Florida Condo Material Alterations: 75% Vote Rule

Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA
Founder & Managing Shareholder

Published September 23, 2026
Reviewed by Jason Hamilton Mikes, JD, MBA, September 23, 2026
Florida Statutes as of July 1, 2026
Applies to: Condominiums · Cooperatives

Key takeaways

A material alteration or substantial addition to the common elements or association property may be made only in the manner the declaration provides; if the declaration is silent, 75 percent of the total voting interests must approve before the work begins (§ 718.113(2)(a)).
Under the Sterling Village test, a change is material if it palpably or perceptively varies the form, shape, elements or specifications of the property from its original design or existing condition so as to appreciably affect its function, use or appearance. Color, material and configuration changes usually qualify; like-kind replacement does not.
Necessary maintenance, repair and replacement, and work required by code or to protect the property, are not material alterations even when the result looks different; hurricane protection and certain safety items have their own statutory treatment.
Owner alterations to units that affect common elements or limited common elements require the approval the declaration specifies, usually the board's, and an unapproved alteration can be ordered removed years later.

A Florida condominium board may maintain, repair, and replace the common elements without asking the owners, but it may not materially alter them or make substantial additions to them except in the manner the declaration provides, and if the declaration says nothing, section 718.113(2)(a) requires the approval of 75 percent of the total voting interests before the work begins. The line between repair and alteration is the one boards cross most often without knowing it: a new roof color, pavers where there was asphalt, a redesigned lobby, or a converted tennis court are alterations, while a like-kind roof, a resurfaced parking lot, and a rebuilt seawall are maintenance. Getting the classification wrong means an owner can enjoin the project or unwind it, with fees.

The statute

Section 718.113(2)(a) provides that there shall be no material alteration or substantial additions to the common elements or to association real property except in a manner provided in the declaration as originally recorded or as amended. If the declaration does not specify a procedure for approving material alterations, 75 percent of the total voting interests must approve before the alterations are commenced. The Legislature added the 75 percent default in 2018 and stated that it clarified existing law and applied to existing associations. Declarations vary widely: some require a two-thirds vote, some allow the board to approve alterations up to a dollar amount or a percentage of the budget, and some require unanimous consent for particular changes. The declaration is read first, and the 75 percent rule applies only where it is silent.

Note what the statute requires: approval of 75 percent of all voting interests, not of those voting, and approval before commencement. Both points defeat projects regularly.

What "material alteration" means

Chapter 718 does not define the term. Florida courts have applied the definition from Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach since 1971: to materially alter is "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." The test is objective and does not depend on cost or on whether the change is an improvement. A small change that is visible is material; an expensive change that leaves the property looking and working as before is not.

Applying the test, courts and arbitrators have treated as material alterations: changing roof tiles to a different material or color; replacing wood siding with stucco; converting a tennis court to pickleball courts; installing a gate or fence where none existed; enclosing a breezeway; changing the exterior paint scheme to a different color; adding a dog park; removing a pool feature; installing artificial turf; and replacing carpet in hallways with tile of a different appearance. They have generally treated as not material: replacing components with the same or substantially similar materials; painting in the same color; resurfacing; replacing equipment with current-model equivalents; and changes so minor that they do not appreciably affect appearance or use.

The exceptions that are not alterations

Necessary maintenance, repair, and replacement. Section 718.113(1) makes maintenance of the common elements the association's responsibility, and the courts have held that work necessary to maintain, repair, or protect the property is not a material alteration even if the result differs from the original. In Tiffany Plaza Condominium Association v. Spencer, the Second District held that an objecting owner is not relieved of the pro rata assessment for an alteration or improvement reasonably necessary to maintain, repair or replace a common element. The court treated the rock revetment as an alteration throughout and expressly declined to find it necessary, remanding for that determination — so the case answers who pays, not whether a vote is required. Boards should document the necessity, ideally with an engineer's report, because the exception depends on it.
Work required by law. Changes required by the building code, the fire code, accessibility law, or a governmental order are not alterations the owners may veto. Milestone inspection repairs fall here.
Hurricane protection. Section 718.113(5) requires the board to adopt hurricane protection specifications for each building, covering color, style, and other factors consistent with the building code. The board may install hurricane protection itself, or require owners to install it, with the approval of a majority of the voting interests, and no vote is required where the declaration already assigns responsibility for the protection to the association or to the owners. The board may not refuse an owner's installation or replacement of hurricane protection that conforms to the adopted specifications, and it may not charge an owner for removal and reinstallation the association performs to do its own maintenance work.
Like-kind replacement with modern equivalents. Replacing a 30-year-old roof with a current code-compliant roof of the same type and color is maintenance even though the underlayment, fasteners, and specifications have changed. Replacing it with metal when it was tile is an alteration.

