Community associations are increasingly considering cameras in common areas. It makes sense. Cameras can deter some misconduct, document incidents, and help answer the question everyone asks after something happens: what actually occurred?
But before adopting a “security camera policy,” boards should pause and think about one key issue: the word “security.”
As discussed in our prior article, Safety and Security Issues in Condo and Homeowner Association, associations should be careful not to create expectations they cannot meet. That concern applies directly here.
Cameras Don’t Really Provide “Security”
Many boards understandably refer to these systems as “security cameras.” The problem is that the term can imply the association is providing security services or guaranteeing resident safety.
That is not what these systems do.
Cameras do not prevent incidents. They do not stop crime in real time. And in many cases, they are not actively monitored. At best, they may deter certain conduct and help reconstruct events after the fact.
Associations are generally not guarantors of safety, and some governing documents specifically state that. But when an association adopts policies or uses language suggesting it is providing “security,” that argument can become harder to defend. There have been cases where associations faced claims after incidents occurred, based in part on the expectations created by their own wording.
A better approach is to use terms like “video surveillance system” or “community surveillance cameras,” and to clearly state the limits of the system. Policies should make clear that:
- the association is not a guarantor of safety,
- cameras are not monitored in real-time (if they aren’t), and
- cameras may not capture all events.
Limit Who Can Access Footage
Another common issue is access.
It is tempting to allow multiple individuals or committees to view footage. That approach often creates more problems than it solves. Camera footage can capture sensitive, private, or even embarrassing situations in common areas.
We have seen situations where cameras captured highly personal (and inappropriate) conduct in public areas of the clubhouse. The question then becomes simple: how many people should be allowed to see that?
A better practice is to strictly limit access, often to management and one designated board or committee member. Additional access should only be granted when necessary for a specific purpose.
This protects the association and the individuals involved.
Be Careful with Owner Requests
Owners often assume they will be able to view footage whenever an incident involves them.
That can be a mistake.
Policies should avoid creating a broad right to access footage. Instead, requests should be subject to association discretion. In some cases, footage may need to be best shared with law enforcement or legal counsel, as appropriate.
Providing broad access can lead to disputes, privacy concerns, and potential misuse.
The policy should also address how long footage is retained, with a standard retention period after which it is deleted unless it relates to a known or reported issue.
Placement and Privacy Matter
Even when cameras are limited to common areas, placement matters.
Cameras should be positioned to avoid unnecessarily capturing images of homes, yards, or other private spaces. It is also helpful to provide a process for owners to raise concerns about camera placement or angles with management.
Associations must also be mindful of applicable state laws, as some jurisdictions restrict audio recording without consent, so systems may need to be limited to video only.
Addressing those concerns early can prevent larger disputes later.
Separate from general surveillance cameras, license plate reader systems raise additional legal and privacy concerns, which will be addressed in a future article.
Don’t Skip the Signage
Posting notice that cameras are in use is a simple but important step.
Signage helps deter misconduct and reduces claims that residents or guests were unaware they were being recorded. From a legal standpoint, it also helps address privacy expectations.
Legal Authority vs. Politics
Most boards will have authority to install cameras in the common area without membership involvement.
But authority is not always the same as acceptance.
Surveillance can be a sensitive topic. In some communities, cameras are welcomed. In others, they are viewed as intrusive or unnecessary. We have seen situations where boards implemented camera systems and then faced significant pushback, including challenges to the decision itself.
For that reason, it is often wise to take the temperature of the community before moving forward. This may not require a formal vote, but could include discussion at meetings, informal polling, or other outreach.
Understanding member sentiment in advance can make implementation smoother and avoid unnecessary conflict.
Takeaways
Camera systems can be a useful tool for associations. But they are not a security solution, and they should not be presented as one.
Careful wording, limited access, and clear expectations go a long way toward reducing risk. Just as important, taking time to consider how the community will receive the change can help ensure the policy works in practice, not just on paper.
As with many association issues, the goal is not just to adopt a policy, but to adopt one that protects the association while fitting the community it serves.