What follows is our general observations and opinions. It is not legal advice, and it is not a definitive statement of California law. Every situation depends on its own facts.
When mold turns up in a Los Angeles condominium, the first question is almost never medical or scientific. It is jurisdictional: is this the unit owner’s problem, the homeowners association’s problem, or both? In our experience the answer usually turns on two things — where the water actually came from, and which side of the line the governing documents put that space on.
The short version, as we read the way most California common interest developments are structured: the association is generally responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing the common area, and the individual owner is generally responsible for the separate interest, meaning the airspace and improvements inside the unit. Exclusive use common area — a balcony, a patio, a window frame or a plumbing stub serving only one unit — sits in between, and that is where most of the arguments happen. But that allocation is only a default. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act allows the CC&Rs to move those lines, and many do, so the governing documents have to be read rather than assumed.
Where the water came from usually decides who pays
Mold is a symptom. Almost every condo mold dispute we look at is really a water dispute wearing a different label, and the water has an origin that can be traced. That origin tends to sort the claim faster than any lab report will.
Common patterns we see in Los Angeles buildings:
- Roof, deck or building envelope failure. Water entering through the roof, a walkway, a stucco crack or a failed window seal is usually coming through common area, which points at the association.
- A main line or vertical stack. Shared plumbing running between units is generally common area even where it passes through a wall in someone’s unit.
- A branch line, fixture or appliance inside the unit. A failed supply hose under a sink, a leaking shower pan, or a dishwasher that has been quietly wetting a cabinet base is generally the owner’s side of the line.
- The upstairs neighbor. This is the messiest category, because the source is a third owner’s separate interest and the damage is in yours, with the association’s common area in between.
- Balcony and exterior elevated element failures. Very common in the wood-framed 1960s through 1990s stock across the Valley and the Westside, and these usually sit in exclusive use common area.
Our practice is to establish the water path before arguing about responsibility, because responsibility follows the path. A moisture map, photographs taken over time, and a plumber’s or roofer’s written findings are worth more at that stage than an air sample.
Maintenance, repair and replacement are three different obligations
One distinction that catches owners out: the governing documents frequently allocate maintenance of a component to one party and repair or replacement of that same component to another. A common arrangement is that the owner maintains an exclusive use balcony day to day, while the association remains responsible for structural repair or replacement of it. Our reading of Davis-Stirling is that it supplies a default allocation for exclusive use common area of that general shape, and that the CC&Rs can vary it.
The practical effect is that “the HOA says the balcony is mine” is not the end of the analysis. It may be the owner’s to sweep and seal and still the association’s to rebuild when the framing beneath it has rotted.
The association’s duty to investigate, and the reserve problem
Where the water is coming through common area, an association that knows about the intrusion and does nothing is in a different position from one that has never been told. In our experience the single most useful thing an owner can do early is create an unambiguous written record: a dated written notice to the board or the management company describing the intrusion, the location and the damage, sent in a way that can be proved, with photographs attached.
Associations are generally required to prepare reserve studies and to have their common area components inspected on a schedule, and boards owe duties to the membership in how they manage that. We would be candid with any owner, though, that a board facing a large envelope repair with a thin reserve has a strong practical incentive to characterize the problem as an in-unit maintenance issue. That is not necessarily bad faith. It is budget pressure, and it is why documentation matters.
If you rent a condo, your landlord is still your landlord
A significant share of Los Angeles condos are tenant-occupied, and tenants sometimes get told that a mold problem is “the HOA’s issue” and that there is nothing the owner can do. Our view is that this confuses two separate relationships. As between the tenant and the owner, the residential habitability duties in the Civil Code run to the owner as landlord regardless of how the CC&Rs allocate repair costs internally. The owner may well have a claim against the association. That is the owner’s problem to pursue, not a defense to the tenant’s habitability claim.
The Los Angeles Housing Department will generally inspect a rented unit and cite conditions in it whether the building is a condominium or a conventional apartment. A tenant in a condo should not assume the local enforcement route is closed to them.
Where these claims get difficult
We try to be straight with owners about the weak points, because they are real:
Two-front disputes. An owner with mold from an upstairs unit may need to pursue both the neighbor and the association, and each will point at the other. That is slower and more expensive than a single-defendant claim.
Alternative dispute resolution requirements. Our reading of Davis-Stirling is that certain disputes between an owner and an association require the parties to be offered alternative dispute resolution before an enforcement action is filed, and that internal dispute resolution procedures also apply. Skipping that step can cost an owner more than the delay would have.
Insurance layering. The association’s master policy, the owner’s HO-6 policy and a tenant’s renters policy may all be implicated, and mold coverage is frequently capped or excluded outright. Coverage questions are worth raising early rather than after the remediation invoice arrives.
Proving the health piece. Establishing that mold exposure caused a specific medical condition is a genuinely contested area, and California has not adopted numerical indoor exposure limits that a claimant can simply point to. Property damage, loss of use and remediation cost are usually far easier to establish than personal injury.
What we would do first
Read the CC&Rs and any amendments, not the summary the management company provides. Find the water path and document it. Put the association on written notice with photographs and dates. Ask for the reserve study, recent board minutes touching the envelope or plumbing, and prior repair records for your stack — those frequently show the association already knew. Keep every invoice.
How we work on these
We review governing documents, insurance policies and repair records on an hourly or flat-fee basis, which is usually the right arrangement for the document-and-negotiation stage of a condo dispute. Where a matter becomes a habitability or damages claim, we handle that under a separate written fee agreement, and for that kind of claim our fees are drawn from any recovery, with costs treated separately. No outcome is ever guaranteed, and past results do not predict future results.
If you are dealing with mold in a Los Angeles condominium and cannot get a straight answer about who is responsible, we are happy to talk it through. Call us at (310) 556-9692.
Related reading: our toxic mold and habitability resource page, along with what to do when a landlord will not fix mold, how to document a mold problem properly, and mold discovered after a purchase closes.
These are our general observations and opinions only. They are not legal advice and not a definitive statement of California law, every situation turns on its own facts, and reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship between us.
TALK TO A LOS ANGELES ATTORNEY
Tell us what is happening and we will get back to you. Your consultation is free, and we will tell you honestly whether we think you have a case worth pursuing.
