Where a Cambodian Condominium Unit Ends and Common Property Begins

Prepared by the NovAsia Editorial Team

A water stain appears on the ceiling of the apartment below.

Management visits the unit above and says:

The problem is inside your apartment, so you must pay for everything.

The owner replies that the water comes from a shared riser hidden behind the bathroom wall.

The downstairs neighbour wants an immediate repair.

The parties begin arguing about where the private unit ends.

The same problem appears in many forms:

• Who replaces a window that is part of the facade?
• Who owns the balcony slab?
• Can an internal wall be removed?
• Who maintains the air-conditioner drain?
• Is a pipe common if it runs through a kitchen?
• Who pays to remove and replace private tiles to reach a shared riser?

In a condominium, the physical line of the apartment does not always coincide with the front door or visible finishes.

One component can contain several layers.

The owner may own the internal finish.

The building may own the structural element.

Liability for damage can depend on:

• cause;
• maintenance;
• negligence;
• insurance;
• prior repairs.

A dispute should therefore be analysed in sequence:

1. Identify the legal boundary.
2. Identify the technical cause.
3. Identify the maintenance duty.
4. Allocate repair and damage costs.

The phrase it is inside your apartment answers none of those questions by itself.

This article provides general information, not legal, engineering or insurance advice. The unit boundary, access rights, repair duties and liability should be checked under the title, plans, internal regulations and insurance policies of the specific building.

The starting point is the plan and inventory, not the owner’s assumption

The sample internal regulations attached to Sub-Decree No. 126 describe the private unit as the part of the building held for the owner’s exclusive use and identified in the attached plan and inventory.

The principal evidence can include:

• strata plan;
• private-unit title;
• unit plan;
• inventory list;
• internal regulations;
• approved construction plans;
• handover specification;
• later amendments;
• as-built drawings.

A brochure is weaker evidence where the final project differs.

For example, a service shaft may appear outside the unit in the sales plan but run through the bathroom in the as-built design.

The ownership and access position should be determined from the final legal and technical documents rather than the old marketing image.

What normally forms part of the private unit

The sample rules identify several elements as part of the private unit, including:

• internal walls;
• entrance and internal doors;
• internal surfaces of windows;
• floors;
• wall finishes;
• ceilings;
• kitchen;
• cupboards;
• technical installations used exclusively by the unit.

A balcony directly attached to and used only by the unit may also form part of it, subject to the documents and its relationship with the common structure.

The owner will commonly be responsible for:

• paint;
• tiles;
• flooring;
• internal partitions;
• cabinets;
• sanitary fittings;
• private appliances;
• individual wiring after the unit connection;
• pipes serving only that apartment;
• split air-conditioning equipment;
• furniture;
• exclusive-use fixtures.

The list is only the starting point.

A private decorative ceiling can sit beneath a common structural slab.

The inside window finish can be private while the external frame and facade connection remain common.

Parts that are not private are generally common property

The sample regulations take a broad approach to common areas and facilities.

Examples include:

• land;
• courtyards;
• gardens;
• access routes;
• common parking;
• sports areas;
• main walls and structure;
• common service areas;
• shared water and electrical systems;
• roof;
• stacks and flues;
• accessory rights.

Shared facilities can remain common even where they cross a private unit.

This principle is especially important for:

• vertical water risers;
• drainage stacks;
• fire pipes;
• electrical shafts;
• ventilation ducts;
• structural cores.

A shared pipe does not become private merely because it sits behind the owner’s tiles.

The owner may have to provide access.

Management should not automatically make the owner pay every cost of opening and reinstatement without reviewing:

• internal regulations;
• ownership of the element;
• cause;
• insurance;
• prior maintenance.

A structural wall remains common in nature

The owner may own the finish on an internal wall.

A load-bearing or structural element remains part of the building’s common structure.

Structural components can include:

• columns;
• beams;
• floor slabs;
• shear walls;
• load-bearing walls;
• foundations;
• structural cores;
• roof structure.

An owner cannot treat those elements like ordinary decorative partitions.

Before renovation, the owner should review:

• approved plan;
• structural drawings;
• management approval;
• engineering advice.

