Terrace at floor level in Italian condominiums: who pays for repairs

A terrace at floor level in an Italian condominium often raises doubts when it is time to split repair expenses. Unlike an ordinary balcony, a terrace at floor level sits on the same floor as an apartment and is often its natural extension, but structurally it can also act as a roof for the units below. It is that covering function, not simply who uses it, that decides how costs are shared between the exclusive user and the other owners.

What a terrace at floor level is and why the covering function matters

A terrace at floor level is an uncovered surface on the same floor as a residential unit, normally used exclusively by the owner of the apartment it belongs to. When other apartments sit underneath that surface, the terrace also functions as a roof for those units, protecting them from water infiltration. This double nature, an exclusive-use surface that is also a covering element, is why Italian case law applies article 1126 of the Civil Code by analogy, even though the article was originally written for roof terraces called lastrici solari.

The difference between a terrace at floor level and a roof terrace

A traditional roof terrace sits at the top of the building and covers the entire structure below it. A terrace at floor level, instead, sits on an intermediate floor and covers only a portion of the building, namely the units located directly underneath it. This changes who is actually involved in the expense split: not the whole condominium, but only the owners of the apartments that genuinely receive coverage from that terrace.

The expense split: one third and two thirds

Article 1126 of the Civil Code states that whoever has exclusive use of the roof terrace or the terrace at floor level contributes one third of the repair or reconstruction costs, while the remaining two thirds are charged to the owners of the units underneath that receive the coverage, in proportion to the value of their respective floors or portions of a floor. This criterion recognizes that the exclusive user draws a direct benefit from the surface, while the benefit of watertightness and insulation mainly concerns whoever lives below.

When the terrace has no covering function

Not every terrace at floor level covers other units. If the terrace simply overlooks a courtyard or garden with no apartments underneath, the one third and two thirds logic does not apply: maintenance costs remain entirely with the owner who has exclusive use, because there is no benefit for the rest of the condominium. Checking the terrace's actual position relative to the other units is therefore the first step before setting up any expense split.

Ordinary and extraordinary maintenance: what changes

The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary maintenance affects the type of intervention, but the split between the exclusive user and the owners below still follows article 1126 for work concerning the structure and waterproofing. Routine cleaning and care of the flooring or decorative elements tied purely to personal use of the surface, on the other hand, typically remain with the exclusive user, since they do not affect the covering function.

The role of the condominium bylaws and the value tables

A contractual condominium bylaw can depart from the legal one-third criterion, for instance by setting a different split approved unanimously in the purchase deed or in a bylaw drafted by the developer. In the absence of specific departures, however, article 1126 applies, and the value table of the underlying units becomes the reference for calculating the shares of the two thirds charged to them.

It is worth remembering that an ordinary assembly bylaw, one approved by majority vote and not attached to the purchase deed, cannot introduce this kind of departure, because it would affect the individual rights of single owners. Permanently changing the split criterion for a terrace at floor level therefore requires a formal agreement with the consent of every owner involved, not just a majority resolution at an assembly.

The most frequent disputes between owners

The most common disputes concern exactly which underlying units should be involved in the split and whether an expense qualifies as structural work or as something tied purely to exclusive use. Splitting costs when a terrace is used exclusively by more than one owner together, for example two owners sharing access, can also spark disagreement over how the one-third share should be divided between them. A technical survey confirming the covering function helps settle these disputes before they turn into litigation.

Another recurring source of friction is the timing of communication to the underlying owners before work begins: informing them early, together with quotes and an explanation of the split criterion applied, meaningfully reduces the risk that the resolution approving the expense gets challenged later.

Managing the split with property management software

Setting up an expense correctly under article 1126 means precisely identifying the exclusive user, the underlying units actually involved, and their respective one-third and two-thirds shares, without mistakenly including owners who receive no coverage from the terrace at all. AmministraPro lets administrators configure expense splits that differ from the general value table and attach the technical documentation that justifies each allocation to the expense itself, so the split can be explained at any time. Anyone who wants to see how it works in practice can check the features page or compare plans in the pricing section.