What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Riverside County Board of Supervisors case?

CAMAudit flagged 1 finding with an apparent overcharge of $4,400. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.

Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?

Yes. CAMAudit applies the same CAM forensic detection rules to any lease and reconciliation your firm uploads. Partner firms receive findings in under 15 minutes and white-label branded report delivery for each completed audit.

Is Office a common property type for CAM audit engagements?

CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.

What is a correction package and does CAMAudit generate one?

A correction draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.

Public-record case study

Riverside County CA: management fee percentage cap overcharge case study

Name: Riverside County CA: management fee percentage cap overcharge case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-19

A public-record CAM case study showing $4,400 in management fee overcharges: landlord billed 11.1% effective rate against a 5% contractual cap.

Riverside County Board of Supervisors2022 statementNNN leaseOffice

Management fee billed at $8,000 on a $72,000 operating expense base.

Effective rate of 11.1% versus 5% contractual cap.

Overcharge of $4,400 identified by Rule 3.

What happened

Riverside County leased office space at the Galleria at Tyler under a NNN lease capping management fees at 5% of operating expenses. The landlord billed $8,000 in management fees on a $72,000 base, an effective rate of over 11%. The correct fee was $3,600. The $4,400 excess is a straightforward percentage cap violation identified through a California Public Records Act request.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 3: Management Fee Overcharge

high confidence

$4,400

Management fee of $8,000.00 exceeds the lease cap of 5.00% applied to base $72,000.00. Correct fee: $3,600.00. Overcharge: $4,400.00.

Lease evidence

Management Fee shall not exceed five percent (5%) of Operating Expenses. Section 7.3.

Section 7.3, page 12

Math proof

billed=8000.00, cap_rate=0.05, base=72000.00, max_allowed=3600.00, overcharge=4400.00

Lease evidence

Pro-rata share fixed at 12.00% (21,600 SF / 180,000 SF).
Management fee capped at 5% of Operating Expenses per Section 7.3.
NNN lease structure: tenant pays pro-rata share of all operating expenses.

Why this matters for your firm

Management fee caps are one of the most common sources of CAM overcharges. Landlords often bill a flat dollar fee that looks reasonable in isolation but exceeds the percentage cap when checked against the actual operating expense base. Government tenants are particularly exposed because their lease files are public record, making cross-verification straightforward.

Correction package excerpt

Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged an apparent discrepancy of $4,400.00 for the 2022 reconciliation year tied to a management fee exceeding the contractual 5% cap.

Detection guide

Management fee cap violations

Lease language

Management fee lease provisions

Frequently Asked Questions

Run these same detection rules on your client engagements

Upload a client lease and reconciliation. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study and delivers findings in under 15 minutes, with white-label report delivery under your firm brand.

Apply for partner access

Public-record note

This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Riverside County Board of Supervisors or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.