The building facade in a Morocco condominium
common area, commercial signage and compensation by appraisal

1. The facade is expressly a common area (art. 4 law 18-00)

The text is unambiguous. Article 4 of law 18-00 as amended by law 106-12 exhaustively lists the parts deemed common, and the facade appears expressly in the list, on the same footing as the structural works, the foundations, the load-bearing walls, the stairs, the lifts and the entrances. The facade is therefore not a neutral "exterior" that each owner may treat as they wish along their private lot — it is the collective property of the co-owners, managed by the syndicate.

Consequence: any act that modifies, occupies or uses the facade requires the syndicate's authorisation — concretely, a general assembly decision. Failing that, the occupant is in a situation of occupation without title of a common area, which opens to the syndicate the right to act for cessation and compensation.

2. The nuance of exclusive enjoyment (art. 3 law 18-00)

Article 3 introduces an essential subtlety: common areas are "intended for the use and enjoyment of all the co-owners or of certain of them." The law therefore recognises the possibility of exclusive enjoyment of a common area by one or more identified co-owners — without the area changing its legal nature. The facade remains common, but its use may be reserved to certain lots.

Concretely, the condominium bylaws or a general assembly decision may grant a specific lot the exclusive right to fix a sign on a particular section of facade, to install an air-conditioner at a given location, to place an advertising band visible from the boulevard. This exclusive enjoyment is framed:

• It must be expressly stipulated (bylaws, registered GA minutes)
• It does not confer a right of ownership — the area remains common (a constant principle in case law)
• It may be coupled with financial consideration (an annual fee to the syndicate)
• It is revocable under the conditions provided in the grant or by GA decision at the required majority

3. The authorisations required (art. 20 and 21 law 18-00)

Two authorisation regimes coexist:

Article 20 explicitly provides that the GA may authorise, by relative majority, "certain co-owners to carry out, at their own expense, works affecting the common areas of the building or its external appearance, without prejudicing its original purpose." This is the legal basis on which a shop can obtain the right to fix a sign. Without a vote, the sign is fixed without title.

4. Case law: the Court of Cassation recognises aesthetic damage

The Moroccan Court of Cassation, in its ruling no. 22191 of 17 June 2009, set down a firm principle: any modification of the common facade (here, the replacement of wooden elements with iron windows) constitutes an "aesthetic damage" that gives a right to removal. The Court also recognises that each co-owner may act individually, without having to wait for a collective decision of the syndicate, as soon as their rights over the common thing are at stake.

In addition, two rulings of the same Court of 20 October 2016 (no. 31208 and 31148) specified that a mere theoretical recognition of a right is not enough — effective enjoyment must be demonstrated, where needed by judicial expertise. These decisions secure the syndicate's position: as long as the occupant cannot justify a regularly obtained title (GA minutes, amended bylaws), they are in occupation without title.

Finally, the ruling of the Casablanca Commercial Court of Appeal of 23 January 2020 (no. 70039) confirms that the action for compensation of damage relating to the common areas must be directed against the syndicate of co-owners itself, pursuant to article 13 of law 18-00 which places on it the responsibility for the conservation and maintenance of the common areas.

5. The compensation method: bailiff's report + appraisal

The evidentiary and compensation chain follows a proven sequence:

1. Bailiff's report with a certain date — nature of the element fixed to the facade (illuminated sign, band, air-conditioner, advertising panel), surface area used in m², precise location, observable duration (apparent age, dated photographs, Google Street View records where applicable)
2. Search for authorisations — verification of the condominium bylaws, examination of GA minutes, request to the syndic to produce any deliberations. Absent GA minutes authorising the use, a presumption of occupation without title
3. RICS-compliant real estate appraisal — quantification of the theoretical rental value of the m² of facade used, based on the rental prices of advertising surfaces (panels, totems, bands) pro rata to location and visibility. Multiplied by the established duration of use
4. Formal notice sent to the occupant (shop, office, lot owner), demanding cessation and amicable compensation
5. Judicial action failing amicable settlement — action for cessation and compensation before the competent court of first instance, supported by the bailiff's report and the adversarial appraisal

6. Specifics of offices and mixed-use buildings

The litigation is particularly frequent in mixed-use buildings combining housing + offices + shops — typical of Casablanca, Maarif, Hassan-Rabat, Gueliz in Marrakech. The offices of professional firms (lawyers, notaries, doctors, chartered accountants) fix plates, sign bands, even illuminated totems on the upper part of the building. Ground-floor shops often spill widely onto the facade, sometimes occupying the entire slab edge above the shop window.

Three particularly contentious cases:

• Air-conditioners fixed to the facade by an apartment co-owner — the air-conditioner is private but it occupies the common facade. Many old bylaws do not provide for it. Regularisation is possible by GA minutes at relative majority (art. 20) with, where applicable, an annual fee to the syndicate
• Bands and totems of professional firms on upper floors — the office activity is carried out in the private lot, but the signage on the facade remains an occupation without title of a common area. Often tolerated until a conflict erupts (a newly formed syndic, a co-owner unhappy with the noise or the view)
• Window graphics and facade cladding by shops — when the covering spreads beyond the simple shop window onto structural elements (columns, spandrels), the occupation is manifest. Ruling 22191 deals precisely with such a change of appearance

7. Amicable regularisation vs litigation

The most effective route remains amicable regularisation. Once the bailiff's report is established and the appraisal quantified, the syndic offers the shop or the firm three options:

• Immediate removal of the disputed element and restoration of the facade
• Regularisation by annual fee paid to the syndicate, after express authorisation in GA at the required majority — a win-win solution, since the shop keeps its commercial visibility and the syndicate gains revenue for its charges
• Buy-out of the exclusive enjoyment for a capital sum, against integration into the condominium bylaws — less frequent, but possible for cases of heavy use (totem, giant panel)

In the event of refusal, the litigation is brought by the syndicate or by a co-owner individually (case law 22191 and 70039). The court orders cessation under penalty and sets the compensation due, generally in light of the appraisal produced and reinforced by judicial expertise if contested.

Note: This article presents the framework of law 18-00 as amended by law 106-12 and the cited case law for information. The classification and the route applicable to your situation must be confirmed with your lawyer, syndic or notary. A private appraisal informs the negotiation and helps you support your position with third parties; in judicial proceedings, the expert is appointed by the judge. To document a facade-use claim, see our condominium advisory page or the ReaConsult blog.