The OPPAGA report highlights a crucial distinction between communicating the results of a structural inspection and notifying building occupants of an immediate threat to safety and life.
Under Florida's "Milestone Inspection" process, the condominium association or cooperative is required to distribute the inspection summary to every unit owner, post the summary in a physical location on the property, and publish the full inspection report on the association's website.
However, the report identifies a significant issue regarding what happens when a building is classified as unsafe or uninhabitable. Building enforcement authorities reported 30 buildings in this condition resulting from 2024 Phase Two inspections and 24 resulting from 2025 inspections. OPPAGA further reported that the majority of buildings identified as unsafe or uninhabitable were not evacuated.
Most importantly, OPPAGA found that local building enforcement authorities adopted varying approaches to determine whether a building was unsafe or uninhabitable. These approaches included the definition in the Florida Building Code, local standards, and assessments made by the engineer responsible for the inspection. The report also notes that Florida Statutes do not define the terms "unsafe" or "uninhabitable" for the purposes of the milestone inspection notification requirement.
Data regarding evacuations reinforce this concern. Regarding the 30 buildings identified in 2024, OPPAGA contacted nine enforcement authorities; those that responded indicated that only five buildings had been evacuated. As for the 2025 data analyzed, three authorities responded regarding five buildings and indicated that none of them had been evacuated. Therefore, based strictly on the OPPAGA report, it would be more accurate to state that while a formal mechanism exists to communicate inspection results to property owners, the report does not establish a uniform state protocol for communicating a potential risk of collapse to all occupants or for determining when evacuation is necessary.
From the perspective of structural engineering and public safety, this distinction is fundamental. A technical report may document structural deficiencies, but when a condition poses an immediate threat to human life, communication must be clear, timely, and understandable to occupants, and directly linked to a safety decision that leads to concrete action. The fundamental question requiring further analysis is, therefore:
When a Phase Two milestone inspection identifies a condition severe enough for a building to be classified as unsafe or uninhabitable, who has the authority to determine whether residents must be evacuated, how is that determination communicated to all occupants, and is there a consistent state protocol for this procedure?
The OPPAGA report presents significant evidence that this issue warrants further examination.
------------------------------
Renata Nogueira Pinho | Civil Engineer | Court-Appointed Engineering Expert | M.ASCE
Founder & Technical Director
Cardoso Nogueira Construction
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
------------------------------