Overview

Video doorbells, such as Ring’s doorbell cameras, have become one of the most popular forms of homeowner-installed security cameras. Homeowners use them to monitor visitors, track deliveries, and deter theft at their front doors. In condominium developments, these devices are even more common because condo owners typically have far less exterior space available to mount traditional security cameras. A doorbell camera therefore becomes the most practical way to monitor activity immediately outside the unit. At the same time, installing one of these devices in an HOA-governed condominium often creates an immediate dispute. While the door to a condominium unit usually belongs to the owner, the surrounding hallway wall or doorframe where a video doorbell would typically be mounted often belongs to the HOA as common area.

That ownership distinction is what drives most of these disputes. When a device is attached to a surface owned by the HOA as common area, the issue is not whether the HOA’s rule is reasonable. It is whether an individual owner has the right to physically modify property that belongs to the association. In that situation, the HOA has the right to prohibit the modification outright. While Civil Code 4765 governs architectural approval for modifications to a homeowner’s property, it does not give homeowners the right to alter HOA-owned common area components. As a result, the legality of a Ring-type doorbell installation in a condominium often turns on a simple but critical question: whether the device is attached to the owner’s property or to common area controlled by the HOA.

Even when a video doorbell is installed in a manner that avoids altering common area, another set of legal issues still comes into play: privacy. California recognizes a strong right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and several statutes reinforce that protection. Penal Code 647 prohibits certain forms of visual intrusion into private spaces, and Civil Code 1708.8 creates liability when someone uses a device to capture images of activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A video doorbell that records only the hallway outside a condominium unit raises very different concerns than a device intentionally aimed into a neighbor’s home or other private area.

These competing principles create the central question addressed in this Fact Sheet: if your HOA refuses to allow you to mount a video doorbell on the common area outside your unit, what alternatives exist for protecting your front door? Because HOAs have the right to prohibit physical modifications to common area components, many condo owners cannot simply mount a Ring-type doorbell on the hallway wall or doorframe the way homeowners in single-family neighborhoods can. The practical solution is to use a device designed to work within the unit door itself rather than the surrounding common area. Many modern doorbell cameras solve this problem by integrating the device into the unit’s peephole or otherwise mounting it directly to the door. When installed this way, the device does not alter HOA-owned common area and instead uses components that belong to the unit owner, allowing condo owners to monitor activity outside their door without violating the HOA’s authority over common area. At that point, the analysis then shifts to the remaining issue: whether the camera records areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This Fact Sheet is the second in a five-part series on security cameras and privacy rights in California HOAs. In the first Fact Sheet, “Can My California HOA Stop Me From Installing Security Cameras on My Property?,” I wrote about the issues surrounding homeowner-installed security cameras on member properties. If your concern involves surveillance systems installed by the HOA board itself, the Fact Sheet “Can a California HOA Install Security Cameras in the Common Areas?” explains when HOAs may monitor shared spaces such as hallways, garages, and entrances. For situations involving more aggressive monitoring technologies, see “Can a California HOA Use Biometric Surveillance in Common Areas?” And because recording audio raises separate legal issues under California law, the final Fact Sheet, “Is It Illegal to Record Audio on Security Cameras or Video Doorbells in California?,” explains the legal limitations associated with audio recording and why audio surveillance is treated differently from ordinary video monitoring.

Key Points

Security cameras installed at a condominium front door raise a different legal question than cameras installed on a single-family home. The issue is not simply whether a homeowner wants a security device. The issue is whether the device alters HOA-owned common area or instead uses components belonging to the unit owner. Understanding that distinction determines whether a Ring-type doorbell installation is lawful.