A contractor’s statement that a wall sounds hollow is not evidence that it can be removed safely.

Sub-Decree No. 126 restricts internal changes that affect the main structure, exceed permissible loads, create nuisance or threaten the solidity and safety of the building.

A window can contain both private and common components

Windows frequently sit on the legal boundary.

The sample rules refer to the inside surface as part of the private unit.

The external appearance of the building and the facade remain a common interest.

A window can be divided into:

• internal handle;
• hardware;
• glass;
• frame;
• external seal;
• waterproofing;
• facade junction;
• opening in the structure.

The owner may be responsible for a damaged internal fitting.

The building may be responsible for a failed facade seal causing water penetration.

Internal regulations may prohibit the owner from:

• changing frame colour;
• installing different glazing;
• adding external bars;
• enlarging the opening;
• applying visible film;
• changing the facade profile.

A crack caused by a private impact and leakage caused by defective external sealing are not the same claim.

A balcony has several layers

A balcony may be attached exclusively to one unit while containing components with different responsibilities.

Possible layers include:

• private floor finish;
• waterproof membrane;
• structural slab;
• railing;
• facade coating;
• drain;
• shared rainwater pipe;
• private furniture;
• air-conditioning equipment.

The owner may be responsible for:

• tiles;
• cleaning;
• private furniture;
• damage caused by their renovation.

The building may be responsible for:

• structural slab;
• external facade;
• common drain;
• waterproofing under the original design.

The actual allocation depends on the plan and internal regulations.

A leak through a balcony cannot be allocated until the failed element is identified.

Possible causes include:

• cracked tile joint;
• damaged waterproof membrane;
• blocked common drain;
• failed facade seal;
• altered floor level;
• penetration caused by private work.

An owner who drills through the waterproofing or changes the balcony construction may assume responsibility that originally belonged to the building.

Pipes should be classified by function

Location alone is unreliable.

A useful technical test asks:

1. Which units does the pipe serve?
2. Where is the connection point?
3. Can only one apartment be isolated?
4. Who has historically maintained it?
5. What do the as-built drawings show?
6. Is it part of a vertical or horizontal shared network?

Typical classifications can include:

• vertical riser serving many units — common;
• branch line after the unit connection — private;
• central drainage stack — common;
• flexible washing-machine hose — private;
• shared fire pipe — common;
• concealed pipe inside a wall — either, depending on function.

Management should not call every pipe inside the apartment private.

The owner should not call every concealed pipe common.

The system must be traced.

Air conditioning often creates mixed responsibility

Air conditioning is a frequent source of water damage in Cambodia.

A system can include:

• indoor unit;
• outdoor condenser;
• refrigerant line;
• private condensate drain;
• shared condensate riser;
• facade brackets;
• common platform;
• central chiller;
• electrical supply.

In a normal split system, the equipment used exclusively by the apartment is commonly private.

The shared drainage stack or facade support may remain common.

A typical mixed-cause problem can involve:

• private drain blockage;
• partially blocked common riser;
• water overflowing into a neighbour’s unit.

Liability may then be shared.

Maintenance history matters.

If management has ignored the shared riser for years, it should not automatically attribute the entire claim to the unit owner.

Waterproofing is more than a decorative finish

Bathroom, roof and balcony waterproofing may sit beneath private tiles while protecting:

• neighbouring units;
• common structure;
• the building envelope.

Its legal status can depend on:

• original construction;
• approved plans;
• internal regulations;
• renovation history.

Possible causes of failure include:

• developer defect;
• ageing;
• private renovation;
• failed sealant;
• pipe leak;
• structural movement.

A leak shortly after handover may support a defect claim against the developer or contractor.

A leak after the owner completely rebuilt the bathroom may point towards private responsibility.

The technical report should identify the cause rather than merely the location of the stain.

The roof is generally common property

Sub-Decree No. 126 expressly treats the roof as common property.

A penthouse owner does not automatically acquire the right to:

• build another level;
• close common access;
• sell roof rights;
• install heavy equipment;
• treat the structure as exclusively private.

A rooftop terrace may be subject to an exclusive-use arrangement.

