Surveillance Cameras and Smart Doorbells in Strata: What's Allowed and What's Not

Surveillance Cameras and Smart Doorbells in Strata: What's Allowed and What's Not

A decade ago, residential surveillance cameras were rare. Today, they are everywhere. Smart doorbells with motion-activated cameras, indoor security cameras with cloud upload, externally mounted CCTV, dashcam-equipped cars in carparks — the average apartment building now contains dozens of cameras owned by individual residents, recording what happens in shared corridors, in lift lobbies, in carparks, and across thresholds that pass between private and common property.

The legal framework that governs this technology was largely written before any of it existed. Privacy law, surveillance device law, and strata law each have something to say about residential cameras, but none of them was designed for the specific situation of a smart doorbell that records every passer-by in a shared corridor. The result is a fast-moving area of dispute, with NCAT, VCAT and equivalent tribunals working through the issues case by case.

This article walks through the legal framework, the practical position for cameras inside lots, on balconies, on common property, and in carparks, and the steps both owners and committees should be taking in 2026.

The Three Legal Frameworks

There are three overlapping legal frameworks that bear on residential surveillance.

The first is privacy law. The Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 applies to certain businesses that handle personal information, but its application to individual residents is limited. The relevant operative principle for most residential disputes is the common law of nuisance and the developing tortious protection of privacy, which has had a slow but consistent expansion in Australian case law over the past decade.

The second is surveillance device law. Each state and territory has legislation regulating the use of optical, listening, tracking and data surveillance devices. In NSW, this is the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. In Victoria, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999. The frameworks vary, but most prohibit the use of surveillance devices to record private activities or private conversations without consent, with various exemptions and exceptions.

The third is strata law. The OC's by-law-making power extends to regulating the installation of equipment on common property and addressing nuisances that affect occupiers of other lots. Section 153 of the NSW SSMA, and equivalents in other jurisdictions, provide the basis for action against surveillance arrangements that cause nuisance.

The interaction of these three frameworks produces a complicated picture. A camera that is lawful under privacy law may still be a nuisance under strata law. A camera that is lawful under strata law may still breach surveillance device legislation if it records private conversations. A device that complies with all three may still be a problem if it has been installed on common property without OC consent.

Cameras Inside Your Own Apartment

A camera that records only the inside of the lot, that does not capture audio of private conversations involving people other than the camera owner, and that does not record any common property is generally lawful. The owner can install whatever they like inside their own apartment, subject only to the obligation not to use it in a way that creates a nuisance.

The position becomes more complicated where the camera captures common property visible through the lot's windows or doors, or where the camera records audio that may pick up conversations from neighbouring apartments through shared walls.

For a camera positioned at a window pointing into the corridor or carpark, the relevant analysis is whether the camera is capturing common property in a way that interferes with the use of that common property by other occupants. Tribunals have generally accepted that a camera which captures only what is publicly visible from inside a lot is unlikely to be a nuisance, but a camera that creates a sense of being watched in shared spaces may meet the threshold.

For audio recording, the analysis is more clear-cut. Audio surveillance laws in most Australian jurisdictions prohibit the recording of private conversations without consent. A microphone-equipped camera that picks up conversations from neighbouring apartments — even incidentally — may breach surveillance device legislation regardless of whether the strata law issue is also engaged.

Cameras on Balconies

Balconies sit at the boundary between lot and common property in a way that creates particular complexity for camera installations.

In most strata schemes, the balcony floor and internal walls are part of the lot, but the balcony's external surfaces (the parapet, the underside, any external mounting points) are common property. A camera mounted on the external surface of a balcony — bolted to the parapet, for example — has been installed on common property, and ordinarily requires OC consent.

A camera mounted inside the balcony, on a portable stand or on the lot-side surface of an internal wall, is less complicated from the installation perspective. The remaining question is what the camera captures. A camera pointing outward from a balcony will, in most apartment buildings, capture other balconies, common gardens, the street, or other areas outside the lot. Whether this creates a nuisance depends on what is being recorded, where the recordings are stored, and whether the camera affects the use of those areas by other occupiers.

Tribunals have addressed several balcony camera disputes, generally taking the position that cameras pointing outward into shared spaces are problematic where they create persistent recording of identifiable individuals or where the recordings are publicly distributed.

Cameras on Common Property

A camera installed on common property — in a corridor, lift lobby, carpark, foyer, garden, or external wall — is the most legally constrained category.

