Condo Association Management vs. HOA Management: Key Differences Every Board Should Know

The Short Answer

Condominium associations and homeowners associations are both common interest communities, but they operate under different legal frameworks, have different governing documents, and present different management challenges. The distinction matters when selecting a management company — not all HOA managers have genuine experience with the specific requirements of condominium management.

This guide explains the key differences and what your board needs to know when evaluating management companies.

Legal Framework Differences

Michigan:

Condominium projects in Michigan are governed by the **Michigan Condominium Act (MCL 559.101 et seq.)**, which was specifically designed for the condominium ownership structure. The Act covers co-owner rights, assessment collection procedures, the rights of co-owners to inspect records, the requirements for amending condominium documents, and the responsibilities of the association as to common elements.

Michigan homeowners associations — typically organized for planned developments without the condominium ownership structure — are governed primarily by the **Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act (MCL 450.2101 et seq.)** and by their own governing documents. There is no comprehensive Michigan statute specifically for planned development HOAs equivalent to the Michigan Condominium Act.

This legal distinction has practical consequences: the specific assessment collection procedures, inspection rights, amendment processes, and governance requirements differ between Michigan condominiums and Michigan HOAs. A management company that manages both types of communities must understand both legal frameworks.

California:

In California, the **Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act** applies to all common interest developments — including both condominiums and planned developments (HOAs). There is no separate California statute for condominiums vs. planned developments at the community association governance level.

However, California condominiums also have different characteristics under California property law (ownership of airspace units, mandatory master insurance, etc.) that create management differences even within the Davis-Stirling framework.

Governing Document Differences

This is one of the most practically significant differences between condominiums and HOAs.

Condominium governing documents:

• **Master Deed (Michigan) / Declaration of Condominium (California):** The foundational document that creates the condominium project, defines units, establishes common elements and limited common elements, and sets the basic rights and obligations of co-owners and the association. Recorded with the county register of deeds (Michigan) or county recorder (California).

• **Condominium Bylaws:** The governance document covering board elections, meetings, assessment procedures, and operations of the condominium association.

• **Condominium Rules and Regulations:** Operational rules for daily life in the community.

• **Exhibits and Attachments:** Floor plans, surveys, and attachments that are part of the recorded documents.

Planned development HOA governing documents:

• **Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs):** The foundational document equivalent to a Master Deed, but for planned developments. Defines common areas (rather than common elements), establishes the basic rights and obligations of owners and the HOA, and includes use restrictions.

• **Bylaws:** Similar to condominium bylaws in covering governance, elections, and operations.

• **Rules and Regulations:** Similar in function to condominium rules.

Why the document difference matters for management:

The Master Deed / Declaration creates the ownership structure that defines what the association maintains vs. what individual owners maintain. In a condominium, the association typically maintains all common elements — including the building structure, roof, exterior walls, and mechanical systems — and owners are responsible only for the interior of their units. In a planned development, owners typically own and maintain the structure of their individual homes, and the HOA maintains only common areas (roads, parks, retention ponds, entrance features).

This difference in maintenance responsibility is fundamental to how the property is managed, how reserves are calculated and funded, and how insurance is structured.

Assessment Differences

Both condominiums and HOAs collect regular assessments from members to fund operations and reserves. The calculation basis and legal procedures for collection have important differences.

Assessment calculation:

In most Michigan condominiums, co-owner assessments are based on the **percentage of value** assigned to each unit in the Master Deed — the same percentage used to determine voting rights and insurance coverage. In planned developments, assessments are typically equal among all lots unless the governing documents provide otherwise.

In California, Davis-Stirling governs assessment procedures for both condominiums and planned developments, though the underlying ownership and expense allocation structures differ by project type.

Collection procedures:

Michigan condominium assessment collection follows the specific procedures in the Michigan Condominium Act. Michigan planned development HOA assessment collection follows the procedures in the governing documents and the Nonprofit Corporation Act. These are not identical.

California assessment collection for all common interest developments follows Davis-Stirling, though the specific application depends on the community's type and governing documents.

Management companies must follow the correct legal procedures for the community type they are managing. Using planned development collection procedures for a condominium, or vice versa, can void collection actions and create legal liability.

Insurance Differences

The insurance distinction between condominiums and planned developments is significant and often misunderstood by owners.

Condominium insurance:

Condominium associations typically carry a **master insurance policy** that covers the building structure — including the common elements and typically (depending on the document structure) the individual units themselves as originally built. The master policy covers the building; individual owners purchase **HO-6 (condo unit) insurance** that covers their personal property, improvements made to their unit, loss assessment coverage, and liability.

The specific scope of the master policy — whether it covers "all-in" (including built-in fixtures and improvements inside units) or "bare walls" (only the building structure, not interior improvements) — is defined in the governing documents and varies by community. Management companies must understand the master policy's scope to properly advise on loss allocation when damage occurs.

