Electric Vehicle Chargers in Condominiums

Installation of electric vehicle chargers in condominiums: what has changed?

The recent State Law No. 18.403/2026, enacted in São Paulo, has been widely publicized as a step forward for electric vehicle owners. In general terms, the law ensures the condominium owner the right to install, at their own expense, a charging station in their parking space.

At first glance, the rule seems simple—and even peaceful. But in practice, it opens up a new field of conflict within condominiums.

The question that is beginning to arise is no longer "can I install it?", but rather: Under what conditions — and with what risks?

The end of the blanket ban and the beginning of technical disputes.

The new legislation significantly alters the dynamics of condominiums by removing the power from the condominium to simply prohibit the installation of chargers.

Now, a negative response is only possible when there is concrete technical justification.

This means that discussions that were previously resolved in assembly meetings will now depend on elements such as: the capacity of the building's electrical system; compliance with technical standards;
structural impacts; and actual risks to safety.

In practice, the conflict ceases to be "political" and becomes... technical — and therefore much more complex.

The law exists, but it is not absolute.

The law guarantees the right to installation, but imposes clear conditions: the installation must comply with technical and safety standards; it must be carried out by a qualified professional with an ART (Technical Responsibility Certificate) or RRT (Technical Responsibility Report); and the condominium must be notified in advance.

Furthermore, the right is limited to private parking spaces — which, in itself, already excludes a significant portion of condominiums, especially those with rotating parking spaces.

In other words, there is a recognized right, but it is surrounded by technical and structural limitations that require case-by-case analysis.

The most sensitive point: who decides what is "technically feasible"?

This is, without a doubt, the biggest area of risk.

The law does not objectively define what constitutes a technical infeasibility.
It also fails to establish clear criteria regarding: the extent to which the electrical system should support new installations; who should bear the costs of any necessary adjustments; and what level of risk is acceptable.

The result is inevitable: Divergent interpretations between condominium owners and condominiums..

On one hand, the resident understands that they have a right guaranteed by law. On the other hand, the condominium seeks to safeguard collective security.

This scenario creates fertile ground for disputes.

Judicialization: a trend already in the short term.

The lack of detailed regulations and technical gaps indicate that the issue will likely reach the courts quickly.

The most common conflicts likely involve: refusals considered abusive; disproportionate technical requirements; disputes over adaptation costs; and structural limitations of the building.

Furthermore, there is a relevant legal point: the constitutionality of the law itself can be questioned, considering that the Constitution grants the Union the power to legislate on Civil Law.

The structural problem that the law does not solve.

Although relevant, the law faces a significant practical limitation: it only applies to reserved parking spaces.

In reality, in many condominiums — especially in large urban centers — parking spaces are assigned to individual units but not rotated.

In these cases, an inevitable question arises: How can one guarantee the right to install a building without a fixed parking space?

This is one of the points that reinforces the need for broader regulation, possibly at the national level.

Why this topic requires specialized advice.

The new law doesn't eliminate conflicts — it transforms them.

What was previously a decision made by the assembly now requires: technical analysis of the infrastructure; legal interpretation of the regulation; risk assessment (including civil liability); and definition of internal criteria to avoid future liabilities.

Both individual residents and condominiums are at risk.

On one hand, there is the risk of having a right unfairly denied.
On the other hand, there is the risk of authorizing an installation that compromises safety or generates liability.

Conclusion: Acting now is essential.

Law No. 18,403/2026 inaugurates a new reality in condominiums — and it still lacks practical consolidation.

At that time, The best strategy is not to react to conflict, but to prevent it..

 Proper structuring of internal policies, prior technical analysis, and legal alignment are fundamental to avoiding litigation and ensuring security for all involved.

How can we help?

Our team has expertise in real estate law and strategic action in condominium disputes, offering comprehensive support for: condominiums that need to structure rules and mitigate risks; condominium owners whose rights have been unduly restricted; and developers and administrators seeking to adapt to new legislation.

If this issue impacts your condominium or your property, now is the ideal time for a preventative analysis.

Article written by: Ivan Kubala.