Florida Condo Material Alterations to Common Elements: When the 75% Vote Is Required and What Counts

Key Takeaways

• Florida law says a condominium association may not make a material alteration or substantial addition to the common elements or association real property unless the change is authorized in the declaration, or, if the declaration does not specify how such changes are approved, at least 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association must approve the change before work begins. See Section 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat.
• A ‘material alteration’ is a palpable or perceptible change that varies the form, shape, elements, or specifications of a common element from its original design in a manner that appreciably affects its function, use, or appearance. See Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
• Generally, when a common element is restored to its prior condition using materials that do not appreciably change its appearance, function, or use, courts and regulators treat this as maintenance or like-kind replacement rather than a material alteration, so the special vote requirement usually does not apply.
• In a multicondominium association, the approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of EACH affected condominium is required before material alterations to that condominium’s common elements may commence. See Section 718.113(2)(b), Fla. Stat.
• Unit owners can often seek court or arbitration relief when a board makes a material alteration without proper approval, which may include asking for an injunction, a declaratory judgment, and, in some cases, damages and attorney’s fees, but the exact remedies available and granted will depend on the facts and on how a court or arbitrator exercises its discretion.

In This Article

• Short Answer
• How Florida Law Handles This Issue
• Key Legal Rules
• Relevant Case Law
• Comparison Table: Material Alteration vs. Ordinary Repair
• How This Issue Typically Comes Up
• Common Mistakes Associations Make
• What Associations Typically Argue — and Why It Fails
• How the Statute Resolves This
• Edge Cases and Nuances
• What Homeowners Should Do
• When Legal Action May Be Necessary
• Actionable Summary Table
• Related Knowledge — Cross-Chapter Linking
• FAQ
• Key Terms Defined
• Conclusion
• About the Author
• Call to Action
• Disclaimer
• Sources

Short Answer

Florida law prohibits a condominium association from making any material alteration or substantial addition to common elements unless the declaration specifies an approval procedure — or, if the declaration is silent, 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association must approve the change before it begins. See Section 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat. A material alteration is a palpable change in the form, shape, elements, or specifications of a common element that appreciably affects its function, use, or appearance. Like-kind repair and replacement is not a material alteration and does not require a vote. An association that proceeds with a material alteration without the required vote acts outside its authority, and affected unit owners may seek injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees under Section 718.303, Fla. Stat.

How Florida Law Handles This Issue

Florida’s Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Fla. Stat., divides governance authority between the association’s board and the unit owners. The board has broad authority to manage day-to-day operations, approve budgets, enforce the declaration, and carry out ordinary maintenance and repairs. But the Legislature recognized that certain decisions — specifically, decisions that change the fundamental character, appearance, or use of common elements that all owners share — are not merely operational. They are ownership-level decisions that affect every owner’s property interest, and they must be made by the owners, not just the board.

Section 718.113(2) is the provision that draws this line. It identifies a category of actions — material alterations and substantial additions to common elements — that exceed the board’s unilateral authority and require either a declaration-prescribed procedure or a supermajority owner vote. In 2018, the Legislature amended Section 718.113(2)(a) to state that the 75 percent default rule ‘is intended to clarify existing law and applies to associations existing on July 1, 2018,’ which was meant to address concerns about how the rule applies to existing condominium associations.

Section 718.113(2)(a), Florida Statutes provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, there shall be no material alteration or substantial additions to the common elements or to real property which is association property, except in a manner provided in the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein. If the declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein does not specify the procedure for approval of material alterations or substantial additions, 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association must approve the alterations or additions before the material alterations or substantial additions are commenced. This paragraph is intended to clarify existing law and applies to associations existing on July 1, 2018.

The structure of the statute creates a two-track analysis. First: does the declaration specify an approval procedure? If yes, that procedure controls — it may require more or less than 75 percent, or it may require different types of approval (e.g., board resolution plus owner ratification). If no: the 75 percent default applies, and no material alteration or substantial addition may commence without that vote. In high-rise condominium communities across Miami-Dade and Broward, where declarations vary widely in their governance provisions, this two-track analysis is essential to understanding what the board is actually authorized to do. A Fort Myers, FL condo lawyer can help unit owners determine whether a board has exceeded its authority by approving material alterations without the required owner approval, interpret the governing documents alongside Florida law, and protect owners’ rights in disputes involving changes to the common elements.

