[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, there are two answers to this question: 1. Regarding ownership: The rooftop terrace belongs to the common areas of the building and is owned by all owners. Developers have no right to sell it separately to top-floor residents. If top-floor residents want to exclusively use it, they need planning permits or legal agreements to support it. 2. Regarding maintenance: Roof waterproofing is a common area, and the maintenance obligation is shared by all owners (through maintenance funds or cost sharing). Top-floor residents who repair it at their own expense have the right to recover the cost from all building owners. The defense argument of downstairs residents that "they don't care about the rooftop if they don't use it" is not valid.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

The two major annoyances of top-floor residents come together as a pair: during the rainy season, water seepage from the roof soaks their own homes; the rooftop platform is used as a "backyard garden" for drying clothes, growing vegetables, and storing items, making it impossible for downstairs residents to access it. Who will repair the leaks, who can use the platform, and who will pay for the repairs after self-funding them—these three issues become even more acute in old residential communities with no property management and insufficient maintenance funds.

II. Key points of contention

Firstly, the ownership identification and dedicated use of the rooftop platform. Secondly, the allocation rules for the obligation to repair water leaks. Thirdly, the recourse path after the top floor undertakes self-funded repairs. Fourthly, the management of unauthorized use of the rooftop.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

First Level: Ownership Identification: The rooftop platform lacks structural and functional independence and belongs to the common property of all owners. The developer's agreement to "gift" the rooftop to the top-floor residents is invalid (unless the planning documents explicitly specify that this part is exclusively for a specific unit—such as a terrace-exclusive floor plan, which requires planning and registration basis). Top-floor residents must respect the common ownership when using the rooftop. Enclosing and occupying it or adding sheds constitutes infringement of common property rights, and other owners can request removal of the obstruction. Second Level: Allocation of Maintenance Obligations: The roof waterproofing layer belongs to common property, and maintenance responsibilities are shared by all owners—those with maintenance funds apply for use according to regulations; those without funds or insufficient funds allocate according to the proportion of their exclusive property area; daily maintenance within the scope of the property service contract is handled by the property management; major repairs follow fund and allocation procedures; if downstairs residents refuse to share costs on the grounds of "not using the rooftop and waiving the right to use it," the law does not recognize this. Common property obligations cannot be waived by abandoning rights, and judicial precedents clearly support recovering rooftop maintenance costs from all building owners on a pro-rata basis after repairs. Third Level: Practical Recovery: Top-floor residents first follow formal maintenance procedures with the property management and homeowners' committee (apply for funds, publicize the plan); if the process fails and urgent repairs are necessary at their own expense—written notice to all owners before repairs (public notice board and owner group records), publicizing the repair plan and budget, and retaining all contract invoices; after repairs, recover costs from each household on a pro-rata basis, and sue for unpaid shares with reminders and invoices; litigating multiple cases or seeking homeowners' committee assistance is more efficient; avoid excessive repairs during emergency repairs—costs exceeding necessary repairs (casual modifications) are not included in the allocation. Fourth Level: Special Circumstances of Fault Liability: Water leakage losses (damaging top-floor residents' or downstairs neighbors' property) and maintenance obligations are separate matters—common managers who know about the leakage but fail to repair and cause losses are liable for fault; judicial precedents have divided liability based on fault: top-floor owners who know about the leakage but fail to prevent it bear primary responsibility; new owners who take over without timely repair bear secondary responsibility; original property owners bear minor responsibility; evidence of leakage discovery and response (repair records, reminder letters, on-site photos) serve as both allocation basis and evidence of fault delineation. Fifth Level: Rooftop Use Governance: Compliant use (community-wide installation of solar panels, drying areas, rooftop greening) should be decided by owners collectively and managed by the property management; individual exclusive use (installing ground locks, enclosing stairwells) can be required by the homeowners' committee and property management to restore, and refusal to correct violations can be sued for removal of obstruction; roof renovations (flat-to-sloped conversion, photovoltaics) in old residential communities are major matters and subject to owners' collective decision-making procedures. With accelerated renovations of old residential communities in Beijing, roof waterproofing has become a priority, and using policy funds for waterproofing repairs is often more practical than case-by-case allocation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to clarify ownership: the shared ownership of the rooftop is the bottom line. For exclusive use of the rooftop, there must be planning and registration basis; The second step is to follow procedures: apply for funds and publicize the repair plan before repairing, and notify the entire building in writing even if repairing at one's own expense; The third step is to keep supporting documents: complete repair contracts, invoices, and reminder records are essential for seeking compensation; The fourth step is to monitor negligence: report and urge repairs promptly if water leaks are found, and the losses caused by negligent repairs shall be apportioned according to fault. Main legal basis: Articles 271 to 273 and Article 281 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and the relevant rules of Article 53 of the Regulations on Property Management; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

