In community association meetings across the country, the conversation often starts the same way. A car is broken into, or a package goes missing, and the immediate reaction is a demand for hardware: “We need to install cameras.”
It is a natural response. Residents want to feel safe, and boards want to be responsive.
However, for a Board of Directors, the decision to install security cameras is not just about wiring and lenses; it is about risk management. There is a critical distinction between surveillance (gathering evidence) and security (preventing incidents).
While cameras are valuable tools for documentation, they are rarely a standalone solution. In fact, without the right governance structure, they can sometimes create operational challenges. The most effective communities understand that governance matters more than the hardware.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information for educational purposes and is not legal advice. Always consult your association’s general counsel and review local and state laws before implementing surveillance policies.
What We Will Cover Today
The HOA Security Camera Problem: Surveillance vs. Security
A common misconception is that cameras stop crime. In reality, cameras primarily record crime.
The biggest mistake boards make is communicating cameras as “active security” or “24/7 monitoring” when, in practice, they are primarily used for post-incident review. Policies and messaging must match operational reality.
If a community installs a high-definition system but lacks a plan for monitoring, it can increase expectations of real-time safety that the board cannot fulfill. Residents may believe they are being watched and protected in real-time, when in fact the footage is only stored on a hard drive.
To manage this expectation gap, successful boards frame cameras as one part of a broader HOA security strategy—useful for evidence, but not a replacement for vigilance or physical access controls.
Operational Controls: Building Trust Through Process
If your community decides to move forward with surveillance, the “how” is just as important as the “what.”
Trust is the currency of any community association. To maintain that trust, the management of camera footage requires strict operational controls. Best practices for governance typically include:
- Define Roles & Timelines (SLAs): Who manages the system? Is it the community manager, a specific committee member, or an external vendor? It is also vital to set clear response timelines for incident-based requests so residents know when to expect an answer.
- Access Logs & Audits: It is crucial to know who is watching the watchers. Many professionally managed communities implement systems where every view of the footage is logged. Who accessed it? When? For what reason? This audit trail helps protect the board from accusations of misuse.
- Incident-Based Access: In many well-run communities, footage is not viewed casually. A robust policy often restricts review to specific, reported incidents (such as a theft or property damage claim).
- Retention Policies: Data management is key. Common retention windows range from roughly 14–30 days (sometimes longer), balancing incident discovery time, storage costs, and data risk.
- Formal Request Protocols: When a resident asks to see footage, what is the process? Establishing a formal request form helps ensure that privacy is protected and that the board is consistent in how it handles information requests.
The Complex Question of Audio Recording
While video is standard, audio recording introduces a significant layer of legal complexity.
Laws regarding audio recording (wiretapping) vary by state and federal law may also apply. Some jurisdictions require “all-party consent,” meaning everyone being recorded must agree—a standard that is practically impossible to meet in a busy common area.
Because of this, many risk management advisors recommend a conservative approach: disabling audio recording on common area cameras unless specifically advised otherwise by your legal counsel. It is usually safer to focus on video evidence than to navigate the complexities of state privacy statutes.
Solving the Package Problem: Process Over Hardware
Package theft is a top complaint, but cameras aren’t always the best fix.
Think of it this way: cameras record the crime, but they don’t stop the thief. By the time you review the footage, the package is usually long gone.
A more effective approach often involves improving the chain of custody. This is where community management software like Neigbrs by Vinteum creates value. By using tools to log packages at the front desk or gate and automatically notifying residents upon arrival, the community reduces the time a package sits vulnerable.
It isn’t about “policing” the lobby; it’s about using better tools to get packages into residents’ hands faster. When you speed up the process, you remove the opportunity for any incidents.
Balancing Personal Cameras and Community Rules
The rise of video doorbells (like Ring or Nest) has brought the surveillance debate to the resident’s front door.
Rather than trying to ban these devices—which can be difficult to enforce—many boards are moving toward reasonable regulation.
Depending on state law and governing documents; therefore, many associations choose reasonable regulation over outright bans. Effective community rules often focus on privacy. For example, a policy might allow video doorbells provided they are not angled to capture a neighbor’s private window or patio. This respects the resident’s desire for individual security while upholding the community’s obligation to protect neighborly peace.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a resident demand to see security footage?
Policies vary, but in many cases, access is not automatic. To protect the privacy of other residents who may appear in the video, many associations require a formal request process or even a police report before releasing footage to an individual. Check your community’s specific rules.
Is the HOA responsible if a theft occurs under a camera?
Cameras are primarily an evidence tool, not a guarantee of safety. Whether the association has legal responsibility depends on state law, the governing documents, representations made to residents, and the specific facts of the incident. Many associations include language that limits security obligations, but outcomes vary.
Should we use “dummy” cameras to save money?
Many risk management advisors advise against this. Dummy cameras can create a misleading environment where residents believe they are being monitored. If a resident relies on a camera they believe is working, and an incident occurs, it can create significant trust and operational issues for the association.
Can the board limit where residents point their own cameras?
Yes, frequently. While residents often have a right to install security devices, the association usually has the authority to regulate cameras that intrude on the reasonable privacy of neighbors (such as pointing directly into a bedroom window or pool area).
Does placing “Video Surveillance” signs help?
Clear signage and communication help set expectations and improve transparency. It ensures that residents and guests are aware that common areas are being recorded, which is a key part of fair notice and open governance.
Start with Policy, Not Purchase Orders
Does your community need security cameras? The answer depends on your specific needs, your budget, and your ability to manage the system professionally.
Before signing a contract with a security vendor, we recommend forming a Safety and Security Committee to draft your policies. Consult with your association’s attorney to ensure your operational controls are sound.
When you prioritize governance, transparency, and clear processes, you transform cameras from a potential friction point into a valuable asset for the community.
If you are looking to improve your community’s operations—from package tracking to transparent communication—book a free demo with Vinteum to see how our platform supports professional association management.