• Video doorbells function as security cameras under California law. Devices such as Ring-type doorbells combine a doorbell with a video camera, motion detection, and remote monitoring. Courts treat these devices as residential surveillance cameras, and the same legal principles apply.
• HOAs have the right to prohibit video doorbells mounted on HOA-owned common area. In most condominium developments, hallway walls and similar structural components belong to the HOA as common area. Because those components are HOA property, the association can prohibit owners from attaching devices to them. The issue is not whether the HOA’s rule is reasonable. The issue is whether an individual owner has the right to modify property that belongs to the HOA.
  • Civil Code 4765 does not give homeowners the right to alter common area. That statute governs architectural approval procedures for exterior modifications to a homeowner’s property. It allows HOAs to regulate improvements made to property owned or controlled by the member. The statute does not authorize homeowners to attach devices to HOA-owned common area surfaces such as hallway walls. When a device is mounted on HOA property, the board’s authority arises from its control over common area, not from architectural review standards.
  • If your HOA refuses to allow a device mounted on common area, use alternatives that do not modify HOA property. Peephole cameras and similar systems allow condominium owners to monitor activity outside their unit without attaching equipment to common area hallway walls owned by the HOA.
• The most common workaround is a peephole camera installed in the unit door. Many modern video doorbell devices replace or integrate into the existing peephole in a condominium unit’s door. Doors almost always belong to the condo owners. Because the device fits inside the unit door rather than attaching to the hallway wall, the installation does not alter HOA-owned common area. This design lets condominium owners monitor activity outside their door without modifying the HOA’s property. In those situations, the HOA’s authority to prohibit the device becomes far more limited.
  • Once the installation avoids altering common area, privacy law becomes the primary legal limitation. California recognizes a strong right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Statutes such as Penal Code 647 and Civil Code 1708.8 prohibit recording activities performed where a person reasonably expects privacy. A doorbell camera that records only the hallway outside a unit raises very different legal concerns than a camera intentionally directed into a neighbor’s home or other private area.
• The key legal question is what the camera records. Courts evaluating privacy claims focus on the nature of the activity captured and whether the person being recorded had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that location. Video recording activity in a condominium hallway or other common areas rarely violates privacy laws. Hallways are shared spaces where residents and guests regularly pass. People generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas. In fact, by entering a shared hallway, residents and guests provide implied consent to be seen by anyone (or anything) authorized to be there. Problems arise when cameras target the interior of another person’s home or other spaces where the neighbor has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • A fleeting or incidental glimpse into a neighboring unit typically does not create an invasion-of-privacy claim. Some condo associations try to justify banning doorbell video systems if they happen to record a neighbor’s front door. This is not, however, a reasonable legal position. While it’s true that a peephole camera installed in a condominium door may briefly capture the interior of a neighboring unit when that neighbor opens their door to enter or exit, that momentary view is no different from what another resident standing in the hallway could naturally see. California privacy law focuses on real intrusions into private activity, not incidental or unavoidable glimpses that occur during ordinary use of common areas.
• Civil Code 1708.8 is the primary statute homeowners use when a camera dispute becomes a privacy lawsuit. That statute creates civil liability for physical or constructive invasions of privacy when someone uses a device to capture images of activities performed where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unlike criminal statutes such as Penal Code 647, Civil Code 1708.8 lets injured residents pursue damages directly in court and seek enhanced remedies such as treble damages.
• If your HOA attempts to prohibit all video doorbells, call us at MBK Chapman. The HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman regularly analyze HOA rules that exceed the limits imposed by the Davis-Stirling Act and California’s privacy law. When an HOA attempts to expand its authority beyond what the law allows, my firm’s highly trained HOA lawyers can step in to enforce those limits and protect your rights.

Condominium living imposes structural limits that single-family homeowners do not face. Those limits do not prevent condominium owners from protecting their homes. When owners understand the difference between common-area modifications and installations that use components belonging to the unit owner, they can often use modern video doorbell technology without violating HOA authority or California privacy laws.

FAQs

About MBK Chapman Fact Sheets

Homeowners searching for answers online will often come across articles that appear authoritative, but are actually written as search-engine marketing content rather than by an experienced HOA lawyer. These pieces tend to prioritize keyword density over clarity, accuracy, or legal context, which often leaves homeowners more confused than informed.

At MBK Chapman, our Fact Sheets are part of our HOA Law Library and are written by Michael Kushner, an HOA lawyer with decades of hands-on experience representing California homeowners. In fact, Michael Kushner is the HOA lawyer who pioneered the systems and strategies used by some of California’s most successful homeowner-side HOA law firms.

Each Fact Sheet is deliberately concise, statute-based, and designed as a quick-reference guide to help homeowners understand key HOA laws and enforcement rules at a glance.

AND DON’T FORGET TO TUNE INTO MY PODCAST, HOA HELL

YOU CAN ALSO ORDER MY GROUNDBREAKING BOOK

HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs

Amazon  |  Barnes & Noble