There are three key points regarding roof leaks: the roof platform is a common area for the entire building, but the top floor's exclusive use of it must be based on legal grounds; everyone is responsible for waterproofing repairs, and waiving responsibility does not exempt them from liability; self-funded repairs can be reclaimed, and providing notice and receipts is crucial. For disputes involving roof ownership and water leakage, legal action can be taken through appropriate channels.Property sales and construction projectsThe service obtains an overall solution, which involves the procedures for using the maintenance fund that can be integrated.Specialised legal servicesFor reference, you can refer to the clauses related to the obligations of property service contractsBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor cases involving compensation for family property losses, you can refer to the relevant provisions in the "Regulations on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests" issued by the State Council.Divorce litigation and family disputes板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the rooftop platform be sold to the owners of the top floor for their exclusive use?

No. The rooftop belongs to all the owners, and the developer's gift or sale agreement is invalid unless the plan clearly specifies exclusive use.

Q2: Is there any basis for allocating the cost of waterproofing the top floor, which was paid by the owner, to all the tenants in the building?

Yes. The roof is a common area, and the obligation to maintain it is shared by all owners. After conducting repairs at your own expense, you can seek reimbursement from all owners based on the proportion of the area they own, by providing receipts as proof.

Q3: If the downstairs residents say they don't need to use the rooftop and refuse to pay the maintenance fee, what should we do?

Renouncing rights does not exempt one from obligations. Those who refuse to share the burden after being urged can be sued, and the court will support an equal division of responsibilities.

Q4: Who should compensate for the damage caused by the water leakage that flooded the downstairs apartment?

According to the division of faults: the relevant owners who know that there is a water leak but fail to repair it shall bear responsibility for their faults. If they report the repair in time and leave evidence, they can reduce their own responsibility.

Q5: How can the maintenance fund be applied for to be used for major repairs to the exterior walls and roofs?

It shall be applied for use after being proposed and publicized by the homeowners' committee or the property management company in accordance with the prescribed procedures and voted by the owners, and supervised by the street office and the housing management department.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudicative opinions in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media, and have been publicly released. They are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Rongcheng City, Shandong Province
[Judicial Summary]In the case of Lao Dong suing Lao Zhao: After spending 11,361 yuan on repairing the waterproofing of the rooftop, Lao Dong sought reimbursement from the downstairs owners. The court held that the rooftop belongs to the common property of all owners, and owners cannot evade their obligations by giving up their rights. The repair costs should be borne equally by all 16 owners of the building. The court ruled that Lao Zhao should pay 710 yuan, and the second-instance court upheld the original verdict.
[Source]Shandong Court Network (Weihai Intermediate Court) (2024-09)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province
[Judicial Summary]Case of the owner of Room 302 suing the owners of Rooms 401 and 402 and the original property owners: The roof of the non-property-managed community was damaged and leaked, causing property losses on the third floor. The court clearly stated that all owners are joint managers of the roof and have the obligation to jointly maintain it, and allocated responsibilities according to fault: The top-floor owner, who knew about the leak but failed to prevent it, should bear 55% of the responsibility; the new owner should bear 30% of the responsibility for failing to repair it in time; and the original property owner should bear 10% of the responsibility. The court awarded compensation of 12,000 yuan and 4,000 yuan respectively to the plaintiff and the defendant.
[Source]Jiangsu Legal Report (reprinted from the official website of Suzhou Intermediate Court) (2025-12)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Legal services for the purchase and sale of real estate·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.