COOPERATOR NEWS: As an attorney for shared-interest communities, what do you find are the three most common disputes that can lead to or result in conflict between boards and residents, residents and residents, and neighboring communities these days?

KOSAR: “One of the conflicts I’m seeing more frequently relates to absentee unit-owners and short-term rentals, which tend to create tension around how a unit is being used.  Condo owners may feel they have autonomy or the ability to generate income, while boards and management are focused on compliance with the condominium documents and rules, as well as broader concerns like safety, building operations, and insurance exposure.  

“A second area is increased regulatory and compliance obligations. These obligations can require planning, budgeting, and in some cases, additional assessments, which can lead to disputes with residents. 

“Thirdly, access agreements with neighboring properties have become a big issue. Whether it’s façade or parapet inspections, repairs, or neighbouring construction projects, these situations can be difficult to navigate and can impact both residents and relationships between buildings.

CN: What types of disputes result from short-term rentals and absentee owners, and how should boards deal with these disputes? Should they have a stated policy? Should enforcement be handled by management or the board? 

KOSAR: “The issues that come up with short-term rentals are usually tied to access and control, such as who is coming into the building, how keys or entry are being provided, and whether that use is consistent with the condo’s governing documents. There are also broader concerns around health and life safety for residents and staff, as well as potential financial risks, including increased insurance premiums, and violations and monetary fines issued by the City.  

“There is often a balance that needs to be struck between a unit owner’s rights and the board’s obligation to enforce the rules and protect the building and community.  From a practical standpoint, the key is having clear procedures in place and making sure they are uniformly enforced. That may include implementing fines where appropriate.  Boards though, need to ensure there is a clear policy and that unit owners have been given notice of both the policies and the potential penalties.  Consistency is important. Enforcement should be objective and non-discriminatory. In most cases, management can handle enforcement, with the board providing oversight rather than being directly involved in each situation.”

CN: You mentioned increasing regulatory pressures.  How can boards set up a compliance policy without overtaxing themselves or residents? How can management help?

KOSAR: “Boards need to be mindful of what compliance requires and plan for it. In the case of Local Law 97 for example, that may involve budgeting for upgrades or improvements and potentially passing costs along through assessments when necessary. More broadly, these regulatory obligations require ongoing attention, whether it’s inspections, filings, or building work. Taking a proactive approach and understanding and addressing needs and requirements for the future helps with better budgeting and planning, as well as avoiding last-minute decisions that can create tension with residents.  Management plays an important role in helping track these requirements and coordinating the work that needs to be done. Clear communication with residents is also important, so there is an understanding of why certain steps are being taken and what the financial impact may be.”

CN: What is the best approach to the growing request for access agreements, either when seeking one or granting one, without alienating neighbours or residents? Should this be handled at arm’s length by attorneys for both sides? Should the board ever be involved in these direct negotiations?

KOSAR: “Access agreements can be tricky. They often come up in connection with façade inspections, or when a neighbouring building is doing construction or renovation work and access is required to install mandatory overhead protections, sidewalk sheds, and scaffolding. 

“From the building’s perspective, there are real impacts to consider. Residents may lose use of certain amenities, like a courtyard or pool. Or they might deal with restricted access to certain designated areas within the building due to the installation of the legally required overhead protection and controlled access zones. In some cases, there can be more permanent impacts, such as the loss of a view or even certain windows becoming entirely blocked, reducing the amount of natural light that enters a unit. Boards will often look to obtain license fees for loss of use or inconvenience, which they may be entitled to. 

“However, as previously mentioned, at the same time boards should be mindful of future projects or obligations that may require similar access and cooperation from a neighboring property.  Your neighbor may be asking something of you today, but you may be asking them for something tomorrow.  For that reason, it often makes sense to approach these situations with some level of practicality. Counsel is typically involved in negotiating the terms, but there is also a broader consideration around maintaining workable relationships with neighboring buildings.”

CN: All good points.  Is there anything else you’d like to add?

KOSAR: “Yes—the one common thread that ties all of this together is the importance of having clear policies and making sure they are applied consistently. A lot of disputes come from situations where expectations aren’t clearly set, or enforcement is seen as uneven. Multifamily living in large residential buildings is filled with its share of challenges--especially within the City of New York.  However, those buildings and boards that have clear, consistent rules and guidelines are critical for successful communities and eliminating disputes.” 

CN: Sage advice, Devin. Thanks so much for spending some time with us today.

KOSAR: “My pleasure.”