsibility in community associations, and why getting this question right starts with knowing where to look.

The Key Statute: Civil Code Section 4775

California Civil Code Section 4775 is the foundational provision governing maintenance obligations in California community associations. At its core, this Davis-Stirling Act statute establishes a default framework under which an association is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing the common area, while owners are responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing their own separate interests. Further, exclusive use common areas are the responsibility of owners to maintain (only), while an association is responsible for repair and replacement. Simple enough until you try to apply it to an actual building.

The critical nuance in Section 4775 is that it expressly defers to the governing documents. All of the responsibilities set forth under the statute apply “except to the extent that the governing documents provide otherwise.” This phrase carries great significance. It means that the CC&Rs can and routinely do shift maintenance obligations away from the default language of the statute. The statute is not a bright-line rule; it is a starting point that immediately yields to whatever the governing documents say.

This is why, when a maintenance dispute or question arises, the first thing the board should do is review the CC&Rs.

Knowing What You Own

Before a board can correctly apply the CC&Rs to any maintenance question, it must first understand the ownership boundary between the separate interest and the common area. In other words, what does an owner actually own. This sounds obvious, but in practice it is frequently misunderstood often because of the natural tendency to be influenced by the physical appearance of the development.

Consider the case of townhome-style developments, which generate a disproportionate share of maintenance disputes precisely because of the mismatch between how they look and what the law actually says (or doesn’t say) about them. Notably, the Davis-Stirling Act does not define townhomes.

A townhome looks, from the outside, like a house. Owners often believe, based on the physical reality of living there, that they are responsible for their exterior walls, their roof, their front walkway, their balcony. Many townhome communities are actually designated (legally) as condominium projects, where these components are common area under the CC&Rs, meaning the association owns them and bears the maintenance obligation over most exterior or structural components.

Some townhome communities are legally designated as planned developments, where the owner does actually own their entire lot and the home structure/exteriors. In these types of communities, a roof or balcony would likely be an owner’s responsibility and not considered common area in the first place. 

This highlights the important of understanding what type of community you live in (for example, planned development vs. condominium project), what the boundaries are of each owner’s separate interest, and what the CC&Rs say about maintenance. 

The building's appearance does not tell the whole story. A row of identical townhomes one one side of the street could be condos, while a seemingly identical row across the street could be a planned development with individually owned lots of land. Appearances do not tell you what the legal maintenance responsibilities are. That answer is drawn not by architecture, but by the governing documents.

Why the CC&Rs or a Clear Maintenance Matrix Are Critical

Because the law defers to the governing documents, the quality and clarity of those documents directly determines how smoothly a board can navigate maintenance questions. Well-drafted CC&Rs define the separate interest with precision, often by reference to the condominium plan or subdivision map, and clearly assign responsibility for the building envelope, the structural components, the exclusive use common areas, the mechanical systems, and the interior components of each unit. When the CC&Rs are clear, maintenance disputes are relatively straightforward to resolve.

Many associations, however, operate under CC&Rs that are decades old, vaguely worded, or silent on particular components that were not anticipated when the documents were drafted. When that happens, boards are left to interpret ambiguous language, often under pressure from a homeowner who wants the association to pay, or an owner who refuses to act. Ambiguity in governing document maintenance language frequently becomes the subject of mediation demands and litigation, and also results in associations incurring legal fees for opinions or for defending owner complaints.

The clearest solution is always to amend the CC&Rs, but most boards know it is difficult to get members to participate in voting, and in many cases, the CC&Rs may contain high approval requirements which make amendments difficult to explore. This is why many associations benefit from having legal counsel prepare a maintenance responsibility matrix, which is a plain-language chart that delineates each component of the development, identifies whether it is separate interest, common area, or exclusive use common area, and specifies who is responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement. A good matrix is not a substitute for the CC&Rs, but it is an extraordinarily useful operational tool drafted based on what is in the CC&Rs (or law). It allows a board to answer maintenance questions quickly and consistently, reduces the risk of arbitrary decisions that create precedent problems, and gives homeowners a clear reference point so that disputes can be resolved before they escalate.

If your association's CC&Rs are silent, ambiguous, or internally inconsistent on maintenance responsibilities, that is a problem worth addressing proactively as opposed to in the future after a major and potentially expensive dispute lands in your lap. Boards should consult with association legal counsel on whether an amendment or maintenance matrix makes sense, and what the drafting process looks like.

Practical Takeaways for Boards

Never determine maintenance responsibility by looking at the building. The physical layout, the appearance of ownership, and common sense assumptions about who "should" be responsible have no bearing on what the governing documents actually say.

Always start with the CC&Rs. When a maintenance question arises, the first step is to locate the relevant provisions of the CC&Rs, including the definition of the separate interest, the definition of common area, and any provisions that assign maintenance of specific components.

Understand exclusive use common area. The category of exclusive use common area can lead to some of the most tricky maintenance questions; do not assume that exclusive use common areas are always an owner’s responsibility. In fact, the statutory default actually places most responsibility on the association, unless the CC&Rs provide otherwise.

If the CC&Rs are unclear, get legal guidance before acting. Boards that make maintenance decisions based on their own interpretation of ambiguous governing documents can find themselves liable for failing to perform necessary maintenance, failing to properly enforce the governing documents, and potentially for failing to exercise sound business judgment by making a decision without consulting with legal counsel. Consulting with professionals is the best way to ensure the board is complying with the business judgment rule and thus meeting their fiduciary duties as directors.

Consider a maintenance matrix. If your association does not have one, ask your legal counsel or management company whether one would be appropriate. It is an investment that pays for itself the first time a contentious maintenance question comes up, especially for cases where the CC&Rs are ambiguous or where an amendment to the CC&Rs is not realistic.

Maintenance responsibility is not a glamorous subject, but it is one of the most practically important areas of HOA governance. Adhering to the above guidance will make maintenance questions/disputes considerably easier to resolve and will in turn protect the association’s legal and financial well-being.

Cyrus Koochek is a Partner with SwedelsonGottlieb and provides assistance to community associations in all areas of corporate counsel and transactional work. Cyrus oversees the firm's Amend! program, which covers the amendment and restatement of governing documents for associations. Cyrus is a regular contributor and educator with CAI and CACM, and in 2024 became a CCAL fellow, a designation held by less than 200 attorneys in the country who practice community association law.