Common property is, by definition, not owned by any individual lot. The OC controls its use. An owner does not have the right to install equipment on common property without OC consent, and a camera installed without consent is exposed to removal under the OC's by-law enforcement powers.

Even with OC consent, common property cameras raise privacy issues for other residents. A camera installed by the OC for security purposes is in a different category from a camera installed by an individual owner — the OC can act on behalf of the collective, set retention policies, and manage access to recordings. An individual owner's camera on common property is harder to justify.

The recent pattern in Tribunal decisions is to allow OC-installed common property cameras where they serve a security purpose, are properly disclosed, and are subject to a reasonable data management policy, while restricting individual residents' cameras on common property absent specific consent and clear justification.

Smart Doorbells

The smart doorbell — a camera-equipped device replacing the traditional doorbell, typically with motion-activated recording, cloud upload, and remote viewing — is the single most common source of camera dispute in 2026.

The doorbell sits at the threshold between lot and common property. The doorbell itself is typically installed in or near the front door, on lot or directly adjacent property. The camera, however, captures the area immediately outside the door — generally a shared corridor, hallway, or stairwell on common property.

The legal analysis depends on several factors. Where the doorbell is installed on the lot side of the threshold, the installation is unproblematic. Where the camera captures only the area immediately outside the door (a few square metres of shared corridor visible from the door), the recording is generally accepted as a reasonable security measure. Where the camera captures a wider area of shared corridor and produces persistent recording of neighbours' movements, the picture changes.

Tribunals have generally distinguished between doorbells used to identify people approaching the door (uncontroversial) and doorbells used to monitor neighbours' activity in shared spaces (problematic). A doorbell that records every passer-by, stores the recordings indefinitely, and is accessible from the owner's phone in a way that creates a sense of constant surveillance has been treated more critically than a doorbell that activates briefly when someone approaches the door.

By-laws regulating smart doorbells have begun to appear in larger schemes. The defensible drafting requires consent for installation, restricts the field of view to the immediate area outside the door, prohibits audio recording without specific consent from the OC, requires reasonable data retention policies, and addresses the position when the resident moves out.

What Owners Corporations Can Do

The OC's options for managing surveillance issues range from permissive to restrictive.

The most permissive position is to allow residents to install cameras and doorbells without OC involvement, addressing nuisance complaints individually as they arise. This is the default position in most older schemes and is increasingly inadequate as the technology proliferates.

The middle position is to require OC consent for any camera installation that affects common property — including any external doorbell — and to set basic standards (field of view, audio recording, data retention) as conditions of consent. This is a sensible default for most schemes.

The more restrictive position is to install OC-managed common property cameras (in lifts, foyers, carparks) and to prohibit individual residents from installing additional cameras that capture common property. This is appropriate for security-focused buildings but is more administratively complex.

The OC must also consider its own surveillance obligations. Where the OC operates security cameras in common areas, it must comply with surveillance device legislation, manage the data appropriately, and ensure that residents are aware of the surveillance.

Practical Steps for Owners

For owners installing or considering cameras, the practical agenda is:

Identify what the camera will capture. If any part of the field of view is common property or another lot, OC consent should be sought before installation. Approach the strata manager with a description of the proposed installation and the rationale, and seek written consent.

Disable audio recording unless there is a specific reason to enable it and the OC has consented. Audio raises issues that video alone does not.

Set reasonable data retention. Storing footage for a few days is generally defensible; storing footage indefinitely creates issues.

If using cloud-based services, understand who has access to the footage and what the service provider does with it. The Privacy Act may apply to the service provider even where it does not apply to the resident.

Where a neighbour raises a concern, take it seriously. Most camera disputes resolve when the owner adjusts the camera's field of view, disables audio, or shortens retention. Disputes that proceed to Tribunal generally involve owners who have refused to make reasonable accommodations.

The State-by-State Picture

How UnitBuddy Helps

UnitBuddy's by-laws and consents module captures camera and doorbell installations by lot, tracks the OC's consent decisions and conditions, and surfaces installations that may be inconsistent with the building's policies. The system also supports complaints handling and the documentation that supports either OC enforcement or defence of installations that have been challenged.

For committees, the platform provides clear visibility over a category of installation that has historically been managed informally and inconsistently — the foundation of policies that residents understand and that hold up to scrutiny.

Surveillance technology has moved faster than the law, and the law has moved faster than most strata committees' approach to it. The buildings that will manage this issue well in 2026 are those that have a clear policy, apply it consistently, and recognise that a smart doorbell is no longer a small consumer purchase but a category of installation with real legal consequences.