Both Balcony Deadlines Have Passed. Now What?
Both of California's balcony inspection deadlines are now behind us. That is the practical fact that changes the conversation from compliance planning to diligence, and it is worth stating carefully, because the two deadlines now fall a year apart, having been separated only in 2024.
For condominiums and other common interest developments, the first inspection was due January 1, 2025. For apartment buildings, it was due January 1, 2026 — moved there from the original January 1, 2025 by legislation in 2024. Two statutes, two deadlines a year apart, two different inspection cycles, and two different definitions of the thing being inspected.
If you are buying a unit, buying a building, or advising someone who is, the question is no longer whether the owner will comply. It is what you are inheriting.
Which statute applies to my building?
The dividing line is ownership structure, not construction type.
Health and Safety Code section 17973, added by SB 721 (Stats. 2018, ch. 445), governs apartment buildings. Section 17973(a) applies it to exterior elevated elements with load-bearing components "in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units." Section 17973(n) then takes common interest developments out of it entirely: "This section shall not apply to a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code."
Civil Code section 5551, added by SB 326 (Stats. 2019, ch. 207), governs the other side. Section 5551(b)(1) directs "the board of an association of a condominium project" to cause an inspection, and reaches only those elements "for which the association has maintenance or repair responsibility." Section 5551(l) limits the section to buildings containing three or more attached multifamily dwelling units — note the word attached, which section 17973 does not use.
The definitions differ too, and not only cosmetically. Section 17973(b)(2) defines an exterior elevated element as the structure itself, "including their supports and railings" — "balconies, decks, porches, stairways, walkways, and entry structures that extend beyond exterior walls of the building" — with a walking surface elevated more than six feet above ground level, designed for human occupancy or use, relying in whole or in substantial part on wood or wood-based products for structural support or stability. Section 5551(a)(2) defines it as "the load-bearing components together with their associated waterproofing system," and its list at subdivision (a)(3) — decks, balconies, stairways, walkways and railings — omits porches and entry structures. Both use the six-foot elevation test and both key to wood support.
What does each rule require?
Apartments — Health and Safety Code section 17973
Under section 17973(d)(1), the inspection "shall be completed by January 1, 2026, and by January 1 every six years thereafter." The move from the original 2025 date came from AB 2579 (Stats. 2024, ch. 835). The section was amended again by AB 130 (Stats. 2025, ch. 22, sec. 32), effective June 30, 2025. That amendment left the January 1, 2026 date intact, but it added subdivision (d)(2), which provides that notwithstanding paragraph (1), an owner who confirms the presence of asbestos-containing material during the inspection process and cannot complete the inspection as a result has up to nine months to complete abatement — the statute does not say from what date, though presumably from confirmation — and no more than three months after that to finish the inspection, with records of the material and its abatement retained for three years after completion of the inspection. An owner in that position is not out of compliance on January 2, 2026.
Who may inspect is a closed list in subdivision (a): a licensed architect; a licensed civil or structural engineer; a building contractor holding an A, B or C-5 classification with at least five years' experience in constructing multistory wood frame buildings; or an individual certified as a building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national or international association, as determined by the local jurisdiction. The statute adds that these individuals may not be employed by the local jurisdiction while performing the inspections, and that the inspector is hired by the building owner.
The sample is a floor, not a target: under subdivision (c)(2), "a sample of at least 15 percent of each type of exterior elevated element shall be inspected."
The clocks then run in sequence, and each starts somewhere specific.
The written report goes to the owner within 45 days of completion of the inspection (subdivision (c)(4)). Where the report recommends immediate repairs, or advises that any building assembly poses an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, or that preventing occupant access or emergency repairs including shoring are necessary, the inspector must provide a copy to the owner and to the local enforcement agency within 15 days of completion of the report (subdivision (d)(1)).
For an emergency condition, subdivision (h)(1) requires the owner to perform preventive measures immediately, including preventing occupant access until repairs are complete. For non-emergency corrective work, subdivision (h)(2) requires the owner to apply for a permit within 120 days of receipt of the inspection report, and once the permit is approved, to complete repairs within a further 120 days unless the local enforcement agency grants an extension.
