Massachusetts has one of the older condo inventories in the country. A meaningful share of the stock in Greater Boston, Worcester, Springfield, and along the South Shore and North Shore predates 1990 — often substantially so. The diligence question for these buildings is not whether anything bad will happen, but whether the association has been positioning itself to handle the realistic capital trajectory without forcing owners into a sequence of disruptive special assessments.

This checklist focuses on what to look for in pre-1990 Massachusetts condos. It assumes M.G.L. c.183A applies (essentially all condos) and that the standard documents — Master Deed, bylaws, 6(d) certificate, current budget — are available.

Capital programs typical for pre-1990 stock

By around the 40–50 year mark, most condo buildings face an overlapping schedule of major capital programs. Massachusetts buildings constructed before about 1985 are well into this cycle. The major items:

Roof systems. Modified bitumen and EPDM roofs last roughly 20–30 years. Slate and tile last much longer but require periodic restoration. Many pre-1990 buildings are on their second or third roof.

Masonry and brick pointing. Brownstone, brick, and stone facades need pointing every 30–50 years. Greater Boston is full of buildings whose pointing is overdue.

Plumbing risers and stack work. Original galvanized and cast-iron plumbing has end-of-life around 50–80 years. Pre-1980 buildings increasingly face full riser-replacement programs.

Electrical panel and service upgrades. Original electrical service may not support modern loads (EV charging, electric heat, induction cooking). Many pre-1980 buildings face panel and service upgrades.

Elevator modernization. Original elevators from the 1970s and earlier need full modernization. Costs run $150,000–$400,000+ per cab depending on building.

Envelope and window-system work. Single-pane windows, weather-stripping, and exterior insulation programs. Many condos defer these for decades.

Parking decks and structural concrete. Where applicable, freeze-thaw exposure means parking decks need regular waterproofing and structural repair.

For a 1975-vintage Massachusetts condo, several of these are likely due in the next 5–10 years. The diligence question is whether the reserve plan and budget anticipate them.

The reserve-adequacy test in practice

M.G.L. c.183A §10 requires "adequate replacement reserve fund." The statute does not define adequate. The practical test:

1. List the major capital programs the building will likely need in the next 10 years
2. Estimate the cost of each
3. Compare the cumulative cost to the projected reserve balance over that period (current reserves plus future contributions)
4. If the projected reserves cover the cost, the fund is functionally adequate
5. If not, the gap will close through special assessments

Many older Massachusetts associations fail step 4. The fund is statutorily compliant — there is some reserve — but it is not sized to handle the realistic schedule. Future capital programs will be funded through specials.

For a buyer, the practical implication: budget for special assessments in any pre-1990 building whose reserve picture does not pass this test.

What to request

In addition to the standard packet:

• The current reserve study, if any (not statutorily required but increasingly common)
• The capital-program history for the last 10–15 years (what major work, when, how funded)
• The current reserve balance
• The projected annual reserve contribution
• The recent special-assessment history
• Voluntary engineering reports on roof, envelope, plumbing, electrical, elevator
• For Boston buildings above 70 feet: the most recent Section 9-9.12 facade inspection report
• The annual CPA review (M.G.L. c.183A requires for 50+ unit condos)

Specific items that signal trouble

Several patterns reliably surface in underfunded older associations:

• Reserve fund balance below $1,000–$2,000 per unit for a building over 30 years old
• No reserve study or capital plan documented in minutes
• Recurring small special assessments instead of programmatic reserve buildup
• Major capital items discussed in minutes year after year without action
• Sparse minutes that record decisions without underlying discussion
• 6(d) certificate showing unpaid balances for the unit (unit-level signal of association collection issues or unit-specific dispute)
• Sharp recent jumps in regular dues without explanation in the budget narrative
• Master-policy renewal discussions noting non-renewal letters or carrier withdrawals

None of these is automatically disqualifying. All are reasons to slow the close and ask follow-up questions.

What CondoSignal surfaces

We pull the available capital-program history, reserve balance and contribution trajectory, voluntary engineering reports, recent special-assessment history, master-policy renewal trail, and (for Boston tall buildings) Section 9-9.12 compliance into a single state-specific risk summary. We flag associations whose realistic 10-year capital exposure exceeds projected reserves, buildings whose voluntary engineering coverage looks thin for their age, and Section 9-9.12 compliance gaps. The goal is to give buyers a clear read on whether the building is on a sustainable trajectory — and what to budget for if it is not.