A CAM audit is a formal review of a landlord's CAM reconciliation statement to verify that charges are accurate, properly calculated, and consistent with the lease. The audit compares the statement line items against the lease's expense definition, pro-rata share formula, gross-up provision, and any caps.

How long does a CAM audit take?

With CAMAudit, a full forensic audit runs inside the partner workflow. Traditional CPA-led audits take 4 to 8 weeks and require scheduling, document collection, and manual review. The speed advantage of CAMAudit comes from automating the extraction and detection steps.

What documents do I need for a CAM audit?

You need your commercial lease (including all addenda and exhibits) and your CAM reconciliation statement from your landlord. The reconciliation is usually sent annually, within 90 to 120 days after the close of the lease year. If you haven't received it yet, request it in writing.

What does a CAM audit actually check?

CAMAudit checks 20 categories: management fee overcharge, pro-rata share error, gross-up violation, CAM cap violation, base year error, controllable expense cap overcharge, estimated payment true-up error, gross lease charges, excluded service charges, insurance overcharge, tax overallocation, utility overcharge, common area misclassification, and landlord overhead pass-through.

Do I need an attorney to dispute CAM charges?

Not necessarily. CAMAudit generates a dispute letter draft grounded in your specific findings and lease language. Many tenants resolve CAM disputes by sending this letter directly to their landlord or property manager. For large disputes or adversarial landlords, involving an attorney is advisable.

Case Study: Insurance Premiums Spike After Anchor Tenant Leaves, And Get Passed to Remaining Tenants

A medical supply distributor in Nevada was paying predictable CAM charges for three years. Then the grocery chain anchoring their shopping center left. Within twelve months, the tenant's share of property insurance had jumped 129%. The landlord passed the entire increase through. CAMAudit's Rule 9 flagged it as an insurance overcharge.

The Scenario

The tenant occupied 6,400 square feet in a community shopping center in Nevada. The center totaled 85,000 square feet. For the first three years of the lease, a major grocery chain occupied 42,000 square feet, nearly half the building.

The anchor tenant left at the end of year three. The landlord couldn't backfill the space quickly, and the vacancy rate at the property jumped to roughly 50%. Insurance carriers repriced the policy to account for that vacancy risk, a common underwriting response to large-scale anchor departure.

The tenant's CAM reconciliation told the story in cold numbers:

Years 1–3 insurance cost (tenant's share): $0.38 PSF
Year 4 insurance cost (tenant's share): $0.87 PSF

That's a 2.3× increase in a single year. On 6,400 square feet, the tenant's insurance line went from $2,432 to $5,568.

The lease was structured as a triple-net lease. The tenant expected to pay operating costs. They did not expect to absorb the financial consequences of a landlord-side vacancy problem.

What Triggered the Audit

The tenant reviewed their year 4 reconciliation and noticed the insurance line. The prior three years had been consistent. One year of jump that large, with no explanation from the landlord, raised questions. They uploaded their lease and the last four reconciliation statements to CAMAudit.

What CAMAudit Found

Our detection engine ran Rule 9 (Insurance Overcharge) against all four reconciliation periods. The rule looks for year-over-year insurance increases that exceed a threshold consistent with normal premium escalation, and cross-references the lease language defining what insurance costs the tenant is responsible for.

The lease's insurance provision read: "Tenant shall pay its pro-rata share of insurance premiums attributable to the property for its intended retail use."

That phrase, "for its intended retail use", is the operative clause. The property's intended retail use didn't change when the anchor left. What changed was the landlord's occupancy rate and the corresponding risk profile the insurer priced. The premium increase was attributable to anchor vacancy, not to normal retail property operations.

"I built CAMAudit because this exact pattern repeats itself. After an anchor leaves, landlords are under financial pressure and often pass every incremental cost through to whoever's still paying rent. The insurance line is one of the easiest places to hide it, tenants don't usually have the prior-year benchmarks to know what's normal. Our detection engine flags the spike and traces it back to the lease language." — Angel Campa, Founder of CAMAudit

Audit advisory: Insurance premium increased 129% year-over-year. Lease restricts insurance charges to premiums attributable to normal property operations. Verify whether increase corresponds to anchor tenant vacancy.

40% of CAM reconciliations contain material errors (PredictAP, 2026)

The Math

The excess insurance charge is direct:

Year 4 insurance billed: $0.87 PSF × 6,400 sq ft = $5,568
Year 3 insurance (prior-year benchmark): $0.38 PSF × 6,400 sq ft = $2,432
Excess charge: $5,568 − $2,432 = $3,136

The lease didn't cap insurance increases at a fixed percentage, but the "intended retail use" language gave the tenant grounds to exclude the vacancy-driven portion of the premium increase.

The Resolution

The tenant exercised their audit rights and requested the insurance policy documentation for years 3 and 4. The policy showed clearly that the premium increase was flagged by the insurer under the "extended vacancy" underwriting category, explicit documentation that the spike was vacancy-driven, not operations-driven.

The tenant's dispute letter cited the lease's insurance definition, the insurer's own category language, and the year-over-year rate history. The letter proposed that the tenant's insurance obligation be capped at the prior-year rate plus CPI (2.3% for the relevant period), consistent with normal operating cost escalation.

The landlord agreed. The tenant received a credit of $2,840, the $3,136 excess, less the CPI-adjusted increase of $296 that the tenant conceded was reasonable.

The landlord did not admit the original billing was improper. They called it a "reconciliation adjustment." The credit posted within 30 days.

Key Takeaway

Anchor tenant departure creates a cascade of financial pressure on landlords. Insurance premium spikes are one of the most common and least visible ways that pressure gets shifted to remaining tenants. This is true even in leases where the tenant expects to bear operating costs.

The question isn't whether insurance is a recoverable expense, in a triple-net lease, it usually is. The question is whether the specific premium increase is attributable to normal property operations or to a landlord-side event like vacancy. Your lease's insurance definition controls the answer.

Watch for this pattern if:

A major tenant has left your center in the last 1–3 years
Your insurance line has increased more than 15–20% in a single reconciliation period
Your landlord has not provided documentation explaining what drove the premium change

Anchor tenant departure has broader CAM implications beyond insurance, pro-rata denominators, utility allocations, and common area maintenance frequencies can all shift when a major tenant leaves.

FAQ

Can a landlord pass through insurance premium increases caused by vacancy?

It depends on your lease language. Most triple-net leases allow landlords to pass through property insurance costs, but the scope of "property insurance" is defined by the lease. If your lease limits insurance charges to premiums for the property's normal intended use, a vacancy-driven premium spike may fall outside that definition. The insurer's own policy documentation, which you can request under your audit rights, often shows the specific underwriting category that drove the increase.

What is a reasonable year-over-year increase for property insurance?

In stable market conditions, property insurance premiums typically escalate 3–8% per year. Increases of 20–30% can occur after regional catastrophic events or coverage market tightening, but a 100%+ increase in a single year almost always has a specific cause, vacancy, a claims history change, coverage category reclassification, or anchor departure. Any increase above 20% in a single year warrants requesting the policy documentation.

Does this apply to Nevada leases specifically?

This case involved a Nevada tenant, but the legal principle applies across states. Nevada's statute of limitations for contract claims is 6 years, meaning this tenant had a six-year lookback window under state law, though their lease's audit rights clause may have imposed a shorter practical window. The key is to exercise audit rights promptly when you spot an anomaly, rather than waiting until the window closes.