Today, I asked Claude to provide insight into the appropriate level of intervention a Southeast Florida condominium board of directors should take when a resident has been cited for code violations stemming from unpermitted renovations.
Two different processes are running in parallel here, and it’s worth keeping them separate before deciding what the board does.
Track one: the municipal citation. That’s between the resident and the county/city code enforcement office (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach all use a special magistrate/special master system). The board doesn’t administer that process, and the resident being “finished” with the flooring has no bearing on it — after-the-fact permits still require inspection and approval, and if the installation doesn’t meet code (subfloor, moisture barrier, sound transmission, structural loading, etc.), it comes out regardless of how complete it looks. Courts have specifically rejected the idea that finishing work retroactively legitimizes it.
Track two: the association’s own enforcement obligation. This is the one the board actually controls, and it exists independently of the county citation. Almost every South Florida declaration requires board or architectural-committee approval before a unit owner alters anything affecting structural components, plumbing, electrical, waterproofing, or sound attenuation between units — flooring replacement is one of the most commonly disputed categories precisely because of the sound-transmission and waterproofing issues in multi-story buildings. Under Fla. Stat. 718.111(3), the board has a fiduciary duty to enforce the declaration and shouldn’t simply defer to the county’s timeline, especially post-Surfside, where boards are held to a higher standard on anything related to structural elements.
The correct sequence for the board, procedurally:
- Formal written violation notice from the board (ideally through counsel), citing the specific declaration/bylaw section requiring prior approval, noting the open municipal violation, and stating what compliance requires — either obtaining the after-the-fact permit and passing inspection, or removing/restoring the work — with a reasonable cure deadline.
- If uncured, a board vote at a properly noticed meeting to pursue fines and/or other remedies. Florida law (Fla. Stat. 718.303) caps association fines at $100 per violation up to $1,000 in the aggregate (fines can accrue daily for a continuing violation), and fines cannot become a lien on the unit — which matters here, because fines alone are a weak tool for forcing physical removal of installed flooring.
- At least 14 days’ written notice of the fine hearing, then a hearing before an independent committee made up of unit owners who are not board members and don’t live in a board member’s household. That committee’s only power is to confirm or reject the fine — it can’t modify it or negotiate terms. If it rejects the fine, the board cannot impose it.
- Because fines are capped and don’t compel removal, if the unpermitted work poses a real compliance, safety, or building-integrity problem, the board’s more effective (and often necessary) remedy is a separate action for injunctive relief under 718.303(1) asking a circuit court to order the owner to remove or bring the work into compliance. This is the mechanism that actually forces correction rather than just imposing a capped penalty, and the prevailing party can recover attorney’s fees.
- Suspension of common area use or voting rights is available once a fine or other obligation is more than 90 days delinquent, though essential utilities, access, and parking can’t be cut off.
Throughout, the board should loop in an engineer or the property’s structural consultant if the flooring change could affect the structural integrity reserve study or milestone inspection obligations that now apply statewide and should document everything carefully — Florida courts scrutinize fine/suspension due process closely, and a procedural misstep (wrong notice period, board members sitting on the “independent” committee, etc.) can void the whole enforcement action.
On the resident’s misunderstanding specifically: it’s worth being explicit in the first notice letter that (a) the county citation and the association’s approval requirement are two separate obligations, and (b) completing the installation doesn’t create any right to keep it — the board is not estopped by the owner’s expenditure, and “it’s already done” is not a defense the declaration recognizes.
Given the stakes (potential litigation, structural/insurance exposure, and the strict procedural requirements), this is a good candidate for the board’s community association attorney to draft the actual notice and run the hearing, rather than the board doing it solely off a generic template — the exact cure period and remedy language should track the specific declaration.
Sources:
- Florida Law on HOA and Condo Association Fines
- Condominium Association Fines: Procedure and Enforcement
- Fining Procedures – FCAP
- Permit Violations, Miami-Dade & Broward
- Court Declares Retroactive Approval of Condominium Material Alterations Unlawful
- Changes Without Owner Approval – FCAP
I’m not an attorney, and this isn’t legal advice — given the mix of a municipal citation and a possible injunctive action, I’d loop in the association’s counsel before sending anything formal to the owner.
Write a message…
Leave a Reply