Key Legal Rules

The 75% Default Rule — Section 718.113(2)(a)

The 75 percent vote threshold in Section 718.113(2)(a) is measured against all voting interests in the association, not just those who attend a meeting or return a ballot, so non-votes and abstentions effectively count against approval. It reflects the Legislature’s judgment that changes to common elements that affect the character or use of shared property require broad consensus, not merely a majority of those who show up to vote.

Multicondominium Associations — Section 718.113(2)(b)

When an association operates multiple condominiums — a common structure in large Florida mixed-use or phased developments — the vote requirement applies separately to each affected condominium. Section 718.113(2)(b), Florida Statutes provides:

There shall not be any material alteration of, or substantial addition to, the common elements of any condominium operated by a multicondominium association unless approved in the manner provided in the declaration of the affected condominium or condominiums as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein. If a declaration as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein does not specify a procedure for approving such an alteration or addition, the approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of each affected condominium is required before the material alterations or substantial additions are commenced.

The multicondominium rule prevents a majority of one condominium within a combined association from approving changes to another condominium’s common elements. Each condominium’s owners vote on changes to their own common elements, using the 75 percent default if the declaration is silent.

Association Real Property — Section 718.113(2)(c)

For real property owned by a multicondominium association (rather than the common elements of an individual condominium), the approval framework is distinct. Section 718.113(2)(c), Florida Statutes provides:

There shall not be any material alteration or substantial addition made to association real property operated by a multicondominium association, except as provided in the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein. If the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws as originally recorded or as amended under the procedures provided therein do not specify the procedure for approving an alteration or addition to association real property, the approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association is required before the material alterations or substantial additions are commenced.

For association real property, the governing documents that may specify an approval procedure are broader — the declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws. But if all are silent, the same 75 percent of total voting interests of the entire association (not just one condominium) is required.

Relevant Case Law

Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)

The appellate court held in Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), that a ‘material alteration or addition,’ as applied to condominium buildings, means to ‘palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements or specifications of a building from its original design or plan, or existing condition, in such a manner as to appreciably affect or influence its function, use, or appearance.’ This definition from Sterling Village is still frequently cited by Florida courts and regulators and is a primary guide for deciding whether a proposed change qualifies as a ‘material alteration’ under Section 718.113(2), Florida Statutes, along with later appellate decisions that recognize limited exceptions. The Florida firm’s treatise ‘14.5 Material Alterations and Substantial Additions’ confirms this case as the seminal authority for the palpable-change standard.

The practical import of Sterling Village is significant: a change must cross a threshold of perceptibility and appreciable impact. Minor repairs, routine replacements with like-kind materials, and safety retrofits that do not alter the design or appearance of a common element fall outside the definition. But changes that are visible, design-altering, or that affect how a common element is used or perceived by owners — even if the board characterizes them as ‘improvements’ — are material alterations that require the vote.

Comparison Table: Material Alteration vs. Ordinary Repair

Action	Material Alteration?	Vote Required?	Rationale
Replacing beige roof tiles with terracotta-red tiles (same profile)	Yes	75% vote unless declaration specifies procedure	Palpable change in appearance; appreciably affects visual character of building
Replacing rotted wood deck with composite deck of same color and dimensions	No	No — like-kind replacement	Restores prior condition; no appreciable change in appearance, use, or function
Adding a pickleball court on previously open common-area lawn	Yes	75% vote unless declaration specifies procedure	Substantial addition; changes character and use of common element from open space to recreational facility
Repainting exterior in same color after storm damage	No	No — maintenance/repair	No change in appearance; same color scheme maintained
Converting open parking area to enclosed garage structure	Yes	75% vote unless declaration specifies procedure	Palpable change in design, function, and appearance of common element
Installing required ADA ramp under municipal code order	Likely No — necessity exception	Board may proceed without owner vote	Code-compliance necessity exception; board acts to avoid code violation under compulsion
Hurricane protection shutters on common-area windows per Section 718.113(5)	No — express statutory exception	Depends on statute and documents	Section 718.113(5) treats properly approved hurricane shutters or impact glass as not being material alterations under Section 718.113(2), but the statute may still require a majority owner vote unless the declaration makes the association responsible for these items, and boards and owners must follow the specific procedures in Section 718.113(5) and in their governing documents
Changing common-area landscaping design (species swap, hardscape addition)	Yes	75% vote unless declaration specifies procedure	Appreciable change in appearance and character of common landscape elements

