Condo Living

August 4, 2026 Published by Toronto and Area Chapter - By Jason Truman, Gowri Shakthi

AI in Condo Management: The Building Still Matters

From the Summer 2026 issue of CCI Toronto Condovoice Magazine.

Artificial intelligence isn’t a “someday” issue for the condominium industry. It’s here.

Managers are using it. Boards are using it. Consultants and trades are starting to use it. And owners are almost certainly using it (whether they say so or not).

That can be a good thing - if we use it like a tool and not like an oracle.

AI can organize thoughts, summarize long documents, soften or strengthen a difficult email, and draft routine materials fast. Used well, it saves time and reduces friction. Used carelessly, it can create legal, operational, privacy, governance, and relationship problems just as quickly.

The question isn’t whether condominium communities will use AI. They will. The real question is whether we’ll use it without losing the judgment, context, and accountability condo management depends on.

Here’s the simplest way we’ve found to think about it:

AI can help prepare the work, but it cannot understand the building unless a knowledgeable human gives it the context.

A useful mental model is that AI is a mirror with a fast keyboard attached. It replicates what it was trained on, and it echoes the context we feed it.

Sometimes that reflection is exactly what you need: clearer wording, better structure, a different way to explain the same point. But the same “mirror” can also bounce back the wrong thing - generic knowledge where buildingspecific knowledge is required, assumptions that don’t apply, or a confident answer built on missing facts. And it won’t tell you it’s guessing.

That matters in condominiums because condos aren’t just “a building.” They’re a legal corporation, a physical asset, a financial plan, and a community, all operating at the same time.

Two condos can have the same apparent problem and still need different responses because their documents, history, physical conditions, reserve fund priorities, and board decisions are different.

AI won’t know any of that unless a knowledgeable human provides it, and even then, it won’t always know which details actually drive the decision.

The Temptation: Using AI as Counsel

One of the most common risks we are seeing is that board members or property managers ask AI for answers to legal or compliance questions in an effort to avoid the cost or delay of seeking professional advice.

We understand why this happens. Condo work moves fast. Managers are swamped. Boards are volunteers. Everyone wants a quick, efficient answer.

But AI isn’t your condo lawyer, your engineer, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, or your board. It doesn’t “know” your declaration, bylaws, rules, contracts, or past decisions unless you give them to it, and even then, it can summarize them badly or apply them to the wrong scenario.

A property manager recently shared a simple example: a resident asked to use an accessibility lift to move bags down three steps. On the surface, that sounds like a quick operational call. In reality, the right answer could turn on accessibility obligations, what the device is (and how it’s meant to be used), site conditions, safety requirements, applicable standards, and liability exposure, plus the building’s specific layout and history.

An AI-generated answer can sound practical and polished while still being wrong, incomplete, or inconsistent with the actual authority that applies.

That’s the core risk: AI rarely sounds unsure, even when it’s operating on partial context.

Privacy: What Are We Putting Into The Tool?

Another major concern is confidentiality.

Property managers often deal with sensitive information: owner names, unit numbers, arrears, complaints, disabilityrelated information, enforcement issues, incident reports, employment matters, and disputes between residents.

If that information is copied into an AI tool to draft a letter or summarize a situation, there may be privacy implications.

This matters under privacy obligations such as PIPEDA. Boards and managers should be cautious about entering personal, confidential, or sensitive corporate information into public AI tools without clear policies, consent where required, and a real understanding of how that information is stored, retained, and used.

A practical rule is:

Do not put anything into an AI tool that you would not be comfortable disclosing outside the corporation unless you know the tool, privacy terms, and authorization are appropriate.

AI can help draft a letter without being given the full private story. In many cases, details can be anonymized or generalized. For example, instead of pasting a resident’s full complaint history, a manager might ask for help improving the tone of a notice about “a recurring noise complaint” without including names, unit numbers, medical details, or other identifying information.

Not All AI Tools Are The Same (And That Matters)

It is also important to recognize that “AI” is not one single thing.

Different AI models and tools have different capabilities, limitations, and security settings. Some are better at drafting correspondence. Some are better at summarizing documents. Some are better at analyzing technical information. Some are better at working with large sets of source materials. Others may be inappropriate for sensitive condominium information.

Choosing the right tool can significantly improve the outcome.

There is also a major difference between using a public AI tool and using an employer-approved or enterprise AI platform. Properly configured enterprise tools may offer stronger privacy protections, access controls, and the ability to work from approved building documents. That can improve both security and context.

For example, an AI tool that can safely access a building’s declaration, rules, prior board-approved policies, maintenance records, engineering reports, and reserve fund information may provide more useful support than a public tool being asked a generic question with limited background.

One caution: don’t over-read the word “enterprise.”

“Enterprise” doesn’t automatically mean safe. You still need to know what the tool can access, where data lives, whether prompts or documents are used for training, who has permission, and whether personal information is being handled properly.

Better tools help. They don’t replace judgment.

Condo Operations Are Too Context-Heavy for Generic Answers

Operational advice is another area where AI can be risky.

Condo operations run on context: what’s happened before, what the contracts say, what the documents allow, what the reserve fund is prioritizing, and what the board has already decided. Ignore any one of those, and “good advice” can become bad advice.

AI does not automatically know whether a building has had a history of water leaks, elevator issues, balcony repairs, garage deterioration, mould complaints, security concerns, or difficult communications with owners. It does not know whether a board has already approved a procedure, whether legal counsel has advised on an issue, or whether an engineer has already provided a recommendation.

That missing context can lead to generic guidance that sounds polished but is not appropriate for the building.

From the engineering and capital planning side, we see a related issue in reporting. Boards don’t need a data dump. They need decision-grade information: what the issue is, why it matters, what the options are, what it costs, and what we recommend doing next.

