Are Smart Locks Safe in New York Apartment Buildings?

“Are smart locks safe?” is a question more and more New Yorkers are asking as key fobs, apps and even facial recognition replace traditional metal keys on apartment doors.

In a city full of multi-tenant and rent‑stabilized buildings, the answer is not just about technology. It’s also about New York law, fire codes, tenant privacy, accessibility and how responsibly building owners deploy these systems.

This guide looks at smart lock safety specifically in the context of New York apartment buildings, from both the property manager’s and the tenant’s point of view.

How Smart Locks Work – and Why NYC Buildings Use Them

Smart locks are electronic locking systems that use digital credentials rather than (or in addition to) a traditional key. Common forms in NYC multi‑tenant buildings include:

  • Key fobs and RFID cards

  • PIN code keypads and smart intercoms

  • Mobile apps with Bluetooth or Wi‑Fi access

  • Biometric systems (fingerprint or facial recognition) in some high‑end or experimental installations

For landlords and property managers, the appeal in New York is obvious:

  • No more re‑keying for every turnover

  • Easier management of maintenance, cleaners and vendors

  • Audit trails showing who entered which door and when

  • Ability to revoke access instantly if a tenant moves out or loses a credential

But as several New York cases have shown, what seems like a convenience upgrade can quickly become a legal and public‑relations headache if safety, privacy and tenant rights are not handled correctly.

Are Smart Locks Safe From Hacking?

From a pure security standpoint, smart locks are a mixed bag. Some models have been shown to be vulnerable; others have held up well under professional testing.

Security researchers have repeatedly found flaws in cheaper or poorly designed smart locks:

  • A CNET‑reported case on the KeyWe smart lock showed attackers could intercept traffic between the app and lock, effectively “stealing” the digital key out of thin air.​

  • At the DEF CON security conference, researchers demonstrated that a long list of low‑cost Bluetooth locks could be hacked with inexpensive hardware, while better‑engineered brands resisted the same attacks.​

  • Academic and industry analyses of specific models have identified weaknesses such as brute‑forceable PINs, cloneable RFID cards and poorly protected APIs, especially when manufacturers cut corners on encryption and firmware updates.

On the other hand, more reputable manufacturers that follow modern cybersecurity practices and standards have fared much better in independent evaluations.​

The lesson for New York building owners is not that “all smart locks are unsafe,” but that safety depends heavily on:

  • Encryption quality (e.g., strong, modern protocols)

  • Regular, over‑the‑air firmware updates

  • Protection against brute‑force attempts

  • Secure handling of any cloud or app data

Following evolving NIST IoT security guidance – such as strong authentication, secure update mechanisms, and encrypted communications – greatly improves the security posture of smart locks as part of a building’s wider system.

The Extra Risks Smart Locks Introduce

Compared to a traditional cylinder and key, smart locks add some specific categories of risk that matter in NYC multi‑family buildings:

  1. Cybersecurity risks

    • Intercepted Bluetooth or Wi‑Fi traffic if encryption is weak

    • Hacked or phished user accounts when residents reuse weak passwords

    • Unpatched software vulnerabilities in the lock, hub or mobile app

    Common attack types include brute‑forcing PINs, man‑in‑the‑middle interception and exploiting insecure wireless protocols.

  2. Reliability and power issues

    • Dead batteries can lock people out if backup methods are poorly planned

    • Connectivity failures can affect app‑based access if the system depends on the cloud

    • Hardware malfunctions may require emergency locksmith response to preserve life‑safety and access

  3. Physical robustness

    Some smart locks are physically weaker than a good‑quality Grade 1 mechanical lock. Poor construction, exposed screws or a vulnerable keyed override can make forced entry easier if the hardware is not carefully chosen.

  4. Privacy and tracking

    Perhaps the biggest New York – specific concern: smart access systems log entries and exits. Without proper controls, this data could be misused to track tenants’ movements, support eviction cases, or profile residents and their guests.

