Condominiums - Buildings More Than 40 Years Old - Study
Summary
HB956 requires the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development to conduct a one-time study of condominium buildings in the State that are more than 40 years old. The study must identify how many such buildings exist, how many condominium units are in each building, the average age and average annual income of unit owners, when the most recent reserve study was completed, and the gap between each building’s reserve fund balance and the amount required to be held in reserve.
The bill is a reporting measure rather than a regulatory overhaul. It directs the Department to submit its findings to the General Assembly by December 1, 2026, and the act is temporary, expiring on June 30, 2027. The bill defines “condominium” by reference to existing Maryland real property law and does not itself change reserve requirements, maintenance obligations, or owner rights, but it is intended to inform future policy on aging condominium buildings and their financial condition.
Impact
HB956 creates a temporary mandate for the Department of Housing and Community Development to gather statewide data on older condominium buildings and report to the legislature. It does not amend the substantive condominium provisions in the Real Property Article, but it may influence future housing, consumer protection, and condominium reserve-funding policy by supplying information on building age, owner demographics, reserve study timing, and reserve shortfalls.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill advanced with substantial support in both chambers, indicating generally favorable sentiment toward collecting more information about aging condominium buildings. The measure passed the House and Senate on third reading, while a separate motion to special order it until the next session was rejected in the Senate, suggesting some members preferred not to delay action. No committee transcript is available, but the overall pattern points to broad agreement on the need for a study.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been procedural rather than substantive, centered on whether to delay the bill until the next session; that motion was rejected in the Senate. Because the bill only requires a study, there is little evidence of disagreement over direct regulation, though the data collection on owners’ average age and income, as well as reserve fund adequacy, could raise privacy, affordability, and future compliance concerns for condominium associations and owners if used in later legislation.