The complete security checklist for NYC co-op and condo boards in 2026

What every board should evaluate, upgrade, and have documented — before an incident forces the conversation.

Co-op and condo boards in New York City are responsible for a lot. Financials, maintenance, vendor relationships, neighbor disputes, Local Law compliance. Security often sits at the bottom of the agenda until something happens — a break-in, a package theft, an unauthorized entry, an incident in a stairwell — and suddenly it’s at the top.

I’ve worked with boards across Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens on security upgrades for their buildings. The pattern is consistent: the boards that are happiest with their outcomes are the ones who approached security proactively, with a clear framework, before they were reacting to an incident.

This checklist is designed to give any NYC co-op or condo board a structured way to evaluate where their building stands and what priorities to address first. It covers every major security system category relevant to residential buildings in New York City, along with the specific questions boards should be asking and the standards worth holding to in 2026.

Before you start: how to use this checklist

Walk through each section as a board and assign one of three statuses to each item:

✅In good order — the system exists, is functional, and meets current standards.

⚠️ Needs attention — the system exists but is outdated, underperforming, or incomplete.

❌ Not in place — the system or documentation doesn’t exist.

Any item marked ⚠️ or ❌ is a candidate for your capital improvement plan or your next vendor conversation. Not everything needs to be addressed immediately — but everything should be evaluated deliberately, not discovered during an incident.

Section 1: Building entry and intercom systems

The front door is the first line of security for any residential building. It is also, in most NYC co-ops and condos, the system that generates the most resident complaints and the most board discussion.

☐ Is your intercom system functional for all units? This sounds basic, but in buildings with aging intercom infrastructure — particularly pre-war buildings in Brooklyn and Manhattan — partial system failures are common. Units where the intercom doesn’t work, or where residents have stopped using it because it’s unreliable, create real security gaps. When was the system last tested across every unit?

☐ Can residents see who is at the door before buzzing them in? Audio-only intercom systems were the standard for decades. In 2026, they are increasingly inadequate. A resident who can only hear a visitor — not see them — has significantly less information when deciding whether to grant access. Video intercom systems have become the standard for well-managed residential buildings in New York City precisely because the visual verification step matters.

For buildings still operating on audio-only systems, the upgrade path to video depends on your existing wiring infrastructure. In many cases, existing two-wire intercom wiring can support a video upgrade without full rewiring — a meaningful cost consideration for boards working within capital budgets. For a detailed look at how video intercom upgrades work in different building types, our video intercom systems page covers the full range of options for NYC residential buildings.

☐ Can residents buzz in visitors from their smartphone? New York City residents expect to manage building access from their phones. Smartphone-based door release — where a visitor press at the front door sends a video call to the resident’s mobile, who can then unlock the door remotely — is now standard functionality in modern intercom systems. For buildings with residents who travel frequently, have mobility limitations, or are simply not home during delivery hours, this functionality is operationally important.

☐ Is there a managed access solution for package deliveries? Package theft in NYC residential buildings is not a minor inconvenience — it is a consistent source of resident complaints and, in buildings without a solution, a real quality-of-life issue. Modern intercom systems can issue time-limited virtual keys to carriers, allowing USPS, UPS, FedEx, and Amazon to access a designated package area without requiring a resident to be present. If your building doesn’t have a solution to package delivery management, this should be on your near-term agenda.

☐ Does your board have records of who has entry credentials? In buildings using key fobs, key cards, or app-based entry credentials, the board or managing agent should maintain an accurate record of every active credential. When residents move out, their credentials should be deactivated — not simply collected and discarded. If your building is using physical keys for entry, rekeying the front door lock when residents turn over is a basic step that is surprisingly often skipped.

☐ When was the front door entry system last professionally inspected? Intercom and door entry systems are mechanical and electronic systems that require maintenance. A door that doesn’t latch fully, a strike plate that doesn’t engage cleanly, or an intercom panel that’s showing signs of weathering are all maintenance issues that become security issues. Annual professional inspection is a reasonable standard.

Section 2: Security cameras and CCTV

Camera coverage in NYC residential buildings serves multiple purposes: deterrence, incident investigation, insurance documentation, and in some cases liability protection. Boards that have had to respond to an incident without usable footage understand the value of getting this right.

☐ Are all building entry and exit points covered? The minimum coverage standard for a residential building in NYC includes the front entrance, rear entrance, service entrance, and any parking access points. If any of these entry points is not covered by a camera with usable footage, that is a priority gap.