How This Issue Typically Comes Up

Material alteration disputes arise in Florida condominium communities when the board takes unilateral action on a project that owners believe required their approval. In Miami-Dade, a condo board replaced the building’s beige roof tiles with terracotta-red tiles without taking an owner vote, citing board authority to maintain and repair common elements. Because the color change was palpable and appreciably altered the building’s appearance, this was a material alteration requiring approval under Section 718.113(2)(a) — the declaration was silent on the procedure, so 75 percent of total voting interests was required. The board’s failure to obtain that vote exposed it to an injunction claim to restore the original tile color.

In the Tampa Bay area, a board added a pickleball court to a previously open common-area lawn without an owner vote. The board argued this was an ‘improvement’ within its authority. Under the palpable-change standard from Sterling Village, adding a recreational facility to open space is a substantial addition that changes the character and use of the common element — both the function (from passive green space to active recreation) and the appearance (paved court surface, nets, fencing) changed appreciably. The 75 percent vote was required.

In Broward, a board replaced a rotted wood pool deck with a composite deck of the same color, dimensions, and load specifications. Owners challenged the replacement as a material alteration requiring a vote. Under the Sterling Village standard, this replacement falls outside the material alteration definition: it restored the prior condition using like-kind materials with no appreciable change in appearance, function, or use. No vote was required.

In Orlando, a board installed an ADA-compliant ramp at the building entrance under a municipal code enforcement order. The necessity exception — recognized in case law as available when alterations are required to avoid code violations or imminent harm — permitted the board to proceed without an owner vote. The key is that the necessity was genuine and the action was compelled by external authority, not simply convenient for the board’s preferences.

Common Mistakes Associations Make

• Treating any change to common elements as a routine maintenance decision within board authority, without analyzing whether the change meets the material alteration standard under Section 718.113(2) and Sterling Village.
• Counting only votes cast at a meeting rather than applying the 75 percent threshold against the total voting interests of the association — abstentions and non-participation count against the association when the test is 75 percent of total interests.
• Relying on a declaration provision that specifies a lower threshold (such as majority vote) without confirming that the provision was validly included in the original or properly amended declaration — a provision that conflicts with Section 718.113(2) may be challenged as inconsistent with the statute.
• Assuming that characterizing a change as a ‘repair’ or ‘upgrade’ avoids the material alteration vote requirement — the legal standard is functional and visual impact, not how the board labels the project.
• In multicondominium associations, applying a single association-wide vote to a change that affects only one condominium’s common elements — Section 718.113(2)(b) requires 75 percent of the voting interests of each affected condominium, not the combined association.

What Associations Typically Argue — and Why It Fails

Associations most commonly argue that a change to a common element is a maintenance or repair decision that falls within the board’s general authority to maintain and repair the common elements under Section 718.113(1). This argument fails when the change produces a palpable alteration in the appearance, design, or use of the common element. Section 718.113(1) gives the board authority to maintain and repair; it does not give the board authority to alter. The existence of a separate statutory provision — Section 718.113(2) — specifically governing material alterations shows that the Legislature drew a deliberate line between maintenance authority and alteration authority.

A second argument is that owner approval is not required because the declaration grants the board authority to ‘make improvements to the common elements.’ This argument fails when the declaration’s improvement authority does not specifically address material alterations with a clear approval threshold. Section 718.113(2)(a) applies when the declaration does not specify the procedure for approval of material alterations — and a general ‘improvements’ clause is not the same as a procedure for approving material alterations, which the statute treats as a distinct category.

Associations also argue that the necessity exception exempts all code-compliance changes from the 75 percent vote requirement. This argument over-reads the necessity exception, which is a narrow doctrine available when the board is compelled by an external authority (code enforcement order, court order, structural emergency) to act immediately to avoid harm or legal liability. A board that simply believes a change is a good idea, even a prudent one, cannot invoke the necessity exception to bypass the 75 percent vote.

