Ohualani

All available MLS property records (1 of 1) report the building as built in 1968. No remarks suggest reconstruction or a different construction year, so 1968 is accepted with high confidence.

The county assessor and state registration both report 14 floors. Listings reach only floor 7 and have no penthouse listings, so they do not establish a higher residential floor.

The county assessor reports 27 residential units, and the state registration independently reports 27 units for this single-building registration. The stored value is supported.

Owner occupancy from AOUO registration(s) 258. Refreshed by Real_Estate_Scraper/reb_registry/propagate_owner_occupancy.py, which this lock does not block.

The remarks do not state or imply a building elevator count, including terms such as "4 elevators," "four elevators," or "multiple elevators." Because the current value is 1 and there is no evidence to confirm or deny it, the value is retained with low confidence.

Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.

Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.

The single MLS listing does not show central AC as an included association fee item and the public remarks are silent about AC being covered. This indicates AC costs are likely the responsibility of individual owners or are not centrally provided. Therefore, central AC is very likely not included in the fees.

Across the available listing (1/1), cable is not marked as included in the association fee and there is no textual mention of cable service being covered. This suggests residents contract and pay for cable separately. Given the lack of any indication otherwise, cable is very likely not included in the maintenance fees.

No listings explicitly mention common-area electricity or building power. However, OTCOEX appears in 2 of 3 current MLS records, supporting inclusion despite the lack of descriptive remarks.

The remarks clearly state 'fee simple ownership,' indicating a condo-style tenure rather than a cooperative. The MLS does not mark co-op taxes as included in fees. Together this strongly supports that there are no cooperative taxes included in the maintenance fees.

The single available listing does not show electric service as part of the association-included utilities. No phrase like 'electricity included' or 'all utilities included' appears in the remarks. This makes it very likely that unit electricity is billed separately and not included in the HOA fees.

The MLS data does not indicate gas as an included utility, and the public remarks do not reference gas service at all. Buildings that include gas typically mention it as a selling point. This strongly suggests gas is not included in the maintenance fees.

HOTWAT appears in 1 of 4 current MLS listings, while WTRHTR appears in 3 of 4. The evidence is conflicting and appears primarily checkbox-based, with no agent remarks explicitly discussing hot water inclusion; the direct HOTWAT entry supports retaining the feature but with moderate confidence.

The building's single MLS listing does not list internet as part of the included HOA services. There is no mention of 'internet included' or 'Wi‑Fi included' in the remarks. This indicates residents likely pay for their own internet and it is not bundled in the maintenance fees.

The building (Ohualani in Waikiki) is not represented as having marina facilities in the MLS data, and the text focuses on location, lanai, parking, and interior features only. There are no suggestions that marina access or fees are part of the HOA. Thus, marina-related costs are almost certainly not included in the maintenance fees.

All 4 of 4 current listings list SEWER in association_fee_includes. No remarks discuss sewer separately or dispute the MLS data, making this consistent evidence across multiple listings and agents.

All 4 of 4 current listings list WATER in association_fee_includes. The public remarks do not mention water fees, but the uniform MLS reporting across multiple listings strongly supports that water is included.

In 1 listing, there is no reference to BBQ areas or grills, and the BBQ checkbox is unchecked (0/1). This strongly suggests the building does not provide shared BBQ facilities.

In 1/1 listing reviewed, there is no indication of bike storage in the amenities and no mention of bike rooms or bicycle storage in the remarks. This consistent lack of reference implies the building does not offer a designated bike storage facility.

The sole listing has MARINA unchecked (0/1) and lacks any description of boat docking or marina facilities. This indicates the building does not provide a boat dock or marina access.

The only listing has CRWSH unchecked (0/1) and lacks any reference to a car wash area. This strongly suggests the building does not offer a car wash facility.

The sole listing has CLUHOU unchecked (0/1) and no mention of a clubhouse. This strongly suggests there is no shared clubhouse in the building.

The single listing omits any mention of concierge or front desk services, focusing instead on in-unit features and price. With the MLS concierge field unchecked, it is very likely the building does not offer concierge service.

With DGPRK unchecked (0/1 listings) and no text about pet exercise areas, the building appears not to have a dedicated dog park or dog run.

In 1/1 listings, there are no references to a doorman or lobby attendant, and the MLS checkbox for doorman is not selected. This strongly suggests the building does not provide doorman service.

Across 1 current listing, there is no mention of an exercise room, fitness center, or gym, and EXEROO is unchecked (0/1 listings). With no corroborating historical evidence, the building is unlikely to offer a shared exercise room.

Across 1 listing, LIMSER is unchecked (0/1) with no hint of building-provided car or limo service. This indicates the building does not provide limousine or house car services.

Across 1 listing, MEEROO is unchecked (0/1) and there is no textual reference to meeting or conference facilities. This indicates the building does not offer a shared meeting room.

All 3 listings mention a patio/deck-type outdoor space, specifically a "covered lanai" in two remarks and a "137 sqft lanai" in another. The repeated explicit descriptions across listings, together with historical high confidence and MLS amenity support in 2 of 3 listings, provide strong evidence that the building offers this feature.

The single listing leaves WAJOPA unchecked (0/1) and does not reference on-site jogging or walking paths. This indicates the building does not provide a dedicated jogging/walking path.

The sole listing has PLYGRND unchecked (0/1) and includes no mention of a kids' play area. This suggests the building does not include a shared playground.

The single available listing does not reference any yard, fenced area, or private ground-level outdoor space. With PRIYAR unchecked in MLS amenities and the high-rise Waikiki context, the evidence strongly suggests the building does not offer private yard areas for units.