☐ Are common areas covered — lobbies, hallways, elevators, laundry rooms, package areas? Beyond entry points, common area coverage matters for the incidents that actually occur in residential buildings: package theft, vandalism, altercations between residents or guests, and slip-and-fall incidents that generate liability claims. Elevator cameras in particular are worth evaluating — elevator incidents are common in NYC buildings and are almost always investigated using camera footage.

☐ Is camera resolution sufficient for identification purposes? A camera that produces unusable footage during an incident is worse than no camera, in a specific sense: it creates the expectation that footage exists without delivering the actual security value. Low-resolution cameras — particularly older analog systems installed more than eight years ago — frequently produce footage that is too blurry to make identifications from, especially in the lighting conditions typical of NYC building lobbies and hallways. The current practical standard for identification-quality footage is 4MP minimum. If your existing cameras are below this threshold, it is worth evaluating an upgrade.

☐ How many days of footage does your system retain? Thirty days is the minimum standard I recommend for residential buildings. The reason: many incidents in residential buildings are not discovered immediately. A package stolen on a Tuesday may not be reported until the following week. A maintenance issue that turns into an insurance claim may not surface until weeks after the relevant footage would have been overwritten on a seven-day or fourteen-day system. Know your current retention period and evaluate whether it matches your actual needs.

☐ Is footage stored securely — and backed up? Footage stored only on a local recorder at the building is vulnerable. If the recorder is stolen, damaged in a fire, or fails at a critical moment, the footage is gone. Cloud backup or hybrid storage — local recording plus cloud redundancy — ensures footage survives the kinds of incidents where you most need it.

☐ Who has access to footage, and is that access documented? This is a governance question as much as a security question. Boards should have a clear, written policy about who is authorized to view building camera footage, under what circumstances, and how requests are handled. This matters both for resident privacy and for liability protection in the event footage becomes part of a legal proceeding.

Section 3: Access control

For larger co-op and condo buildings — and increasingly for smaller buildings as well — access control systems that go beyond the front door entry represent the next tier of security infrastructure.

☐ Is access to amenity spaces controlled? Buildings with gyms, roof decks, package rooms, bicycle storage, or other shared amenities face a specific access management challenge: these spaces should be accessible to residents and off-limits to non-residents, but managing that boundary with physical keys is cumbersome and creates key control problems. Electronic access control — where resident credentials also grant access to specific amenity spaces during designated hours — solves this cleanly.

☐ Is access to mechanical and utility spaces restricted? Boiler rooms, electrical rooms, roof access hatches, and similar spaces in NYC residential buildings should be accessible only to authorized staff and contractors. If these spaces are secured only with standard padlocks or building keys that have been distributed broadly, that is a meaningful security and liability gap.

☐ Do you have an access log for non-resident entry events? When a contractor, cleaning crew, or delivery service accesses your building’s back-of-house areas, is that access logged? In the event of a theft, damage claim, or other incident, knowing who was in the building and when is foundational to any investigation. Paper sign-in logs are better than nothing. Electronic access logs with timestamped entry records are significantly more useful.

☐ Is your existing access control system current and supported? Access control technology has changed substantially over the past decade. Systems installed before 2015 may be running on hardware and software that is no longer supported by the manufacturer — meaning security updates are unavailable and replacement parts may be difficult to source. Boards with older access control infrastructure should ask their current vendor directly whether the system they’re running is still fully supported.

For buildings evaluating access control upgrades — whether for amenity spaces, back-of-house areas, or building-wide credential management — our access control systems page covers the range of solutions we install for NYC residential buildings of different sizes and configurations.

☐ Are elevator access controls working correctly? In buildings where elevator access is restricted by floor — a common configuration in co-ops and condos where residential floors are not accessible to non-residents without a valid credential — elevator access control systems require regular testing. These systems are among the most commonly malfunctioning access control components in NYC residential buildings, often because they receive less maintenance attention than front door systems.

Section 4: Lighting

Security lighting is the most consistently underestimated element of residential building security. It is also, per dollar spent, among the most effective.

☐ Is exterior lighting adequate at all entry and exit points? The front entrance, rear entrance, service entrance, parking access, and any exterior walkways should be well-lit during the hours they are used. “Well-lit” means a person approaching those areas can be clearly identified — by other residents, by cameras, and by themselves. Motion-activated lighting at secondary entry points that are not in continuous use is an appropriate and cost-effective approach.