Planned development HOA insurance:

Planned development HOAs typically carry insurance on **common areas only** — the clubhouse, pool, landscaping equipment, entry features, etc. Individual homeowners carry their own homeowners insurance (HO-3 or similar) covering their individual homes. The HOA's insurance does not cover individual homes.

This distinction has significant consequences for damage claims. When a roof is damaged in a condominium community, it is typically an association claim under the master policy. When a roof is damaged in a planned development, it is an individual homeowner's claim under their personal policy.

Management implications:

Condominium management requires understanding the master policy coverage, managing claims appropriately, tracking individual unit improvement upgrades (relevant to loss claims), and communicating the insurance structure to owners. This is more complex than managing insurance for a planned development HOA where individual homes are not covered by the association's policy.

Maintenance Responsibility Differences

The maintenance responsibility allocation between the association and individual owners is fundamentally different between condominiums and planned developments, and understanding this allocation is essential to effective management.

In condominiums:

The association is typically responsible for:

• All common elements (structural components, exterior, roof, hallways, elevators, lobbies, mechanical systems, parking structures, amenities)
• Sometimes limited common elements (balconies, patios, unit entry doors — varies by document)

Individual co-owners are typically responsible for:

• The interior of their units (typically defined as everything from the unfinished interior surface of the perimeter walls inward)
• Maintenance of interior systems (HVAC, plumbing fixtures, appliances)

In planned developments:

The HOA is typically responsible for:

• Common areas (landscaping, roads, amenities, entry features, retention ponds)
• Sometimes exterior of attached units (varies significantly by document)

Individual homeowners are typically responsible for:

• Their entire home — structure, roof, exterior, interior

This means condominium management is significantly more maintenance-intensive for the association than planned development HOA management. A management company without genuine condominium experience may underestimate the scope of association maintenance responsibility.

What to Look for in a Manager With Condo Experience

When evaluating management companies for your condominium association, look for:

**Demonstrated condominium experience.** Ask specifically: How many condominium associations do you currently manage? What percentage of your portfolio is condominiums vs. planned developments?

**Understanding of the applicable legal framework.** For Michigan condominiums, ask specifically about the Michigan Condominium Act — assessment procedures, co-owner inspection rights, amendment processes. For California condominiums, ask about Davis-Stirling and California condominium property law.

**Master insurance expertise.** Does the management company understand master policy structures? Can they explain the difference between all-in and bare walls coverage? Have they managed insurance claims in condominium communities?

**Maintenance management capacity.** Condominium associations with significant common element maintenance responsibility need management companies with broad vendor networks — including structural, roofing, elevator, and mechanical contractors.

**Reserve study coordination.** Condominium reserves are typically more complex than planned development reserves because the association is responsible for the full building infrastructure. The management company should have experience coordinating reserve studies for condominium communities.

APM's Condominium Management Expertise

APM Management's portfolio includes both condominium associations and planned development HOAs in Michigan and California. Our Michigan management team is specifically experienced with the Michigan Condominium Act and manages associations under both the Condominium Act and the Nonprofit Corporation Act. Our California management team is experienced with Davis-Stirling as applied to both condominiums and planned developments.

[Learn more about APM's condominium and association management services](/services/association-management) or [contact us](/contact#proposal) for a proposal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the same management company effectively manage both condominiums and planned development HOAs?

Yes, if the company has genuine expertise in both legal frameworks and management models. The key is ensuring the management company has actual experience with your specific community type and the applicable law — not just general "HOA management" experience.

What is a limited common element, and who maintains it?

A limited common element is a portion of the condominium's common elements that is reserved for the exclusive use of one or more specific co-owners — typically a balcony, patio, parking space, or storage area. Maintenance responsibility for limited common elements is typically shared between the association and the co-owner, with the specific allocation defined in the Master Deed. It varies by community and sometimes by the type of maintenance required.

Why do Michigan condominium documents say "co-owners" instead of "homeowners"?

The Michigan Condominium Act uses the term "co-owner" rather than "homeowner" or "unit owner" to reflect the condominium ownership structure — co-owners collectively own the entire condominium project (including common elements) and individually hold an exclusive right to occupy their units. This is a Michigan-specific terminology convention.

What happens when there is a dispute about whether a repair is an association responsibility or an owner responsibility?

This is one of the most common disputes in condominium management. The answer depends on the specific language of the Master Deed and the nature of the damage. A qualified HOA attorney familiar with Michigan condominium law (or California Davis-Stirling) can provide guidance on specific disputes. A management company experienced with condominium maintenance responsibility allocation will often be able to provide initial analysis based on governing document review.