Non-compliance has teeth. Under subdivision (i)(2), if the owner does not comply with the repair requirements within 180 days — the statute does not say from what date — the inspector notifies the local enforcement agency and the owner, and if repairs are not completed within 30 days of that notice the owner is assessed a civil penalty on the local fee schedule of not less than $100 nor more than $500 per day until repairs are completed, absent an extension. On assessment, subdivision (i)(3) permits the local jurisdiction to record a building safety lien, which from the date of recording has the force, effect and priority of a judgment lien; subdivision (j) governs the lien's contents, discharge, indexing and foreclosure.
And the provision that matters most to a purchaser of an apartment building sits in the middle of subdivision (d)(1): reports must be kept in the owner's permanent records for not less than two inspection cycles, and "shall be disclosed and delivered to the buyer at the time of any subsequent sale of the building."
Condominiums — Civil Code section 5551
Section 5551(i) sets the association's clock: "The first inspection shall be completed by January 1, 2025, and then every nine years thereafter in coordination with the reserve study inspection pursuant to Section 5550." As of September 20, 2026, nothing has moved that date, though see the note on pending legislation below. Written reports are maintained for two inspection cycles as association records.
The inspection is performed by a licensed structural or civil engineer or architect (subdivision (b)(1)), and it is a visual inspection — defined in subdivision (a)(5) as inspection "through the least intrusive method necessary," which may be observation alone or observation with tools such as moisture meters, borescopes or infrared technology.
The sampling standard is statistical rather than a flat percentage. Subdivision (a)(4) defines a statistically significant sample as enough units "to provide 95 percent confidence that the results from the sample are reflective of the whole, with a margin of error of no greater than plus or minus 5 percent." Subdivision (c) requires the inspector to generate a random list of element locations before the first inspection, and subdivision (h) requires each subsequent inspection to commence with the next element on that list and proceed in order.
The report goes to the board and, under subdivision (f), is "incorporated into the study required by Section 5550" — the reserve study. That linkage is why a missing section 5551 report is not only an inspection problem. It is a hole in the reserve study, which is a document a buyer's lender reads.
For emergencies, subdivision (g)(1) requires the inspector to give the report to the association immediately on completion and to the local code enforcement agency within 15 days of completion of the report, and requires the association on receipt to take preventive measures immediately, including preventing occupant access "until repairs have been inspected and approved by the local enforcement agency."
One gap worth naming: section 5551 contains no authority for an association to enter a separate interest or an exclusive use common area to perform the inspection. The section reaches only elements for which the association already has maintenance or repair responsibility. Where access to a unit or a balcony assigned as exclusive use common area is needed, that right has to come from the governing documents, not from this statute.
What does a buyer actually get, and not get?
This is where the law changed recently, and where it still stops short.
SB 410 (Stats. 2025, ch. 516), effective January 1, 2026, amended Civil Code sections 4525, 4528, 5200, 5210 and 5551. Most of that is disclosure machinery, but one change is substantive and useful to a buyer: it added section 5551(e)(5), which requires the report to open with a first-page summary giving the inspection date, the total units in the project, the units that have exterior elevated elements, the total number of those elements and how many were inspected, how many were found to pose an immediate threat and how many units they affect, and a certification that the inspector evaluated a statistically significant sample. A buyer can now tell from page one whether the sample was certified and what was flagged. Civil Code section 4525(a)(11) now includes in the documents an owner must provide a prospective purchaser "[a] copy of the report issued pursuant to the most recent inspection conducted pursuant to Section 5551." Section 4528's statutory charge form carries a corresponding line item, and section 5200(a)(15) adds "[a]ll inspector's reports compiled pursuant to Section 5551" to the association records available to members.
So a condominium buyer is now entitled to the most recent report as part of the statutory disclosure package. That is real progress.
But read what it does not say. Section 4525(a)(11) requires a copy of the most recent inspection conducted. If no inspection was ever conducted, the paragraph delivers nothing, and the statute imposes no affirmative duty to say so. There is likewise no statutory requirement to flag that a report was adverse, or that the association has not acted on it. The buyer discovers an absence rather than receiving a disclosure.
