Many owners of commercial units, garages or storage rooms believe that the clause exempting them from lobby, staircase and lift expenses also frees them from paying for their community’s accessibility works. Spain’s Supreme Court has just made clear that this is not the case. We explain, without spin, what that exemption really covers and when an exempt commercial unit has to pay for the ramp or the lift in 2026.
It is one of the most frequent —and most expensive— conflicts within a community of owners: the community approves a special levy to install a lift, build a ramp or remove architectural barriers, and the owner of a commercial unit or a ground-floor premises refuses to pay, arguing that the bylaws exempt them from those expenses. Are they right? After the Supreme Court’s latest doctrine, the answer is nuanced but clear: it depends on whether the work is simple maintenance or accessibility. And where accessibility works are concerned, the exempt unit does pay.
1. The expense exemption for commercial units: what it is and how far it reaches
The participation quota sets, as a general rule, how much each owner contributes to common expenses (Article 9 of the Horizontal Property Act). However, it is very common for the deed of establishment or the bylaws to include a clause exempting commercial units —or ground-floor premises, garages and storage rooms— from certain expenses they do not use: typically those of the lobby, staircase and lift, because they have direct access from the street and do not use those elements.
Such clauses are perfectly valid, but case law interprets them restrictively. That is: they only exempt what they expressly state, and in case of doubt the matter is resolved in favour of the owner contributing. A generic exemption “from staircase and lift expenses” covers the maintenance, operation and even the refurbishment or replacement of the lift or staircase that already exist. Up to that point, the exempt unit does not pay.
The problem arises when the work is not maintenance, but accessibility. And there the rules change completely.
2. Accessibility works are a legal obligation
Article 10 of the Horizontal Property Act provides that works necessary to guarantee the building’s universal accessibility are mandatory, and do not even require a prior resolution of the Owners’ Meeting. This includes the installation of ramps, lifts or other devices that make it easier for people with disabilities or those over seventy to use the common elements.
These works are mandatory provided that the amount passed on annually, once subsidies or public grants have been deducted, does not exceed twelve ordinary monthly instalments of common expenses (and also where public aid reaches 75% of the cost). And, most importantly for the matter at hand: Article 10 itself provides that these works are paid for by the owners and that flats and commercial units are bound to their payment on the same terms as the general expenses under Article 9.
2.1. Mandatory without the need for a vote
Where the accessibility work is one that the law deems mandatory, the Meeting does not vote on whether or not to carry it out: it only approves how the levy is shared out and the payment terms. The owner who objects is not challenging a discretionary decision of the community, but resisting a legal obligation.
2.2. When a majority is required
For accessibility works that do not fall within the mandatory scenario above, Article 17 of the Horizontal Property Act requires the favourable vote of the majority of owners who, in turn, represent the majority of the quotas. Once that resolution is validly adopted, it binds the whole community, including absent owners and those who voted against.
3. Exempt commercial units and accessibility works: what the Supreme Court says in 2026
Supreme Court Judgment no. 844/2026 of 2 June (Civil Chamber; ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2426; appeal 7640/2021) resolves precisely this conflict and consolidates the doctrine.
3.1. The case
The owners of several commercial units and of a basement in a building in Oviedo challenged the community resolution requiring them to contribute to the levy for the removal of architectural barriers: the replacement of doors and the construction of a ramp to give access to the lifts. They relied on a bylaw clause exempting them from lobby and staircase expenses.
3.2. The substantive doctrine
The Supreme Court rejects the units’ argument. It reasons that accessibility works are not maintenance or repair works covered by the exemption clause —which is interpreted restrictively— but rather the fulfilment of a legal obligation aimed at guaranteeing universal accessibility, which moreover increases the value of the property as a whole.
The Court applies by analogy its consolidated line of authority on the installation of lifts for the first time and on “lowering to street level” (among others, Judgments 202/2014, 381/2018, 216/2019, 276/2021 and 152/2024): if exempt units must contribute to the ex novo installation of a lift, all the more so must they contribute to the ramps and doors that serve that same accessibility purpose when the lift cannot reach the street. The practical conclusion: the exempt unit pays for accessibility works, in proportion to its quota.