The structural roof and waterproofing can remain common.

This matters after a leak.

The penthouse owner may be responsible for:

• private tiles;
• misuse;
• unapproved installations.

The building may be responsible for:

• roof membrane;
• structural slab;
• shared drainage.

Management must retain access for necessary inspection and repair.

The failed element and the damaged property may belong to different parties

Assume a common riser fails behind the wall of Unit 1205.

The repair requires:

• removing private tiles;
• replacing a common pipe;
• restoring the wall;
• repairing the ceiling of Unit 1105.

A possible allocation might be:

• common budget pays for the pipe;
• common budget or insurer pays for necessary access and basic reinstatement;
• the unit owner pays any upgrade beyond the original finish;
• liability insurance covers the neighbour’s damage;
• the responsible contractor reimburses some cost;
• the deductible is allocated under the rules.

There is no universal formula.

The owner should not be forced to sacrifice expensive private finishes without a documented basis.

The owner also should not demand luxury replacement where the original specification was basic and only equivalent reinstatement is owed.

Who compensates the neighbour below?

Responsibility depends on:

• ownership of the failed component;
• negligence;
• notice;
• maintenance history;
• original defect;
• tenant conduct;
• contractor conduct;
• insurance;
• causal link.

Possible responsible parties include:

• owner of the source unit;
• tenant;
• building management;
• developer;
• contractor;
• insurer;
• equipment manufacturer.

Examples:

• tenant leaves a tap running — tenant and landlord relationship;
• private hose bursts — owner-maintenance issue;
• common drainage stack fails — building issue;
• original waterproofing is defective — developer or contractor claim;
• management ignores repeated reports — possible management responsibility;
• contractor damages a pipe — contractor claim.

Water appearing below the apartment does not automatically make the owner above legally responsible for every cost.

Emergency response and final liability are separate

Water must be stopped quickly.

Management may need to:

• isolate the riser;
• enter the unit;
• open an access panel;
• call an emergency contractor;
• begin drying.

Emergency action should not wait for a complete legal decision.

The first invoice does not necessarily determine final liability.

After stabilisation, the parties should:

1. Photograph and document the damage.
2. Identify the source.
3. Preserve failed parts where useful.
4. Obtain a technical report.
5. Notify insurers.
6. Review plans and internal rules.
7. agree the repair scope.
8. Allocate the cost.

A demand that one owner pay everything first may be operationally convenient.

It is not always contractually or legally correct.

Owners must provide access for common-property work

The sample internal regulations require co-owners to facilitate maintenance and repair of common systems.

An owner cannot block access to a failed riser for weeks because the tiles are expensive.

Management should also follow a proportionate process.

Except in a genuine emergency, it should provide:

• reasonable notice;
• identity of workers;
• scope;
• timing;
• protection of furniture;
• photographs;
• reinstatement plan;
• insurance information;
• access record.

Where the unit is rented, the lease should permit emergency and common-system access through the correct notice procedure.

Access rights are not unlimited inspection rights

The right to enter for common repairs does not authorise arbitrary access.

Internal regulations should distinguish:

• emergency entry;
• planned maintenance;
• investigation after a report;
• routine inspection;
• owner consent;
• tenant notice;
• court or authority order.

Keys held by management should be controlled.

Unauthorised entry creates privacy, security and liability risk.

The owner must cooperate with necessary work.

The method should remain proportionate and documented.

Renovation approval protects the wider building

Management may require:

• drawings;
• contractor details;
• schedule;
• refundable deposit;
• insurance;
• structural confirmation;
• waste plan;
• lift protection;
• working hours;
• neighbour notice.

Those requirements can be justified because the work may affect:

• structure;
• waterproofing;
• fire safety;
• facade;
• lifts;
• shared services;
• noise.

The process should not become an arbitrary fee or indefinite delay.

Internal regulations should explain:

• approval criteria;
• deposit;
• refund;
• review period;
• prohibited works.

Major common-property work requires governance

Large projects affecting common property may include:

• facade repair;
• roof replacement;
• lift renewal;
• main pipes;
• fire systems;
• structural work.

Routine maintenance can usually be managed within the approved budget and delegated authority.