Owner alterations

Owners may not alter the common elements or limited common elements, or make changes to their units that affect the common elements, except as the declaration permits, which almost always means with the board's written approval and subject to conditions. Enclosing a balcony, installing a hard-surface floor over a neighbor's ceiling, cutting a new opening in a load-bearing wall, replacing windows with a different style, and running a new drain line through the slab are the common examples. The board's approval standard comes from the declaration; it typically may impose conditions on materials, contractors, permits, insurance, and future maintenance, and it may require the owner to assume maintenance of the altered element. The statute gives owners two specific rights the board cannot refuse: to install hurricane protection meeting the association's specifications, and to install an electric vehicle charging station in a limited common element parking space at the owner's expense under section 718.113(8).

Unapproved owner alterations are covenant violations that can be ordered removed, and the passage of time helps the owner: laches and estoppel arguments strengthen with every year the association knew and did nothing. Boards that discover an unapproved alteration should act promptly, either by requiring removal or by approving it after the fact on conditions.

When the board is unsure

The classification question should be answered before the contract is signed. The process we recommend:

Describe the project precisely, including every change in material, color, configuration, or function.
Read the declaration's alteration provision and any dollar or percentage threshold it sets.
Obtain the engineer's or contractor's written statement of what is necessary for maintenance or code compliance and what is elective.
Separate the elective components. A roof replacement (maintenance) with a color change (alteration) can proceed as maintenance if the color stays the same, or the color change can be put to the owners separately.
If a vote is required, notice a membership meeting with the specific alteration described, use limited proxies or electronic voting, and obtain the vote before signing.
If the vote cannot be obtained, do not proceed. Read the declaration before assuming a vote is needed. Section 718.113(2)(a) requires only that a material alteration be made in the manner the declaration provides, and imposes the 75 percent default where the declaration does not specify a procedure for approval. A declaration that authorizes the board to approve alterations supplies that procedure, so no owner vote is required. Lenzi v. Regency Tower Association is the decision applying that reading. An association that proceeds without a vote where the declaration does not authorize it is negotiating from weakness afterwards.

Consequences of getting it wrong

An owner may seek arbitration or an injunction to stop or reverse an unapproved material alteration, and the association bears the cost of restoring the property and the owner's attorney's fees. Directors who authorized the work in good faith are protected from personal liability, but the association is not protected from the expense, and a board that proceeds after being told a vote is required has a harder time claiming good faith. The 75 percent threshold is high; the cost of ignoring it is higher.

Frequently Asked Questions About Material Alterations

Does replacing the roof require an owner vote?

Replacing the roof with the same type and color of roofing is maintenance and requires no vote. Changing the material (tile to metal) or the color is a material alteration requiring the vote the declaration specifies or, if it is silent, 75 percent of all voting interests before the work begins.

Can the board change the exterior paint color?

Only with the required owner approval, unless the declaration gives the board that authority. Color is appearance, and a perceptible change in appearance satisfies the Sterling Village test. Repainting in the existing color is maintenance.

Our declaration says the board may approve alterations up to $25,000. Does the 75 percent rule still apply?

No. The statutory 75 percent default applies only when the declaration does not specify a procedure. A declaration that authorizes the board to approve alterations up to a threshold controls, and alterations above the threshold follow whatever vote the declaration requires for them.

Can owners approve an alteration after it is built?

Florida courts have permitted after-the-fact ratification by the same vote that would have been required beforehand. Ratification cures the defect but does not protect the association from the cost of an injunction or removal order in the meantime, and it is not a strategy.

Can an owner enclose a lanai or install impact windows?

Alterations affecting the common elements or limited common elements require the approval the declaration specifies, usually the board's written consent on conditions. Hurricane protection, including impact glass, that conforms to the board's adopted specifications may not be refused, and the association may require compliance with those specifications and permitting.

Are pickleball courts a material alteration?

Converting a tennis court to pickleball courts changes the function, use, and appearance of the common element and has been treated as a material alteration requiring the owner vote. Restriping a court for dual use is a closer question, and the declaration and the specifics of the work control.

Contact Hamilton Mikes

Hamilton Mikes advises boards on alteration classifications, prepares the owner-vote packages when a vote is required, and defends associations in alteration disputes throughout Southwest Florida. Call 239-594-7227 or visit our Construction and Governing Documents pages.