How the Statute Resolves This

Section 718.113(2) resolves material alteration disputes through a clear sequential framework. Step one: does the declaration specify an approval procedure for material alterations or substantial additions? If yes, that procedure governs — the board and owners must follow it. Step two: if the declaration is silent, no material alteration or substantial addition to common elements may commence without the prior approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association. The vote must be obtained before the alteration begins — not ratified after the fact.

The statute’s clarification provision — that Section 718.113(2)(a) ‘is intended to clarify existing law and applies to associations existing on July 1, 2018’ — forecloses arguments that older communities are not covered by the 75 percent default. The Legislature expressly confirmed the rule applies across all Florida condominium associations, regardless of when they were formed.

For multicondominium associations, Section 718.113(2)(b) applies the same framework at the individual condominium level: the declaration of the affected condominium governs, and if silent, 75 percent of that condominium’s total voting interests must approve. This structure prevents the owners of one condominium from unilaterally authorizing changes to another condominium’s common elements through an association-wide vote.

When an association proceeds with a material alteration without the required vote, the statute does not render the alteration void automatically — but it exposes the association to a legal challenge, and the remedy most commonly available to unit owners is injunction to restore the status quo ante: undoing the unauthorized change and returning the common element to its prior condition.

Edge Cases and Nuances

Florida courts and state regulators have recognized that some changes needed to comply with laws or to address serious structural or safety issues may be treated as necessary maintenance or law-compliance, and in those situations a board may be able to proceed with a project without getting a material-alteration vote first, but whether that is allowed in a particular case depends heavily on the specific facts and can be disputed. The exception is narrow: it does not apply whenever a change is convenient, economically beneficial, or even strongly favored by the board. It applies when the board has no practical alternative to acting immediately because inaction would create legal liability, safety hazard, or code violation. Boards invoking the necessity exception should document the external compulsion in the board’s minutes and retain supporting evidence (code enforcement notices, engineering reports, etc.).

The statute expressly carves out hurricane protection installed under Section 718.113(5), Fla. Stat. Associations that install hurricane protection meeting the requirements of Section 718.113(5) — including hurricane shutters, impact windows, and similar protective systems — do not need to comply with the Section 718.113(2) material alteration vote requirement for that specific category of improvements. This is a significant carve-out for Florida communities in high-wind zones throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, and the Tampa Bay area.

Many enforcement actions based on violations of the declaration or other written condominium documents are analyzed under Florida’s five-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts, but the exact time limit and start date can vary depending on the type of claim and the facts, so owners should speak with a lawyer promptly about timing issues. An owner who discovers an unauthorized material alteration should consult legal counsel promptly — waiting too long may bar the claim even if the violation was clear.

Section 718.1255, Fla. Stat., provides a pre-litigation arbitration mechanism for certain disputes with condominium associations. Before filing suit over a board action that allegedly violates Section 718.113(2), unit owners should confirm whether pre-suit arbitration is required for their dispute category. Failing to complete required pre-suit procedures can delay or impair an otherwise valid claim.

What Homeowners Should Do

• When you learn that the board is planning a project affecting common elements, request a written explanation of the legal basis for the board’s authority to proceed. If the board intends to proceed without an owner vote, ask specifically whether the action constitutes a material alteration under Section 718.113(2) and what the board’s justification is for bypassing the 75 percent threshold.
• Review the declaration of condominium to determine whether it specifies a procedure for approving material alterations. If it does, verify that the board is following that procedure. If it is silent, the 75 percent default under Section 718.113(2)(a) applies, and no alteration may begin without that vote.
• Document the proposed change with photographs, architectural drawings, or the board’s own project specifications. Evidence of what the common element looked like before the change and what it will look like after is essential to establishing that the change is palpable and appreciably affects function, use, or appearance.
• If the board proceeds with an unauthorized material alteration, send a written objection to the board before or immediately after the work begins. A written objection creates a record of your opposition and may be relevant to your entitlement to attorney’s fees under Section 718.303, Fla. Stat.
• Do not assume that because the board completed the work, no remedy is available. An injunction to restore the status quo ante — requiring the association to undo an unauthorized material alteration — is a recognized remedy even after the work is done, provided the challenge is timely.

