Splitting Elevator Costs by Floor in an Italian Condominium

Among the topics that spark the most debate at condominium assemblies is splitting elevator costs by floor, because it relies on a different principle than the ordinary ownership share calculation: owners on higher floors use the elevator far more intensively than owners on the ground floor or first floor, and Italian law accounts for this difference with a combined criterion. Understanding how this criterion is correctly applied is essential for the manager, both to prepare an accurate financial statement and to prevent disputes from owners who feel penalized by the calculation.

The criterion set out in article 1124 of the Civil Code

Article 1124 of the Italian Civil Code, expressly referred to for elevators as well, sets a double allocation criterion: half of the expense is split according to each unit's general ownership share, while the other half is split in proportion to the floor height of each unit relative to ground level. This double criterion reflects two distinct needs: on one hand, the shared ownership of the equipment, which concerns every owner regardless of the floor they occupy, and on the other, the concrete benefit the elevator provides to those who need to climb several floors to reach their unit.

The practical result is that the owner on the top floor pays proportionally more than the one on the ground floor, but does not pay double or triple simply for living higher up: the ownership share component softens the purely height-proportional effect, keeping a balance between the two criteria.

Which costs fall within the split

Splitting elevator costs by floor covers both ordinary running costs, such as electricity, periodic maintenance, and the technical service contract, and extraordinary costs linked to major repairs or the replacement of parts of the system. The combined criterion of article 1124 generally applies to all of these items, unless the contractual condominium bylaws set a different criterion, an option the law allows when all owners have expressly accepted such a departure.

• Electricity and running consumption of the system
• Periodic ordinary maintenance and service contracts
• Extraordinary repairs to mechanical or electronic components
• Mandatory periodic inspections and regulatory upgrades

A different case is the cost of installing a brand new elevator, which follows in part its own rules linked to innovations and the removal of architectural barriers, with assembly majorities and allocation criteria that can differ from those applied to maintaining an already existing system.

Ground floor units and those that do not use the elevator

One of the most common questions concerns owners of ground floor units, who often believe they should not contribute at all to elevator costs, since they never use it. Case law has clarified that these owners remain liable to contribute, albeit to a reduced extent, because the ownership share component of the expense is independent of actual use and relates to the co-ownership of the shared asset, in addition to the fact that the elevator still affects the value of the whole building, including units that do not directly use it.

The component linked to floor height, on the other hand, naturally tends toward zero or a very low value for the ground floor, significantly reducing the impact of the expense on these units compared to those on upper floors.

How to calculate the split in practice

In administrative practice, the calculation requires two distinct steps. The first is dividing half of the total expense according to the general ownership shares assigned to each unit, based on the approved ownership share tables. The second step requires calculating the impact of floor height, assigning each unit a share proportional to its vertical distance from ground level, often expressed in a dedicated table built specifically for the elevator.

Many condominiums, especially older ones, do not have a specific ownership share table for the elevator, and the manager must therefore prepare one, or have a technician prepare one, applying the criteria of article 1124 consistently with the building's actual layout.

The combined criterion between ownership shares and floor height exists to balance two different interests: co-ownership of the shared asset and the concrete benefit the equipment provides to those living higher up.

Common mistakes in the split

A common mistake is applying only one of the two criteria, for example splitting the entire expense based solely on floor height, excessively penalizing owners on the top floors, or applying only general ownership shares, ignoring the height-related benefit component. Both approaches depart from the legal criterion and can be grounds for challenging the resolution by owners who consider themselves harmed by an incorrect calculation.

Another mistake concerns updating the elevator-specific table when the building is modified, for example when new floors are added on top of the existing structure: in these cases the ownership share table relating to the elevator needs to be revised to reflect the new distribution of floor heights, otherwise the split ends up being calculated on a situation that no longer matches reality.

The role of management software in applying the criterion correctly

Applying the double criterion of article 1124 with precision requires an accounting tool capable of managing multiple ownership share tables and applying them automatically to the relevant expense items, avoiding manual calculation errors that, in large buildings, can become difficult to spot and correct later on. AmministraPro supports this kind of split with features dedicated to multiple ownership share tables, described in detail on the features page, and anyone who wants to know the cost of the service can check the pricing page of the site to find the plan best suited to their firm or their condominium.