The ALUR law, enacted on March 24, 2014, imposed a compliance timeline on condominiums spread over several years. Twelve years after its adoption, the national register of condominiums still shows major flaws: 236,079 condominiums do not specify the type of property manager in their records, and 7,744 report an expired mandate without a successor. This observation raises questions not so much about the law itself but about the ability of property managers to absorb its obligations.
Penalties and loss of aid: the real sanctions of the national register of condominiums
Registration in the national register, mandatory since December 31, 2018, for all condominiums, remains the most underestimated aspect of the ALUR law. As of September 18, 2026, 558,675 condominiums are registered according to data from macoproenregle.fr. The figure seems massive, but it conceals a structural failure in updating.
The absence of registration or updates exposes the property manager to fines that can reach 20 euros per unit per week. For a condominium of 50 units, the bill can escalate quickly. The direct financial penalty is rarely enforced by the courts, but a second lever proves to be much more constraining: the loss of access to MaPrimeRénov’ Copropriété.
We observe that this conditional locking of public aid pushes condominium councils to demand updates more than the fines themselves. A property manager who neglects the register effectively deprives the condominium of funding for energy renovation, which can constitute grounds for dismissal in a general assembly.
For more information about Sur Le Toit, the precise schedule of obligations and their respective deadlines is detailed along with the applicable regulatory texts.
ALUR work fund: legal threshold and practice in condominiums
The annual contribution to the work fund, set at a minimum of 5% of the projected budget, was one of the most debated measures when it came into effect on January 1, 2017. In practice, this floor proves insufficient for buildings constructed before the 1970s, where the needs for facade renovation, network refurbishment, or bringing common areas up to standard far exceed this level of provisioning.
The work fund is not optional, even for small condominiums. Only condominiums with fewer than 10 units can vote against its establishment, with unanimous consent. This exception is rarely used as it requires total consensus, which is seldom achieved.
The global technical diagnosis (DTG), which the ALUR law has made proposable in general assemblies, allows for calibrating the actual amount of the fund. We recommend that condominium councils systematically couple the vote on the DTG with the revision of the contribution rate. A properly conducted DTG identifies work needed over ten years and justifies a contribution higher than the legal minimum, sometimes two to three times the 5% threshold.
Property management contract and competition: what the ALUR law has really changed
The ALUR law imposed a standard property management contract. This contract distinguishes between services included in the basic package and additional services charged separately. The distinction seems clear on paper, but the line between package and additional services remains a recurring source of disputes.
- The dated statement, charged during each transfer of a unit, is capped by law. Its actual cost varies among property managers, some adding file setup fees not included in the standard contract.
- The owner extranet, mandated by the ALUR law, was supposed to guarantee permanent access to management documents. Its effective deployment heavily depends on the software used by the property manager, and the quality of access varies considerably.
The condominium council plays a control role here that the ALUR law has strengthened without providing it with direct coercive means. Its only weapon remains the vote in the general assembly.
Synthetic sheet and relationship with the 1965 law: points of vigilance
The synthetic condominium sheet remains the pivot document between the national register and the information obligations of the buyer. Its annual update, often neglected, conditions the reliability of the register’s data. A property manager who produces an incomplete or outdated sheet engages their contractual liability towards the condominium association.
The relationship between the ALUR law and the law of July 10, 1965, has been clarified by several successive decrees. The 1965 law remains the foundation of the condominium status, while the ALUR law has modernized the management and transparency tools. Confusing the two texts leads to frequent misinterpretations, particularly regarding majority rules in general assemblies.
The simplification of certain voting rules does not exempt from a formal vote or from being included in the agenda within the regulatory deadlines. Any work voted outside the rules of convening remains cancellable.
Compliance with ALUR obligations is not a fixed achievement. Each transfer of a unit, each renewal of a property manager’s mandate, each general assembly reactivates update obligations that many condominiums still treat as secondary formalities. Financial penalties and the conditioning of public aid should gradually correct this inertia.