What fills the gap is ordinary law, not this statute: the general duty to disclose known material facts affecting value or desirability, and the contractual and diligence protections a buyer negotiates. Our article on what a seller must disclose covers that duty, and our piece on the disclosure gap above four units covers what changes when the building is larger.
A practical instruction follows. On a condominium purchase, do not ask whether the report is in the package. Ask, in writing, whether a section 5551 inspection has been performed, on what date, by whom, and what it found — and read the reserve study, because section 5551(f) should have put the report there.
What if the report comes back bad?
Suppose the report arrives and it is bad. Dry rot in the balcony framing, waterproofing failed, repairs in the hundreds of thousands. The instinct is to look for someone to sue.
Check the calendar before spending money on that theory.
Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 bars an action for a latent deficiency more than 10 years after substantial completion of the improvement. Under subdivision (g), that period commences on substantial completion but not later than the earliest of four dates: final inspection by the applicable public agency, recordation of a valid notice of completion, use or occupation of the improvement, or one year after work terminates or ceases. That matters on residential projects, where a valid notice of completion is often never recorded and final inspection or occupancy will control instead — which starts the clock earlier, not later. Section 337.1(a) sets a four-year period for a patent deficiency — one "apparent by reasonable inspection" under subdivision (e). Section 337.15(f) excepts actions based on willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment.
For newer condominiums there is also the Right to Repair Act. Civil Code section 896 sets standards that include, at subdivisions (a)(5) and (a)(6), that decks, deck systems, balconies, balcony systems, exterior stairs and stair systems shall not allow water to pass into the adjacent structure, and shall not allow unintended water to pass within the systems themselves and cause damage to the systems. By its own terms the title "applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit," and as to condominium conversions "does not apply to or does not supersede any other statutory or common law"; section 938 limits the title to new residential units where the purchase agreement was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003. Section 941(a) sets the outside limit at 10 years after substantial completion, "but not later than the date of recordation of a valid notice of completion" — the same construction as section 337.15(g), so recordation can start the 10 years earlier rather than supplying a separate deadline. Section 941(e) provides that repairs made under the Act's prelitigation chapter do not extend the period for filing an action, and do not restart the limitations periods in Business and Professions Code section 7091. Section 941(d) also provides that Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15 do not apply to actions brought under the title — the Act supplies its own period rather than layering on top of them.
The Act is also, for covered construction, close to the only route. In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, the California Supreme Court held that the Act supplies the virtually exclusive remedy for construction defect claims in post-2003 residential construction it covers, reaching claims for property damage and not only economic loss, and pointing to Civil Code section 943(a): "Except as provided in this title, no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed." The same section preserves actions to enforce a contract or express contractual provision, and actions for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. McMillin disapproved Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 to the extent they were inconsistent with it, and both are still widely cited in older commentary. So for a covered building, a common-law negligence or strict liability theory is generally not an alternative route around the Act's period.
The common feature is the one that hurts. Each of those limits runs from substantial completion rather than from discovery, from the sale, or from the date an inspection report reveals the problem. A caution follows. These are outside limits that cap an action; they do not extend anything, and a shorter period measured from discovery or accrual — three years for injury to real property under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), four for written contract under section 337, two for personal injury under section 335.1 — will often expire first. So an adverse report starts a clock of its own whatever the completion date. An inspection performed in 2026 on a building substantially completed in 2010 may be documenting a condition on which the construction claim has already expired.
That is the real trap for a buyer inheriting a failed report, and it is why the disclosure and reserve-study questions above matter more to that buyer than a defect theory does. Our construction defect claims page describes how we approach the ones that are still live. The cost is going to be borne by the owners, through the association, and the question a buyer should be pricing is how much and when — not who can be made to pay for it.
What is still unsettled?
No published California appellate decision has construed Health and Safety Code section 17973 or Civil Code section 5551. We could not locate one, which is unsurprising given that section 5551's first deadline arrived in January 2025 and section 17973's in January 2026. Both statutes are therefore operating without appellate gloss on questions that will eventually matter: what "substantial part" wood support means at the margins, how the statistically significant sample interacts with an association that has elements of several types, and what an association's duty is when a report is adverse but no element poses an immediate threat.
