CAM Reconciliation Review Checklist for Bookkeepers
The first time a bookkeeper sees a CAM reconciliation statement, they are not sure what they are looking at. CAM is Common Area Maintenance. A two-page PDF arrives from the landlord. The client forwards it with a note that says "please review." Now the bookkeeper has to decide what counts as review. Tie out the math? Compare to last year? Read the lease? Most engagement letters do not say. The answer depends on what your firm wants checked and what it wants escalated.
This checklist defines the bookkeeper's first-pass review. It is not a full audit. That is a separate scope and a separate deliverable. It is a 20-to-30-minute review. It catches the obvious errors. It surfaces the items that need senior review. It leaves a workpaper trail of what got checked.
I built CAMAudit to run the deeper detection layer that a checklist cannot. The checklist is the first filter. When it surfaces enough flags, the deeper review becomes a scoped engagement. When it does not, the routine review is enough.
Where the checklist sits in the engagement
The bookkeeper review is not a formal CAM audit. The boundary matters. Mix the two scopes and the engagement loses money or misses real errors.
The bookkeeper review answers four questions. Does the math on the statement tie? How does it compare to last year? Are there obvious red flags, like missing detail, odd categories, or math errors? Is the variance to your firm's accrual within range? An accrual is the amount your firm expected the true-up to be.
The bookkeeper review does not answer the hard questions. Is each charge allowed under the lease? Is the management fee base computed right? Does the gross-up follow industry standards? Gross-up adjusts shared costs as if the building were full. Does the pro rata share denominator match the actual occupied square footage? Pro rata share is the tenant's slice of the costs. Those are senior-accountant or audit questions.
When the checklist surfaces enough flags, the partner scopes a formal reconciliation review as a separate engagement. The checklist is the trigger. It is not the audit.
The checklist itself
Twelve items, organized by section.
Math verification
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | Sum of expense categories ties to total operating expenses |
| 2 | Pro-rata share percentage applied correctly to total expenses |
| 3 | Tenant share less estimates billed equals the true-up amount |
| 4 | Any caps or stops applied correctly per lease |
Prior-year comparison
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 5 | Total CAM compared to prior year, variance noted |
| 6 | Major categories (insurance, taxes, repairs) compared to prior year |
| 7 | Pro-rata share percentage matches prior year (or change explained) |
| 8 | Categories present this year but not prior year flagged |
Compliance flags
| # | Item |
|---|---|
| 9 | Capital expenditures recovered through CAM flagged for senior review |
| 10 | Categories that look like landlord overhead flagged for senior review |
| 11 | Management fee computed on operating expenses (not total revenue) |
| 12 | Property tax and insurance billed once, not duplicated in CAM |
How the comparison to last year works
The prior-year comparison is the highest-yield part of the checklist. It surfaces odd items, and the bookkeeper never has to read the lease.
Here is how to run it.
Pull last year's reconciliation. It should be in the prior-year close workpapers. If it is missing, that is a flag on its own. It means the firm did not keep last year's backup.
Build a side-by-side. List total CAM, each major category, pro rata share, tenant share, estimates billed, and true-up.
Compute the change for each line. Show the percent change. Flag anything outside the firm's expected band.
Note any explanations. If the landlord wrote a note explaining a change, capture it. If not, flag the change for senior review.
A typical CAM line might grow 4 to 8 percent a year from inflation alone. Insurance can grow more in a hard market. Property taxes can jump after a reassessment. Landscaping or janitorial should grow modestly unless a contract changed. Repairs and maintenance is the most variable line. It reads better with multi-year context.
First, check if the space total got smaller. That can raise the tenant share.
Next, check new capital cost items. Send either flag to a senior reviewer if the cause is not clear.
When the math does not tie
If items one through four turn up a math error, the review stops. The bookkeeper does not try to find the correct number. The bookkeeper writes down the error and escalates.
Here are common math errors.
The cost lines do not match the total. A line may be missing from the total. It may still affect the tenant share.
Pro rata share math is wrong. Tenant share divided by the total does not match the stated pro rata percent.
True-up math is wrong. Tenant share minus estimates billed does not match the stated true-up.
Math errors need a corrected statement from the landlord. The firm asks for a corrected reconciliation. The client should not pay the original until the math ties.
"The fastest way to lose a CAM dispute is to pay a statement with a math error and dispute it months later. The math check is the lowest-effort, highest-protection step in the review." - Angel Campa, Founder of CAMAudit
When categories do not match prior year
New categories on this year's statement are one of the most reliable flags. Here are a few common cases.
A capital expenditure shows up. The landlord bought a new HVAC system and is recovering the cost through CAM. Whether that is allowed depends on the lease, the type of expense, and any exclusions. The bookkeeper escalates. The senior or partner reviews it against the lease.
A new fee appears. A "common area administration fee" or "operations supervisor allocation" shows up where last year had only a management fee. This may be double-billing for landlord overhead. The bookkeeper escalates.
A category was reclassified. Last year's "repairs and maintenance" is now split into "preventive maintenance" and "corrective maintenance." The total may match. The structure changed. The bookkeeper notes it. The senior reviews it.
A change to a past year. The change may be right or wrong. Send it to a senior reviewer.
The lease may limit how far back a client can act. Ask counsel about rights.
What gets documented
Every checklist run produces a workpaper. The workpaper has five components:
- The completed checklist with notes on each line.
- A copy of the reconciliation statement received.
- A copy of the prior-year reconciliation used for comparison.
- The lease abstract referenced (or a note that no abstract was on file).
- A summary of flags escalated to senior accountant or partner.
The workpaper goes in the close file for the period the reconciliation covers. If it covers a prior period, it goes in that period's file with a cross-reference in the current one.
Documentation matters because these reviews repeat every year. Next year's bookkeeper may be someone new. The workpaper lets any team member pick up the review across years.
What the partner sees
The partner does not run the checklist. The partner sees the escalation list. A few patterns get the partner's attention.
Gap above the firm's limit. The firm sets that limit. It may use a percent or dollar amount. The partner chooses if the file needs a full CAM review.
New cost categories. Categories that appeared this year but not before. The partner decides whether to request landlord backup or move to a formal review.
Math errors. The partner tells the firm to request a corrected statement before payment.
Repeat exceptions. When the same flag shows up three years running, the partner steps in. They go to the landlord directly or scope a deeper review.
The checklist is the routine control. The partner escalation is the judgment layer. Keeping them separate stops the routine review from drifting into one-off opinions. It keeps the engagement scope clean.