A major capital project may require:

• owner vote;
• reserve use;
• special assessment;
• tender;
• technical report.

This prevents a system-wide failure from being billed casually to the nearest apartment owner.

Emergency work may still proceed under limited emergency authority.

Insurance does not follow the boundary perfectly

A building’s master policy may cover:

• structure;
• common areas;
• common systems.

A unit policy may cover:

• fit-out;
• contents;
• liability;
• loss of rent.

The policies do not always match the cadastral boundary exactly.

A master policy may include original internal finishes.

A unit policy may cover improvements.

A deductible may be passed to the owner responsible for the loss.

Four questions should be kept separate:

1. Who owns the element?
2. Who had the maintenance duty?
3. Which insurer responds?
4. Who bears the uninsured balance?

The answer to one question does not automatically decide the others.

A resale buyer should investigate boundary disputes

Before purchasing a completed apartment, review:

• internal regulations;
• unit plan;
• common-property plan;
• approved renovations;
• leak history;
• open claims;
• insurance;
• special assessments;
• facade issues;
• waterproofing history;
• roof rights;
• balcony repairs;
• as-built MEP drawings;
• management correspondence.

Fresh paint may conceal a recurring leak.

A ceiling stain may indicate a building-wide riser problem rather than a private defect.

A penthouse roof issue may lead to a major future assessment.

Practical boundary guide

The table is only an orientation.

The actual building documents control.

Worked leak example

Assume water appears below a bathroom.

Investigation shows:

• private flexible hose has deteriorated;
• common drain is also partially blocked;
• management received two earlier reports;
• the tenant failed to report the final leak promptly.

The result may involve several responsibilities:

• owner for the private hose;
• management for the shared drain;
• tenant for delayed reporting;
• insurers for different parts of the loss.

A simple rule that the owner above pays everything would miss the mixed cause.

Conclusion

The boundary of a private unit does not simply follow the front door.

Sub-Decree No. 126 and the sample internal regulations place elements such as internal walls, doors, inside window surfaces, floors, ceilings, kitchens and exclusive-use installations within the private unit.

The main structure and shared service networks remain common even where they pass through an apartment.

Windows, balconies, waterproofing and air-conditioning systems often contain both private and common layers.

After damage, four questions should be separated:

1. Who owns the failed element?
2. Who had to maintain it?
3. What caused the failure?
4. Which contract or insurance policy pays?

The location of a water stain does not answer any of them by itself.

Stronger management uses final plans, technical reports and transparent cost allocation.

Weaker management assigns every problem to the nearest unit.

Sources

1. Royal Government of Cambodia — Sub-Decree No. 126 on the Management and Use of Co-Owned Buildings, 12 August 2009.
2. Kingdom of Cambodia — Law on Providing Foreigners with Ownership Rights in Private Units of Co-Owned Buildings, 24 May 2010.
3. Kingdom of Cambodia — Law on Construction, 2019.
4. Kingdom of Cambodia — Law on Insurance, 2014.
5. RICS — Property Agency and Management Principles, effective 1 January 2025, used as professional best-practice context.

Frequently asked

Is a pipe inside an apartment always the owner’s responsibility?

No. Sub-Decree No. 126 treats shared water, electrical and other service networks as common property even where they pass through a private unit. The key question is whether the element serves only one apartment or the wider building.

Who repairs internal walls and finishes?

Under the basic model, internal walls, floors, ceilings, inside window surfaces, kitchens and installations used exclusively by the unit belong to the private unit and are normally the owner’s responsibility.

Is a balcony private or common property?

A balcony attached to and used exclusively by one unit may form part of the private unit, but the slab, facade, waterproofing, railing and drainage can have different legal and maintenance status under the plan and internal regulations.

Who pays when water leaks into the apartment below?

The cause must be identified first. The source may be private plumbing, a common riser, waterproofing, the facade or the roof. Responsibility for repairing the cause and compensating damage may fall on different parties.

Can management enter the apartment to repair a common pipe?

The sample internal regulations require a co-owner to provide access where necessary for maintenance or repair of common property. Notice, emergency access, protection of finishes and reinstatement should be documented.