Local rules may also be stricter. Section 17973(o) permits cities and counties to impose greater requirements, and section 5551(m) and (n) permit both associations and local agencies to do the same. Check the local ordinance before concluding a building is compliant.
This article states the law as of September 20, 2026, and two pending bills could change it. SB 1238 (2025–2026), which amends Civil Code section 5551 along with several other Davis-Stirling sections, was enrolled and presented to the Governor on August 31, 2026 and had not been signed or vetoed as of his September 18 legislative update; under article IV, section 10(b)(2) of the California Constitution it becomes law without signature if not returned by September 30, 2026. AB 2050, which amends Civil Code section 5550, was presented on September 3, 2026 and is in the same position — and section 5551(i) requires the inspection to be coordinated with the section 5550 reserve study, so it bears on the discussion above. Confirm the current text of both sections before relying on this article.
Frequently asked questions
When were California balcony inspections due?
They were due on two different dates. For a condominium or other common interest development, Civil Code section 5551(i) required the first inspection by January 1, 2025, and then every nine years, coordinated with the reserve study under section 5550. For an apartment building, Health and Safety Code section 17973(d)(1) required the first inspection by January 1, 2026, and by January 1 every six years after that; the apartment deadline was moved from the original January 1, 2025 date by AB 2579. Section 17973(d)(2) carries a limited exception where asbestos-containing material is confirmed during the inspection process and prevents completion.
Which statute applies to my building?
Health and Safety Code section 17973 applies to buildings with three or more multifamily dwelling units, and subdivision (n) expressly excludes common interest developments. Civil Code section 5551 applies to associations of condominium projects with three or more attached multifamily dwelling units, and only to elements for which the association has maintenance or repair responsibility. Both statutes also reach only elements with a walking surface more than six feet above ground level that rely in whole or substantial part on wood or wood-based products, so a low deck or a concrete-framed balcony may fall outside both. The two define an exterior elevated element differently in other respects as well, so the same physical balcony can be described differently under each.
Does the seller of a condominium have to give me the balcony inspection report?
Civil Code section 4525(a)(11), as amended by SB 410 effective January 1, 2026, requires the owner to provide a copy of the report from the most recent inspection conducted under section 5551 as part of the statutory disclosure package. Note the limit: if no inspection was ever conducted, that paragraph produces nothing, and no statute requires the seller or association to affirmatively state that the inspection is overdue or that a report was adverse. That is a limit on the statute, not permission to stay silent. A seller's general duty to disclose known material facts affecting the value or desirability of the property applies independently of these sections, and a known adverse report is the kind of fact that duty reaches.
What happens if the inspector finds an immediate threat?
For an apartment building, section 17973(d)(1) requires the inspector to give a copy of the report to the owner and to the local enforcement agency within 15 days of completing it, and section 17973(h)(1) requires the owner to take preventive measures immediately, including preventing occupant access until repairs are done. For an association, section 5551(g)(1) requires the report to go to the association immediately and to local code enforcement within 15 days of completion of the report, and requires the association to take preventive measures immediately, including preventing access until repairs have been inspected and approved by the local enforcement agency.
Can I still sue the builder over what the report found?
That depends mostly on when the building was substantially completed. Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 bars an action for a latent construction deficiency more than 10 years after substantial completion, and section 337.1 sets four years for a patent deficiency, one apparent by reasonable inspection. Section 337.15(g) can start the 10 years earlier than substantial completion, at the first of final inspection, recordation of a valid notice of completion, use or occupation, or one year after work ceases; section 337.15(f) excepts claims based on willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment. For a new residential unit whose purchase agreement was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003, the Right to Repair Act generally supplies the governing period for covered original construction: Civil Code section 941(a) sets 10 years after substantial completion but not later than recordation of a valid notice of completion, and section 941(d) makes sections 337.1 and 337.15 inapplicable. Those are all outside limits. A shorter period running from discovery or accrual will often expire first, so an adverse report starts a clock of its own whatever the completion date. In our view the reserve and assessment analysis is usually the more useful place for a buyer to start.
This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Robert B. Mobasseri, State Bar No. 193193, ROMO Law Group, Encino, California.