AI can drift the other way: longer, more technical, and less useful.

When asked to help prepare an assessment or summary, it may produce something long, technical, and overloaded with details that are not actually relevant to the decision. It may drift into technical minutiae or overexplain minor observations while obscuring the main issue.

That’s not what a board needs.

The value of experienced professionals is not just that they can gather information. It is that they know what information matters.

AI may help with structure and clarity, but human judgment is still required to determine what should be included, what should be left out, and what decision the board is actually being asked to make.

Tone Is The Risk Multiplier

AI-generated communication can also create problems in resident relations.

Many AI tools default to a formal, forceful, and sometimes unnecessarily harsh tone. In a condominium setting, that can escalate conflict.

A manager may ask AI to draft a response to a rule violation, and the result may “throw the book” at the resident: citing rules, threatening consequences, and using language that feels cold or punitive.

In some cases, that may be appropriate. In many cases, it is not.

Sometimes a simple reminder, a courteous warning, or a more human explanation would achieve a better result.

This is where property managers bring important judgment. They often know the resident, the history of the issue, the board’s preferred approach, and whether the communication should be educational, corrective, firm, or conciliatory.

AI does not know the relationship. The manager does.

A good use of AI might be:

“Help make this message clearer and more respectful while keeping the same meaning.”

A riskier use would be:

“Write an enforcement letter for this situation.”

The difference is important. In the first example, the human remains responsible for the message. In the second, the tool is being asked to decide the framing, tone, and level of escalation.

Governance: AI Cannot Create Authority

Another subtle but important risk is governance confusion.

AI may draft policies, responses, or procedures that sound official but exceed the authority of management, contradict board-approved procedures, or create expectations that the corporation did not intend to create.

And it doesn’t take much.

A manager uses AI to respond to an owner. The response includes language that sounds like a new policy. The owner relies on it. Later, the board disagrees. Now the corporation has a governance problem that started with one overly confident draft.

Condo corporations need to be clear that AI-generated content does not create authority.

The usual governance rules still apply. Managers manage within their authority. Boards make board decisions. Lawyers give legal advice. Engineers give engineering advice. The corporation’s governing documents, legislation, contracts, and board-approved policies still control.

AI does not change that chain of authority.

The Biggest Risk: Over-Reliance

The most important risk may be the simplest one: people stop checking.

At the start, most people are careful. They read the output. They verify facts. They tweak tone. They treat it like a draft.

Over time, if the tool seems helpful, there is a temptation to trust it more than we should.

That is where mistakes happen.

AI can change meaning while revising wording. It can insert assumptions. It can remove important nuances. It can make a message sound better while making it less accurate. It can confidently provide information that is outdated, incomplete, or simply wrong.

This is especially dangerous when users ask AI to “improve” a draft. The revised version may be smoother but may no longer say exactly what the original author intended.

In condominium management, small wording changes can matter. A sentence can affect expectations, liability, enforcement, owner relations, or board authority.

Every AI-assisted draft requires human review by someone who understands the issue.

Practical Guardrails for Boards and Managers

AI should be embraced, but with guardrails.

We should not expect to be working the same way in the future as we are doing today. Roles will evolve as these tools become more capable and more integrated into day-to-day work. Property managers, board members, consultants, and professionals may all use AI to reduce administrative burden, improve communication, and make better use of information.

But that does not mean judgment becomes less important. It may become more important.

For condominium boards and managers, the following practices are a good starting point:

• Use AI for drafting, organizing, and simplifying - not for final decisions. AI can help prepare a first draft, but it should not decide legal, operational, compliance, or governance questions.
• Keep confidential information out of public AI tools. Avoid entering names, unit numbers, complaint details, health information, arrears information, or other sensitive facts unless the tool and process have been properly vetted.
• Use the right tool for the task. Not all AI models are equal. A tool that is useful for improving tone may not be appropriate for legal, technical, operational, or document-heavy work.
• Provide building-specific context. Consider what matters: the governing documents, prior board decisions, contracts, building history, professional advice, resident relationships, and the actual decision being made.
• Check every factual statement. If the issue involves legislation, codes, safety standards, legal rights, engineering requirements, or financial consequences, verify it through the proper source or professional.
• Review tone before sending. Ask whether the communication fits the situation. Does it need to be firm, or would a softer reminder work better?
• Do not let AI create unofficial policy. Any policy, procedure, or commitment must align with board authority and corporation documents.
• Keep the human in the loop. AI should support experienced judgment, not replace it.
• Use a standard “safe prompt” so the tool stays in its lane. AI output is only as good as the instructions and context you provide. A consistent prompt template reduces privacy risk, forces the tool to disclose assumptions, and keeps decision-making with accountable humans.

A Better Way to Think About AI

AI is both a mirror and an assistant.

It can take messy inputs including notes, emails, reports, meeting minutes, and turn them into something clearer, shorter, and easier to work with. That’s powerful.

But it still needs a person who understands the building, the community, the governing documents, the relationships, and the decision being made.

That does not make AI useless. It makes it a tool.

A good tool can help prepare, organize, simplify, and improve. But someone still needs to know whether the work is accurate, appropriate, authorized, and useful.

In condominium management, that “someone” is still the property manager, the board, and the appropriate professional advisors.

AI will change how our industry works. It will reduce admin load, improve first drafts, and help people find needles in the haystack of building information. But condos will always be specific: specific documents, specific histories, specific people, specific risks.

So, the future of AI in condos shouldn’t be a flood of generic answers.

It should be better decisions, made by accountable humans, supported by better tools.

---

Jason Truman, P.Eng, Edison Engineers Inc.

Gowri Shakthi, OLCM, RCM, CMCA., Forest Hill Residential