Connecticut now assesses an owner's renovation costs back to that owner's unit
Connecticut now assesses an owner's renovation costs back to that owner's unit
2026-09-09 · Connecticut · Legislation
When a Connecticut unit owner's renovation drives up the association’s common expenses, the statute now sends the bill to that owner. The rule is a new subsection (h) of § 47-257, added by Section 9 of Public Act 25-73 and in force since October 1, 2025.1
It runs to a single sentence, and it changes the default answer to one of the most persistent arguments inside Connecticut associations.
What the subsection says
“If any addition, alteration or improvement made by, or at the direction of, a unit owner results in an increase in common expenses, including, but not limited to, any cost of maintenance, repair or insurance, the amount of such increase shall be assessed solely against the unit owned by the unit owner who caused such addition, alteration or improvement to be made.”1
Three words carry most of the weight. “Shall” makes it mandatory rather than an option the board may take up. “Solely” puts the whole increase on one unit rather than sharing it. And “or at the direction of” reaches work the owner commissioned but did not personally carry out.
Insurance is named on purpose
The inclusion of “any cost of… insurance” is the practically significant part. An upgraded unit that raises the association's replacement-cost valuation, and with it the master policy premium, produces exactly the kind of diffuse cost increase that associations have historically absorbed across all units because no mechanism existed to allocate it.
Section 9 also amended the surrounding subsections to accommodate the new one: subsection (b)'s list of exceptions to proportional assessment now reads “subsections (c), (d), (e) and (h)”.1
Where it sits among the assessment rules
Section 47-257 is CIOA's assessment allocation provision, and subsection (h) joins a small set of exceptions to the general rule that common expenses are assessed against all units in the proportions the declaration sets.
It is worth reading against subsection (e), which it resembles and does not replace. Subsection (e) covers common expenses caused by “wilful misconduct, failure to comply with a written maintenance standard adopted by the association or gross negligence” — and it requires notice and hearing before the association may assess that owner. Public Act 25-73 also tidied subsection (e), changing “promulgated” to “adopted” and “in excess of” to “exceeding.”
Subsection (h) contains no notice-and-hearing requirement. That is the sharpest contrast between the two, and it is the first thing a board's counsel will notice. Where subsection (e) is a fault-based remedy with procedural protection attached, subsection (h) is a cost-allocation rule that operates on causation alone.
What changes for boards
Tie the approval to the number. The natural place to establish that an alteration increased common expenses is the architectural approval file. An association that records the insurance valuation or maintenance obligation before and after the work has the evidence the subsection requires; one that does not will be reconstructing it from a renewal notice years later.
Do not read it as a fining power. Subsection (h) assesses the increase in common expenses. It is not a penalty, it is not tied to a violation, and it is not a route around the notice-and-hearing requirements that attach to fines. Using it to punish an unapproved alteration rather than to allocate a measured cost invites a challenge on the character of the charge.
Expect the causation fight, not the entitlement fight. The statute is unambiguous that the increase goes to the unit. What will be argued is whether a given increase was caused by that owner's work — particularly for insurance, where premiums move for market reasons that have nothing to do with any unit. The association bears the burden of connecting the two.
The successor question
Subsection (h) assesses “the unit owned by the unit owner who caused such addition, alteration or improvement to be made.” The charge is described by reference to the unit, but the causal clause is tied to a particular person.
Whether an ongoing increase — a permanently higher insurance allocation, say — continues to be assessed against the unit after that owner sells is not answered in the text. A buyer's resale certificate review should be asking about it, and from October 1, 2026 the residential condition report will separately be telling buyers to obtain that certificate.
What to watch next
No Connecticut appellate decision has construed subsection (h), and none is likely soon: the amounts in dispute are usually too small to appeal. The meaning will be settled in practice, by what associations put in their architectural approval conditions.
The other thing to watch is drafting drift. Associations are already writing subsection (h) into approval letters as a standing condition on all future work — which is broader than the statute, since the statute allocates a measured increase rather than authorising an open-ended charge.
Related Connecticut HOA Topics
- Public Act No. 25-73 (Substitute House Bill No. 6957), full enrolled text — § 9 repeals and substitutes Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-257; approved June 23, 2025 ↩
- 2025 Acts Affecting Housing and Real Estate, OLR Report 2025-R-0113 (July 31, 2025) ↩
- HB 6957 bill status and history, Connecticut General Assembly ↩
Stay on top of Connecticut HOA law
Every week: new Connecticut legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.