3.3. The line worth remembering
From this the decisive distinction emerges —the one that determines who pays:
- Maintaining, repairing or replacing the lift or staircase that already exist: the unit’s generic exemption does apply; the exempt unit does not pay.
- Removing barriers, installing a lift where there was none, or adapting the accesses (ramps, lowering to street level): this is accessibility, it is a legal obligation, and the exempt unit does pay.
4. How to challenge (properly) the levy: the procedural lessons of the judgment
Judgment 844/2026 is also a reminder that these disputes are often won or lost on procedure. The judgment leaves three practical warnings:
- You must “record your dissenting vote”. An owner who attends the Meeting and abstains must expressly place their opposition on record in order to challenge the resolution afterwards. It is not enough to say “this does not concern me” or “I am not voting either way”: whoever acts like that neither votes against nor records a dissent, and loses standing to challenge (the doctrine of Judgments 242/2013 and 332/2013, now reiterated).
- As a general rule, you must be up to date with payments in order to challenge a resolution (Article 18 of the Horizontal Property Act). There is a relevant exception: where the resolution affects the very system for sharing out expenses or the challenger’s statutory exemption, the owner retains standing despite the debt.
- The chairperson may defend the resolution in court without the need for prior authorisation from the Meeting, because filing a defence or an appeal is not the exercise of a legal action, but the defence of a community resolution already adopted.
5. Practical cases
Case 1 — The ramp the ground-floor unit does pay for. A ground-floor commercial unit has, in its bylaws, an exemption “from staircase and lift”. The community approves building a ramp and adapting the lobby so that the lift reaches street level. The unit refuses to pay. Under the 2026 doctrine, it loses: this is accessibility, not the maintenance of the existing lift, and it must contribute according to its quota.
Case 2 — Replacing the old lift. An exempt garage objects to the levy for changing the old lift for a new one in the same location, without removing any barrier. Here the generic exemption does work: it is the replacement of an already existing service, and the exempt unit does not pay. The key is always to distinguish replacing what is already there from removing barriers or installing anew.
Case 3 — The challenge lost on procedure. An owner, annoyed by the levy, declares at the Meeting that “it does not affect him” and does not vote; months later he challenges the resolution. The court does not even reach the merits: having failed to record his dissenting vote, he lacks standing. A mistake as common as it is easy to avoid.
Summary: the key points
- The clause exempting commercial units from “lobby, staircase and lift” is valid, but it is interpreted restrictively.
- That exemption covers the maintenance, operation and even the replacement of the lift or staircase that already exist.
- It does not cover installing a lift for the first time or accessibility works (ramps, lowering to street level, barrier removal): these are a legal obligation under Article 10 of the Horizontal Property Act and are paid for by the exempt unit too, according to its quota.
- Judgment 844/2026 of 2 June confirms this for a ramp and doors giving access to the lifts.
- To challenge the levy you must record your dissenting vote if present and, as a general rule, be up to date with payments (Article 18 HPA), with exceptions.
- The chairperson may defend the resolution in court without prior authorisation from the Meeting.
Do you need advice on an accessibility levy or on your unit’s exemption?
At Quikprokuo we have more than 25 years advising communities of owners and owners of commercial units, garages and homes in Madrid. If your community has approved an accessibility levy and you are unsure whether your unit is obliged to pay, or if you want to challenge —or defend— a resolution properly, we review your deed of establishment, your bylaws and the specific resolution and tell you, with both feet on the ground, what you can claim and with what prospects. This conflict often overlaps with other aspects of community life, from the duty of conservation and the building’s ITE to tourist rentals within the community. Contact our firm and we will review it.
Sources: Horizontal Property Act, Article 10 (BOE, consolidated text); Judgment of the Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, no. 844/2026 of 2 June (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:2426).
