What is the inter-storey slab and who does it belong to?
The attic is the structure that separates two overlapping real estate units. It not only performs a dividing function: it is part of the backbone of the building and guarantees support to the upper floor and coverage to the lower one. For this reason, unless proven otherwise, the law presumes that it is common property of the two owners of the floors.
The communion concerns the structural part: slab, load-bearing beams and everything that is essential to the support and covering function. Decorative beams or non-structural elements remain the exclusive property of the individual.
The case of the “full or empty” spaces found between the attic and the false ceiling is different: as they are not essential to the structural function, they do not fall within the community and belong to the owner of the unit to which they access. The installation of pipes or ducts in this space by the owner of the upper floor may constitute stripping of possession of the neighbor below, with consequent obligation to remove and restore the condition of the premises.
The inter-storey attic: the costs
As mentioned, the attic that separates two residential units, one above the other and belonging to different owners, must be considered, unless proven otherwise, to be common property of the two floors; this “iurissoluto” presumption applies to all structures that have a support and covering function, as they perform an inseparable dividing function between the two floors, with equal utility and use for both and correlative uselessness for the other condominiums (Trib. Latina 27 November 2025, n. 2032).
Consistent with this function the art. 1125 of the Civil Code provides that the costs for the maintenance of the ceilings are borne in equal parts by the owners of the two floors, with the covering of the floor being the responsibility of the owner of the upper floor and the plastering, painting and decoration of the ceiling being the responsibility of the owner of the lower floor (Trib. Torre Annunziata 3 May 2024, n. 1294).
The criterion for allocating expenses for the maintenance and reconstruction of ceilings, vaults and attics according to the criteria of the art. 1125 cc, concerns the cases in which the need for repairs is not to be attributed to any of the condominiums, while when the damage is attributable to individual condominiums, the general principle according to which compensation for damages is borne by the person who caused them applies (Cass. Civ., section II, 08/09/2011, n. 18420). Thus, for example, in the case in which the attic requires repairs because the beams have been damaged by massive infiltrations deriving from the apartment located above it, the distribution of costs for the beams falls to the owner of the apartment above, who will have to bear the costs of intervention, including not only the costs of resurfacing his floor but, if necessary (think of the case in which the infiltrations have ruined the painting of the ceiling), also the costs for plaster the ceiling underneath the attic.
In any case it must be considered that the art. 1125 cc, according to which in condominium buildings the costs for the maintenance and reconstruction of the ceilings, vaults and attics are borne in equal parts by the owners of the two floors above each other, constitutes a rule that can be derogated from private autonomy. Consequently, only in the absence of such an agreement does the criterion provided for by Article 1125 of the Civil Code apply
A particular case
A condominium owner challenged the resolution with which the assembly had approved a variant appraisal and the related distribution of expenses. The main dispute concerned the attribution to all condominiums, according to the thousandth table A, of the costs necessary for the renovation of the attics located between the third and fifth floors. In the plaintiff’s opinion, that choice was wrong because those floors performed a support and covering function exclusively for the rooms directly above and below; consequently, the expense should have borne only the owners of the units involved, according to the criterion established by the art. 1125 cc
The condominium owner therefore argued that it was not an intervention concerning common parts of the building as a whole, but works relating to structures which, despite having an essential function, only served two specific real estate units. The Court found the plaintiff wrong. The expert witness appointed by the judge had in fact highlighted that the renovation work on the attics had become necessary due to the collapse of the masonry walls which constituted the load-bearing structures of the condominium building. The Court’s decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The judges of second instance recalled that, in the case of maintenance defects or failures of the common load-bearing structures which cause harmful consequences on individually owned parts of the building, it is up to all condominium owners to bear the costs of their restoration (App. Rome 27 January 2026, nos. 669).
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