☐ Are stairwells and common corridors adequately lit? Poorly lit stairwells and corridors in NYC residential buildings are among the most common locations for incidents — and among the most common sources of liability claims arising from falls. Walk every stairwell and common corridor in your building. Any area where a resident cannot clearly see their surroundings is a maintenance and security priority.

☐ Are burned-out or malfunctioning lights being replaced promptly? This is a process question more than a system question. Does your building have a clear protocol for residents to report lighting issues? Does your super or building management have a defined response time? A burned-out light in a stairwell that stays out for three weeks is a foreseeable condition that creates liability exposure.

☐ Has lighting been evaluated in the context of camera coverage? Camera systems and lighting systems need to be designed together, or at minimum evaluated together. A camera positioned to cover an area that is inadequately lit will produce poor footage regardless of the camera’s technical specifications. If your building has both cameras and lighting concerns, evaluate them as a system.

Section 5: Documentation and board governance

Security systems that exist without documentation, maintenance records, and clear governance policies are significantly less effective than the hardware suggests.

☐ Does the board have a written security policy? This doesn’t need to be a lengthy document. At minimum it should address: who is authorized to access building camera footage and under what circumstances, what the building’s guest and vendor access policy is, how security incidents are reported and documented, and who has authority to engage security vendors for repairs or upgrades. Without this documentation, boards are making these decisions ad hoc — usually during or after an incident, which is the worst time to establish policy.

☐ Are maintenance records kept for all security systems? Service calls, inspections, repairs, and upgrades to every security system in the building should be documented. These records matter for warranty claims, for demonstrating due diligence in liability situations, and for informing future capital planning decisions. If your building cannot produce service records for its security systems, that is a gap worth addressing.

☐ Has the board conducted a security walkthrough in the past 12 months? A security walkthrough — physically inspecting every entry point, every camera position, every common area — with a licensed security professional is a different exercise from reviewing invoices and maintenance reports. It surfaces conditions that paperwork doesn’t capture. I recommend annual walkthroughs as standard practice for any NYC residential building with more than ten units.

☐ Does the board have a vendor relationship with a licensed NYC security contractor? Boards that have an established relationship with a licensed, insured security contractor before they need emergency service are in a meaningfully better position than boards calling vendors cold after an incident. The due diligence that should happen before you hire someone — license verification, references, insurance confirmation — is difficult to do quickly at midnight after a break-in.

☐ Are residents informed about building security protocols? The most technically sophisticated security system in the world is undermined by a resident who holds the lobby door open for an unverified visitor, or who props the service entrance open for a delivery. Resident communication about building security expectations — what the building’s guest policy is, how to report a concern, what to do if the intercom system isn’t working — is a low-cost, high-impact element of building security that boards frequently overlook.

Section 6: Emergency and compliance considerations

☐ Is your building compliant with NYC Local Law requirements relevant to security systems? New York City has a range of Local Laws that affect building operations, some of which intersect with security systems — including requirements related to elevator safety, fire alarm systems, and access for emergency responders. Boards should confirm with their managing agent and counsel that they are current on applicable compliance requirements. Security system upgrades that are done without proper permits or by unlicensed contractors can create compliance issues that become expensive to resolve.

☐ Does your building have emergency contact and access documentation for first responders? In an emergency — a fire, a medical event, a security incident — first responders may need access to areas of the building that are not normally accessible. Does your building have current key boxes, Knox Box installations, or other emergency access provisions required by your local fire company? Is the information current? This is a specific question worth confirming with your managing agent annually.

☐ Has the board discussed security as part of the capital plan? Security systems have service lives. Intercom systems, camera systems, and access control hardware are capital assets that depreciate and eventually require replacement. Including security infrastructure in the building’s capital plan — rather than treating it as an emergency line item — allows boards to plan and fund upgrades thoughtfully rather than reactively.

How to use this checklist with your board

I’d suggest running through this checklist as a board agenda item — ideally with a brief walkthrough of the building beforehand so the conversation is grounded in what you’ve actually observed rather than assumptions.

Any item that surfaces as ⚠️ or ❌ becomes a prioritized action item. Not every gap requires an immediate capital expenditure — some are process and policy issues that cost nothing to fix. But having a clear picture of where the building stands is the prerequisite for making good decisions.

If your board would find it useful to have a licensed security professional conduct a walkthrough of your building and provide a written assessment, that is a service most reputable NYC security contractors offer at no charge as part of a consultation process. It gives you an independent professional opinion to bring to the board alongside your own evaluation.

If you have questions about any item on this checklist — or about specific systems in your building — drop them in the comments below.

— Yonatan Yekutiel, New York City