Because of these issues, New York City has started to regulate not just the locks themselves, but also what landlords are allowed to do with the data they generate.

The Legal Landscape in New York City

Basic lock and egress requirements

New York law still begins from a traditional baseline: owners must provide a lock and at least one key to each dwelling unit.

Key points for multi‑tenant buildings:

  • Apartment entrance doors in class A multiple dwellings must have a heavy‑duty latch set and deadbolt, operable from inside by a thumb‑turn (no key required for egress).

  • Fire safety rules prohibit double‑cylinder deadbolts and any arrangement that could trap residents during a fire; doors must be openable from the inside without a key or special knowledge.

  • Building entrance doors in class A multiple dwellings must be self‑closing and self‑locking, with intercom systems where required by the Multiple Dwelling Law.

  • Electromagnetically locked egress doors are permitted only if they release immediately upon operation of the door hardware and fail open on power loss, among other safeguards.​

In practice, this means smart locks in NYC must never compromise safe exit. Any system that requires a phone, code or biometric to get out of the building is a non‑starter from a fire code perspective.

Tenant rights to install and use locks

Under New York’s Multiple Dwelling Law, most tenants have the right to add an extra lock to their entrance door at their own expense, as long as it is of limited size and the landlord can obtain a duplicate key upon request. Smart locks don’t erase these rights.

That also means building managers should plan for coexistence between house‑provided smart access and tenant‑installed supplemental security, ensuring egress and code compliance remain intact.

The NYC Tenant Data Privacy Law (Local Law 63 of 2021)

In direct response to concerns about keyless and biometric access systems, New York City enacted the Tenant Data Privacy Law, also known as Local Law 63 of 2021.

If a building uses a smart access system – defined broadly to include key fobs, RFID, mobile apps, biometric identifiers and similar technologies—the owner must:

  • Obtain tenants’ express consent (in writing or via app) before collecting data for the system

  • Provide a plain‑language privacy policy specifying:

    • What data is collected

    • Who it is shared with

    • How it is protected

    • How long it is retained

  • Implement “robust” security safeguards, including encryption, password reset processes and timely firmware updates to address vulnerabilities

  • Limit data collection to what is necessary for access control and prohibit the sale of smart access data, among other restrictions

The law is designed to prevent landlords from weaponizing access data – for example, using entry logs to argue that a rent‑stabilized tenant does not primarily reside in the apartment, or to harass or evict tenants based on their visitors.

High‑Profile NYC Disputes Over Smart Access

Several widely covered New York cases illustrate what can go wrong when building owners push technology faster than tenants and regulators are ready to accept it:

  • Latch smart lock case in Hell’s Kitchen: A Manhattan landlord installed a Latch system on the building’s front door and blocked the traditional key cylinder. Tenants sued, citing privacy concerns and accessibility issues for older residents who did not use smartphones. A settlement required the landlord to provide physical keys to any tenant who requested them.

  • Facial recognition at Atlantic Plaza Towers, Brooklyn: Over 130 tenants in a rent‑stabilized complex fought a landlord’s plan to replace key fobs with a StoneLock facial recognition system, arguing it was an extreme invasion of privacy and would give the landlord unfettered control over their biometric data. After legal opposition and public pressure, the landlord withdrew the proposal.

These cases don’t create binding legal precedent, but they send a clear message in NYC: tenants expect options, transparency and respect for privacy. Any smart lock rollout that feels coercive or opaque is likely to meet resistance.