Statutes and authorities referenced

§ 718.113(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (no material alteration or substantial addition to common elements or association property except as the declaration provides; 75 percent of total voting interests if declaration is silent)
§ 718.113(1), Fla. Stat. (association's duty to maintain common elements)
§ 718.113(5), Fla. Stat. (hurricane protection: board specifications; installation without owner vote as the statute provides)
§ 718.113(8), Fla. Stat. (electric vehicle and natural gas charging stations in limited common element parking)
§ 718.111(2) and § 718.112(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (association powers; 14-day notice for rules on unit use)
Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (definition of material alteration)
Tiffany Plaza Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer, 416 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (objecting owner not relieved of the pro rata assessment for an alteration reasonably necessary to maintain, repair or replace a common element)
George v. Beach Club Villas Condominium Ass'n, 833 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (change in roof material was a material alteration)
Lenzi v. Regency Tower Ass'n, 250 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (declaration authorizing the board to approve alterations supplies the statutory procedure; no 75 percent owner vote required)

About this article. This article is published by Hamilton Mikes, P.A. for general educational purposes. It is not legal advice, it is not a legal opinion, and it is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer who has reviewed your association's governing documents and the facts of your situation. Reading it, downloading it, or corresponding with the firm about it does not create an attorney-client relationship. No such relationship arises until the firm and the client have signed a written engagement agreement. Please do not send confidential or time-sensitive information to the firm until a conflicts check has been completed and an engagement is confirmed in writing; information sent before that point may not be treated as privileged.

Scope and currency. This article addresses Florida law as applied to Florida community associations, and the firm is licensed to practice in Florida only. Nothing here should be taken as a statement of the law of any other jurisdiction. Florida's community association statutes have been amended in every regular session since 2021, and subsection numbering has moved more than once in that period. Each article states the edition of the Florida Statutes it was written against. The law may have changed after that date, an appellate court may have construed a provision differently, and an administrative rule or a local ordinance may impose requirements this article does not address.

Your governing documents control. Much of what governs a Florida association is not in the statutes at all. Declarations, articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules, plats and recorded amendments differ from community to community, and on many questions they set the rule while the statute sets only a floor or a default. A procedure that is correct in one association may be a breach of the documents in the association next door. No general article can tell you which is which for your community.

Why general information is not advice. Legal questions are resolved by applying the law to particular facts as a judge, jury, arbitrator or hearing officer finds them. An outcome that appears clear in the abstract frequently turns on the documents, the chronology, the board's own prior conduct, and the procedural posture, none of which an article can anticipate. A lawyer supplies what information cannot: the judgment to identify which facts matter, the experience to know how a court or the Division is likely to treat them, the ability to choose among the courses of action actually available, and the advocacy to carry the association's position through negotiation, hearing or trial.

The standard of care, and the protection the statute attaches to counsel. A director of a Florida community association is held to the standard in section 617.0830, Florida Statutes: to act in good faith, in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation, and to discharge the duties of the office with the care an ordinary prudent person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances. That standard is measured against the decision the board actually faced, on the record actually before it. The same statute supplies the protection that goes with the duty. Under section 617.0830(4) and (5)(b), a director who has no knowledge making reliance unwarranted is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports and statements prepared or presented by legal counsel retained by the association as to matters the director reasonably believes are within counsel's professional competence. The Legislature has written the prudent course into the statute. A board that obtains advice on its own documents and its own facts, and acts on that advice, is standing on ground the statute expressly protects. Nothing on this website confers that protection. General information, however carefully prepared, is not advice on your declaration, your amendments, your board's history or your dispute, and a director who relies on it in place of counsel forgoes a statutory protection that was available for the asking.

Personal exposure is real. Service on an association board is usually uncompensated, but volunteer status is not itself immunity. Under section 617.0834, Florida Statutes, a director or an officer is not personally liable in monetary damages for a statement, vote, decision, or failure to act in that role unless two things are both true: the director or officer breached or failed to perform the duties of the office, and that breach was a violation of the criminal law, a transaction from which the director or officer derived an improper personal benefit, conscious disregard or willful misconduct in a proceeding brought by or in the right of the corporation, or recklessness or bad faith in a proceeding brought by anyone else. That protection turns on how the director acted, not on whether the director was paid. Chapters 718, 719 and 720 add consequences of their own, including removal from office, civil penalties assessed against the individual for certain willful and knowing violations, and in defined circumstances criminal liability. Whether any of that reaches a particular director depends entirely on the facts and on the director's conduct. The practical point is narrower and more useful: the decisions that generate this exposure — levying an assessment, enforcing a covenant, denying a transfer, withholding a record, entering a unit, terminating a contract, signing for construction work — are precisely the decisions on which general information is least adequate, and on which counsel costs least relative to what is at stake.

No guarantee; prior results. The firm makes no representation or warranty that the information in this article is complete, current or applicable to any particular matter, and disclaims liability to any person for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. Any description of prior results does not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other matter; every case turns on its own facts, documents and record.

Do not act on this article alone. If your association faces a decision of consequence, obtain advice from a Florida-licensed attorney who has read your governing documents and the relevant record before the board votes, signs, sends or forecloses. Hamilton Mikes, P.A. represents community associations throughout Southwest Florida and can be reached at 239-594-7227.

Material Alterations in a Florida Condominium: When the Board Needs a 75 Percent Vote, and When Repair Is Just Repair