When Legal Action May Be Necessary

Legal action is appropriate when the board has commenced or completed a material alteration or substantial addition to common elements without the required owner approval under Section 718.113(2), when the board refuses to acknowledge the vote requirement despite a written demand, or when the association is about to commence an unauthorized alteration and time is too short for a pre-suit resolution. The primary remedies are injunction to halt or reverse the unauthorized change, declaratory judgment confirming the vote requirement, and damages for any loss in property value or enjoyment of common elements caused by the unauthorized action. Section 718.303 allows a court or arbitrator to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in actions to enforce Chapter 718 or the condominium documents, but fee awards depend on who is ultimately found to have prevailed and on the specific procedures followed in the case.

For condominium owners in communities throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, and the Tampa Bay area, material alteration disputes are among the most consequential governance violations a board can commit — because they change the physical character of shared property without the owners’ consent. An attorney experienced in Florida condominium law can evaluate whether the board’s action qualifies as a material alteration under the Sterling Village standard, identify the applicable approval procedure under the declaration, and pursue the most effective enforcement path before or after the work has been completed.

Actionable Summary Table

Situation	Governing Statute/Standard	Homeowner Action
Board plans to change common-element appearance without owner vote	Section 718.113(2)(a)	Review declaration for approval procedure. If silent, demand 75% owner vote before work begins. Send written objection to the board.
Board proceeds with unauthorized material alteration	Section 718.113(2)(a) + Section 718.303	Document before/after condition. File written objection. Consult attorney about injunction to restore status quo ante and attorney’s fees claim.
Declaration specifies a different approval threshold (e.g., 60%)	Section 718.113(2)(a) — declaration governs when it specifies procedure	Follow declaration procedure. If board bypasses it, challenge the action as unauthorized under the declaration and Chapter 718.
Multicondominium association — board uses association-wide vote for change affecting one condo’s common elements	Section 718.113(2)(b)	Challenge as noncompliant. Section 718.113(2)(b) requires 75% of the voting interests of each affected condominium, not a combined association vote.
Board claims necessity exception for non-emergency change	Necessity exception (implied) — narrow	Demand documentation of the external compulsion (code order, engineering emergency). Cosmetic or preference-driven changes do not qualify for the necessity exception.
Board claims hurricane protection work is exempt	Section 718.113(5)	Verify that the work meets the hurricane protection requirements of Section 718.113(5). If yes, the Section 718.113(2) vote is not required.
Board completed unauthorized material alteration and claims it cannot be undone	Section 718.303 — injunction available	Injunction to restore status quo ante is a recognized remedy. Consult attorney promptly — statutes of limitations apply.

Related Knowledge — Cross-Chapter Linking

Section 718.113(2) governs material alterations to condominium common elements under Chapter 718, Fla. Stat. For homeowners’ associations governed by Chapter 720, Section 720.3035 addresses architectural control and how associations review and regulate changes to homes and lots, which is conceptually related but structured very differently from the material alteration rules for condominium common elements in Section 718.113(2). The Chapter 720 framework is different in structure: it focuses on the association’s authority to regulate owner-initiated changes to property rather than board-initiated changes to common elements. Homeowners in HOA communities should consult Section 720.3035 and any architectural review committee procedures in the governing documents, rather than applying the Section 718.113(2) framework.

Within Chapter 718, the material alteration governance framework in Section 718.113(2) connects to related articles published by Perez Mayoral, P.A.: the May 7 material alteration article (introductory level) addressed the basic concept; the May 15 roof article addressed common-element maintenance obligations under Section 718.113(1); and the June 5 elevator article addressed the association’s authority and obligation to maintain and repair common-element equipment. This article provides the deeper legal framework for the approval standard, the multicondominium vote rule, and the remedies available when the board acts without the required owner consent.

FAQ

Can a Florida condo board change common elements without owner approval?

Only if the change does not constitute a material alteration or substantial addition as defined by Florida law, or if the board is acting under a necessity exception for code compliance or emergency. For any action that palpably changes the form, shape, appearance, use, or function of a common element, Section 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat., requires either the procedure specified in the declaration or — if the declaration is silent — the prior approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association.

What is the legal standard for a ‘material alteration’ in a Florida condo?