From the Property Manager’s Perspective: When Smart Locks Make Sense

For New York landlords and managing agents, smart access can absolutely improve safety and operations when implemented correctly:

Security and control advantages

  • Instant revocation of access for former tenants or staff, without re‑keying the building

  • Time‑limited digital credentials for contractors and delivery couriers

  • Detailed audit trails to investigate theft, vandalism or unauthorized Airbnb‑style sublets

  • Integration with video intercoms and cameras to deter tailgating and unauthorized entry

Operational efficiencies

  • Lower long‑term costs for re‑keying and key tracking

  • Fewer lockouts and replacement key requests

  • Centralized control across multiple buildings or entrances

However, to keep these systems “safe” in the broader New York sense, managers should:

  • Choose locks and platforms with strong security engineering and regular updates, avoiding unknown or ultra‑cheap brands that have been repeatedly shown to be hackable.

  • Ensure every smart lock setup preserves mechanical or code‑compliant emergency egress and, ideally, maintains a physical key option for those who cannot or will not use phones.

  • Develop and share a compliant Tenant Data Privacy Law policy, and train staff not to misuse entry logs.

  • Coordinate with a reputable local locksmith / security integrator familiar with NYC building, fire and housing rules to design and maintain the system.

Done this way, smart locks can enhance, not weaken, building security and can demonstrate to tenants and regulators that the owner is acting in good faith.

From the Tenant’s Perspective: Safety, Privacy and Accessibility

For tenants, especially in multi‑tenant New York buildings, the question “Are smart locks safe?” goes beyond burglary risk.

Key safety benefits for tenants

  • No lost keys: Digital credentials can often be revoked or reissued instantly.

  • Better building‑wide security: Self‑locking doors on lobbies and stairwells reduce propped‑open entrances and unauthorized visitors.

  • Activity logs: Used responsibly, logs can help confirm or disprove claims in security disputes.

Common tenant concerns

  • Privacy and surveillance: Tenants worry that detailed entry logs will be used to track when they’re home, who visits them, or to build a case for eviction. NYC’s Tenant Data Privacy Law directly targets these concerns, but tenants should still read any privacy policy carefully.

  • Choice and accessibility: Older residents or those without smartphones may find app‑only entry systems difficult or impossible to use, as seen in the Hell’s Kitchen Latch dispute where a 93‑year‑old resident became effectively homebound.

  • Reliability and lockouts: Dead phone batteries, app glitches or network outages can become serious problems if there is no reliable backup method like a key or keypad.

  • Biometric data: Many tenants are understandably reluctant to hand over face or fingerprint data to a landlord or third‑party vendor, particularly in rent‑stabilized or public housing where power imbalances are significant.

For tenants, a “safe” smart lock deployment generally means:

  • There is still a physical key option or equivalent, especially for building entrances and essential common areas.

  • They have clear written information about what is collected, how it is used, and with whom it is shared.

  • They can consent, or refuse – biometric collection without losing the ability to enter their own home.

  • The system does not make their day‑to‑day life harder (e.g., complicating access for dog walkers, home health aides, or family).

So, Are Smart Locks Safe in New York Apartment Buildings?

In New York City, the honest answer is: smart locks can be safe, but only if they are chosen, installed and governed correctly.

From a pure security angle, a well‑engineered, properly configured smart lock from a reputable vendor is at least as resistant to most burglars as a typical mechanical lock, and in some scenarios more so – thanks to audit trails, remote control and rapid credential management.

But “safety” in NYC also means:

  • Compliance with building codes, fire and egress rules

  • Respecting long‑standing tenant rights to safe, habitable housing and reasonable access

  • Protecting sensitive access data under the Tenant Data Privacy Law

  • Avoiding coercive or discriminatory use of technology, especially in rent‑stabilized or publicly subsidized housing

For property managers and owners in New York, the path forward is to treat smart locks as part of a comprehensive security and compliance strategy – not as a gadget.

For tenants, understanding the law, asking to see the building’s privacy policy, and insisting on reasonable alternatives (like physical keys or non‑biometric options) are key steps to making sure that “smart” access doesn’t come at the cost of privacy and peace of mind.

When both sides approach the technology with transparency and respect, smart locks can be a genuine upgrade for New York apartment buildings. When they don’t, the risks – legal, security and reputational – become too smart to ignore.