What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Retail Tenant (Simon Property Group Copley Place) case?

CAMAudit flagged 1 finding with an apparent overcharge of $8,340. 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. Your firm uploads the lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit checks them against the same rule set. Your firm reviews the findings. Then your firm sends the branded report to the client.

Is Retail 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

Simon Copley Place MA: CAM cap breach 3% non-cumulative case study

Name: Simon Copley Place MA: CAM cap breach 3% non-cumulative case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-19

A public-record retail CAM case study showing $8,340 in CAM overcharges: landlord billed $82,500 against a $74,160 cap (3% over prior year $72,000).

Retail Tenant (Simon Property Group Copley Place)2022 statementNNN leaseRetail

Prior year CAM: $72,000. Cap maximum: $74,160.

Billed: $82,500, which is $8,340 over cap.

What happened

The lease at Copley Place set a strict 3% annual CAM cap. With prior year CAM of $72,000, the 2022 maximum was $74,160. The reconciliation billed $82,500, which is 14.6% above the prior year, nearly five times the contractual limit.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 6: CAM Cap Violation

high confidence

$8,340

CAM billed ($82,500.00) exceeds the 3.0% non-cumulative cap. Max allowed: $74,160.00 (prior year $72,000.00). Overcharge: $8,340.00.

Lease evidence

Annual increases in CAM charges shall not exceed three percent (3%) over the prior lease year. Section 9.2.

Section 9.2, page 16

Math proof

prior_year_billed=72000.00, cap_rate=0.03, max_allowed=74160.00, billed=82500.00, overcharge=8340.00

Lease evidence

3% annual non-cumulative CAM cap (Section 9.2).

Why this matters for your firm

Low-cap leases (2-3%) are particularly vulnerable because even modest cost increases exceed the cap. Tenants in Boston's high-cost retail market often have tight cap provisions negotiated specifically to limit exposure, and those caps are most valuable when enforced.

Correction package excerpt

Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged a CAM cap breach of $8,340.00 for the 2022 reconciliation year.

Detection guide

CAM cap violation guide

Frequently asked questions

Run these same detection rules on your client engagements

Upload a client lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study. Your firm reviews the findings and sends the branded report to the client.

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 Retail Tenant (Simon Property Group Copley Place) or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.