How to split elevator costs in a condominium

The dual criterion of article 1124: ownership shares and floors

Article 1124 of the Italian civil code, originally designed for staircases but extended by case law to elevators as a functionally comparable asset, establishes that maintenance and replacement costs are split half according to the value of each unit, meaning general ownership shares, and half in proportion to each unit's floor height above ground level.

The logic is straightforward: residents on higher floors use the elevator more, so they contribute more to the floor height share, while the ownership share reflects the general value of the building and therefore the indirect benefit the elevator brings to the whole property, including ground floor units, in terms of resale value.

• First half of the cost: split by general ownership shares, equal for everyone in proportion to unit value
• Second half of the cost: split by floor height, increasing from ground floor to top floor
• Ground floor units are not automatically exempt from the ownership share portion
• The allocation table should be attached to the condominium bylaws or prepared by the property manager with verifiable criteria

Ordinary maintenance, repair and component replacement

Ordinary maintenance, meaning periodic checks, lubrication, the safety inspections required under elevator regulations, and minor repairs, follows the dual criterion of article 1124: half ownership shares, half floor height.

Replacing worn components such as the control panel, motor, cables or landing doors also falls under the same criterion, because it is preservation of an existing system rather than a new work. The distinction between maintenance and innovation is therefore decisive for determining which allocation applies and what meeting majority is required to approve the expense.

Installing a new elevator: a different criterion

When an elevator does not yet exist and is installed for the first time, the cost does not follow the article 1124 allocation but the rules on innovations under articles 1120 and 1121 of the civil code. In this case, owners who do not intend to use the system, typically ground floor owners, may be exempt from contributing if they formally declare they will not benefit from it, though they must contribute later if they decide to start using it.

For innovations that improve accessibility, such as installing an elevator to remove architectural barriers, the law provides for reduced meeting majorities compared to ordinary innovations, precisely to encourage interventions that also serve an important social function for residents with disabilities or reduced mobility.

• New installation: innovation allocation rules, possible exemption for non beneficiaries
• Maintenance and replacement on an existing system: always the dual criterion of article 1124
• Required meeting majorities differ between accessibility innovations and ordinary innovations

How to avoid errors and disputes in the financial statement

The most common mistake is applying a single criterion, for example only general ownership shares, to every elevator expense line without distinguishing maintenance from installation: this exposes the resolution to challenge by owners who consider the allocation incorrect.

A second common mistake concerns the elevator specific allocation table, which must be kept separate from the general ownership table and updated whenever floor heights change due to unit splits or mergers. Condominium management software that automatically calculates the elevator allocation, separating the ownership share from the floor height share and distinguishing maintenance from installation, reduces the margin of error and makes the financial statement more transparent for the meeting. AmministraPro includes a dedicated elevator allocation module that applies these criteria automatically and generates the report to attach to the financial statement.

Frequently asked questions