California’s SB 721 and SB 326 laws were created with good intentions. Following the tragic 2015 Berkeley balcony collapse that killed six young people, lawmakers moved quickly to require periodic inspections of balconies, decks, walkways, stairs, and other elevated exterior structures in multifamily housing. The goal was simple: identify hidden structural dangers before another preventable catastrophe occurred.
SB 721 applies primarily to apartment buildings with three or more units, while SB 326 focuses on condominium and homeowners association properties governed under the Davis-Stirling Act. Both laws require inspections of “Exterior Elevated Elements” (EEEs) that rely substantially on wood framing and are elevated more than six feet above the ground.
There is Growing Tension Around SB 721 and SB 326 Inspections
Although the legislation was designed around public safety, implementation of these inspection laws has increasingly created frustration, distrust, and financial hardship among property owners and HOA boards. In many cases, inspections have become highly adversarial experiences rather than cooperative evaluations intended to improve safety. Property owners throughout California are beginning to question whether some inspection companies are exploiting the laws to generate repair work that may not always be necessary.
The Problem is Not the Laws Themselves
The problem is the growing incentive structure surrounding them. A major criticism emerging within the industry is the conflict of interest created when inspection companies also perform construction repairs. Several companies advertise inspection services while simultaneously marketing reconstruction, waterproofing, demolition, and replacement services. This creates an environment where inspectors may benefit financially from identifying extensive damage, regardless of whether the condition truly requires major reconstruction.
Even industry professionals have openly acknowledged the concern. One inspection company website specifically warns owners that many contractors have “jumped on the bandwagon” by opening inspection divisions “designed to feed their contracting business with work,” calling the practice “unethical and misleading.” The same source encourages owners to hire independent inspectors who do not profit from the repairs they recommend.
That concern is increasingly echoed by homeowners, HOA board members, and real estate professionals online. Reviews and discussion forums frequently describe situations where inspection reports escalated into costly repair projects far beyond what owners initially expected. In one HOA discussion regarding SB 326 repairs, an owner explained that balcony repairs initially estimated at $17,000 per balcony eventually ballooned to $46,000 once demolition began. Another commenter advised using independent engineers and project managers to validate inspection findings before approving expensive repairs.
Financial Pressure
The financial pressure surrounding these inspections has become severe. Many associations and property owners now fear that even minor findings can spiral into six-figure assessments, litigation concerns, insurance complications, and financing issues. Some condominium complexes reportedly struggle to obtain loans or refinance properties while unresolved SB 326 issues remain open.
This environment creates an atmosphere where owners often feel intimidated into approving repairs quickly out of fear rather than informed understanding.
The language used during inspections can also contribute to this adversarial tone. Terms such as “life safety issue,” “structural failure,” or “immediate hazard” understandably alarm HOA boards and residents. While those phrases are appropriate in legitimate danger situations, critics argue they are sometimes used too broadly without sufficient distinction between routine maintenance concerns and true structural emergencies.
Signs of Aging
In many older buildings, elevated structures naturally show signs of aging. Waterproofing membranes deteriorate. Surface coatings crack. Railings loosen slightly. Wood experiences weather exposure over time. Not every maintenance issue necessarily requires full demolition and reconstruction. However, some owners report receiving inspection reports recommending complete tear-offs or extensive rebuilds even when localized repairs or ongoing maintenance could reasonably address the issue.
This becomes especially problematic because most property owners are not structural experts. HOA boards are often composed of volunteers with limited construction knowledge. Faced with technical reports, engineering terminology, and liability concerns, many boards feel compelled to approve expensive repairs simply to protect themselves legally. Few want to risk being accused of ignoring a safety recommendation.
As a result, inspections that should function as objective evaluations sometimes feel more like sales presentations for construction projects.
Inconsistent Inspection Standards
Another growing concern involves inconsistencies in inspection standards. Owners frequently report receiving dramatically different opinions from different inspectors examining the same property. Some inspectors classify conditions as urgent structural failures, while others categorize the same issues as maintenance concerns requiring monitoring or preventative repairs.
Online discussions among HOA members and apartment owners reveal confusion over what exactly qualifies under SB 326 and SB 721. Questions arise regarding decorative balconies, waterproofing thresholds, sampling methods, and interpretation of visible versus concealed damage. This inconsistency undermines confidence in the process and fuels suspicion that some recommendations may be overly aggressive.
Deadlines
The pressure created by deadlines has only intensified these problems. California’s inspection mandates triggered a massive surge in demand for inspectors, engineers, contractors, and waterproofing specialists. As deadlines approached, property owners scrambled to achieve compliance while competing for limited availability among qualified professionals. This urgency created fertile ground for inflated pricing, rushed evaluations, and at times fear-based sales tactics.
Meanwhile, owners face substantial consequences for delaying repairs or disputing recommendations. Financing complications, insurance non-renewals, disclosure obligations during sales, and potential liability exposure all push owners toward rapid compliance. In such an environment, few owners feel empowered to seek second opinions or challenge questionable findings.
None of this suggests that balcony inspections are unnecessary. The Berkeley tragedy demonstrated the devastating consequences of hidden structural deterioration. Exterior elevated elements absolutely require periodic evaluation, especially in California’s varied climate conditions where moisture intrusion, corrosion, and wood rot can remain concealed for years. Proper inspections protect lives and preserve property values.
However, public trust in the inspection process depends on transparency, objectivity, and proportionality.
Owners should not feel that every inspection automatically leads to catastrophic repair costs. Inspection companies should clearly distinguish between maintenance recommendations, preventative repairs, deferred maintenance concerns, and true structural hazards. Reports should communicate risk realistically rather than using unnecessarily alarming language that pressures owners into immediate large-scale projects.
California’s balcony inspection laws were intended to protect residents and their guests, not create fear-driven repair industries. As SB 721 and SB 326 continue evolving, the focus should remain on balanced enforcement that prioritizes both public safety and fair treatment of property owners. Without that balance, inspections risk becoming adversarial encounters where owners feel presumed guilty, financially cornered, and pressured into repairs they may not fully understand or genuinely need.
Michael Malki is the owner of South Coast Deck Inspections. For more information, please feel free to contact Michael at 657.707.9127, or visit their website: southcoastdeckinspections.com.