The standard comes from Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971): a material alteration means to palpably or perceptively vary or change the form, shape, elements, or specifications of a building from its original design or plan, or existing condition, in a manner that appreciably affects or influences its function, use, or appearance. A change that merely restores a common element to its prior condition with equivalent materials — like-kind replacement — does not meet this standard and does not require a vote under Section 718.113(2), Fla. Stat.

Is the 75 percent vote for material alterations based on owners present at a meeting or all owners?

All owners. Section 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat., requires approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association — not just those present at a meeting or responding to a ballot. Non-participation and abstentions effectively count as ‘no’ votes because the threshold is measured against total voting interests, not the interests of those who participate. This is a significantly higher bar than a majority-vote standard.

Does a Florida condo board need owner approval to make ADA-required modifications to common elements?

When a board is under a genuine legal or safety obligation—such as an ADA requirement, a code-enforcement order, a court order, or a documented structural emergency—some decisions-makers have treated the resulting changes as necessary maintenance or law-compliance rather than optional improvements, but owners should understand that whether a specific ADA or code-related project can go forward without a Section 718.113(2) vote is a case-by-case legal question that may still be challenged. The necessity exception is narrow — it applies to externally compelled actions, not to changes the board finds preferable or beneficial. The board should document the external legal or safety compulsion in its minutes and retain supporting evidence.

What remedies are available when a Florida condo association makes an unauthorized material alteration?

Unit owners may seek a mandatory injunction in circuit court to require the association to restore the common element to its prior condition (status quo ante), declaratory judgment establishing that the board violated Section 718.113(2), and damages for any diminution in property value or loss of enjoyment caused by the unauthorized change. Attorney’s fees are recoverable against the association under Section 718.303, Fla. Stat., for violations of Chapter 718. A pre-suit demand and notice to the board is a practical first step before filing.

Key Terms Defined

Material Alteration:

A palpable or perceptible change to the form, shape, elements, or specifications of a condominium common element from its original design or existing condition in a manner that appreciably affects its function, use, or appearance. See Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Actions that merely restore a common element to its prior condition with like-kind materials are not material alterations.

Total Voting Interests:

The aggregate of all voting rights held by unit owners in the condominium association. Under Section 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat., the 75 percent threshold is calculated against total voting interests — not just those present at a meeting or who participate in a vote. Non-voting owners and abstentions do not reduce the denominator.

Substantial Addition:

A new element or structure added to the common elements that was not part of the original design — for example, adding a recreational facility to open green space. Substantial additions require the same approval as material alterations under Section 718.113(2), Fla. Stat.

Necessity Exception:

Florida courts have indicated that some changes needed to properly maintain and preserve the property or to comply with law may be treated differently from purely cosmetic projects, and in those situations a board may not need a material-alteration vote, but whether a board can rely on this kind of ‘necessary maintenance’ or law-compliance rationale depends heavily on the facts and on supportive expert and legal opinions.

Status Quo Ante:

The prior condition of a common element before an unauthorized material alteration was made. In a successful injunction proceeding, the remedy of restoring the status quo ante requires the association to undo the unauthorized change and return the common element to its original state at the association’s expense.

Conclusion

Florida law requires a condominium association to obtain the prior approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests of the association — or to follow the procedure specified in the declaration — before making any material alteration or substantial addition to common elements, with a material alteration defined under Sterling Village Condo., Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) as a palpable change that appreciably affects the function, use, or appearance of a common element, and with the multicondominium rule under Section 718.113(2)(b) requiring 75 percent of each affected condominium’s voting interests when a single association operates multiple condominiums. See Section 718.113(2)(a), (b), and (c), Fla. Stat.

Call Us Today!

If your condominium association has made or is planning a material alteration to common elements without the required owner vote, has bypassed the declaration’s approval procedure, or has refused to undo an unauthorized change — contact Perez Mayoral, P.A., with offices in Coral Gables, Tampa, and Orlando. We represent homeowners only. We never represent associations.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Florida law changes frequently; consult a licensed Florida attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Sources

Section 718.113, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.113

Section 718.303, Florida Statutes (enforcement, attorney’s fees) — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.303

Section 720.3035, Florida Statutes (HOA architectural control parallel) — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/720.3035