Across 1 listing, PUTGRE is not selected (0/1) and there is no mention of a putting green. This makes it very likely the building lacks a shared putting green.

With RECARE not selected (0/1 listings) and no language about an amenity deck or recreation area, the building likely does not offer a common recreation area.

1 listing shows RECROO unchecked (0/1) and provides no description of a rec room or game room. This indicates the building probably lacks a shared recreation room.

With RESTAU unchecked (0/1 listings) and no textual evidence of in-building dining, the building appears not to contain a restaurant or similar dining amenity.

The one listing shows ROOFDCK not selected (0/1) and contains no description of rooftop amenities. It is therefore very likely there are no common rooftop features for residents.

With SAUNA not selected (0/1 listings) and no textual mention of sauna facilities, it is very likely the building does not offer a shared sauna.

Across 1/1 recent listing, there is no mention of storage units, storage lockers, or extra storage in either the remarks or the MLS amenities fields. Given the complete absence of any storage-related references or checkboxes, this building is likely not marketed as having dedicated storage units.

Multiple listing versions directly identify built-in surfboard storage as an additional amenity. This is strong, repeated evidence that surfboard storage is available.

The single available listing has TENCOU unchecked (0/1) and no remarks about tennis. This makes it very likely the building has no tennis court.

Across 1 listing, TRACHU is unchecked (0/1) and there is no mention of a trash chute. This suggests the building likely does not have a central trash chute system, though individual floor setups are not described.

1/1 listing simply notes that the unit includes '1 parking space' with no mention of valet or valet parking. Combined with VALET being unchecked in MLS amenities, this strongly indicates the building does not offer valet service.

Across 1/1 listings, there are no phrases like 'gated,' 'fenced,' or 'walled' describing the property, and the relevant MLS amenity is not marked. This indicates the building is not characterized as having a perimeter wall or fence as a notable feature.

The single listing shows WHIRLP unchecked (0/1) and contains no references to a hot tub or whirlpool. This suggests there is no shared whirlpool or spa amenity.

Across 1/1 listings, none check a pool amenity and no remarks reference a swimming pool. Given that agents usually market a pool as a key feature if available, this absence strongly suggests the building does not offer a pool.

Since 0/1 listings indicate any pool and none mention a heated pool, there is no evidence that a heated pool exists in the building. Without a pool at all, a heated pool can be confidently ruled out.

The public remarks do not describe any swimming pool or pool water type. The building context also indicates that the building has no pool, but the remarks themselves provide no salt-pool evidence.

All 4 of 4 listings support in-unit laundry. Two remarks explicitly say "in-unit stacked washer/dryer," while another says "washer and dryer" and the fourth says "washer-dryer included," providing strong confirmation across multiple listings.

Across the single available listing, the MLS amenities do not include community laundry and the remarks only highlight in-unit washer/dryer as a rare feature, with no reference to shared laundry rooms or facilities. Given the complete lack of mention or checkbox data, community laundry is treated as absent for this building based on current evidence.

The remarks identify an in-unit washer and dryer rather than a shared laundry facility. No evidence indicates that community laundry exists or requires payment.

The remarks mention an in-unit stacked washer/dryer and a unit washer and dryer, but do not describe shared laundry facilities. There is no evidence of community laundry being available on every floor.

Parking is strongly supported across all 4 current listings through MLS parking features. One listing explicitly mentions "1 parking space," while the other remarks omit parking details; the consistent MLS data and prior high confidence support including parking.

Assigned parking is indicated consistently in all 4 current listings through the MLS ASSIGN feature. The fourth listing explicitly references "1 parking space," providing supporting unit-level evidence, while the remaining remarks do not discuss parking assignment.

In the single listing, the MLS parking_features do not include any covered, carport, or garage codes, and the narrative only mentions '1 parking space' without describing it as covered. Given agents typically highlight covered or garage parking, this strongly suggests the building’s stalls are uncovered/open.

A parking space is referenced in the listing, but its ownership status is not specified. No deeded or owned-parking language was found.

There are no references to EV charging or stations in the sole listing’s remarks, and the EVCHRG checkbox is not selected in the MLS data. Because EV charging is a notable amenity that agents almost always highlight, this is strong evidence the building does not offer EV charging at this time.

The listing mentions one parking space but does not provide any parking-cost information. A monthly parking fee cannot be determined from the remarks.

The single MLS record does not include the GUEST parking feature, and the public remarks are silent on guest or visitor parking. Since guest parking is typically marketed when available, this strongly indicates the building lacks dedicated guest parking.

No secured or gated parking is mentioned in the listing remarks, and the SECENT checkbox is not marked in MLS. With 0/1 listings indicating secure entry, the balance of evidence suggests there is no dedicated secured-entry parking area.

The only listing just notes '1 parking space' and omits any reference to tandem or back-to-back parking. Given the TANDEM feature is not checked in MLS and tandem stalls are usually explicitly disclosed, it is very likely that the building does not use tandem parking.

Neither the checklist data nor the narrative remarks for the single listing mention valet or attended parking. Because valet service is a high-profile amenity that agents reliably advertise, this is extremely strong evidence that the building does not offer valet parking.

Although the remarks reference one parking space, they do not discuss a waitlist or waiting-list process. The existence of a parking waitlist cannot be confirmed.

The sole listing does not mention a keyed or fob-access elevator or any restricted elevator security. With the related MLS amenity unchecked, this indicates the building likely does not have secure/keyed elevator access.

The remarks discuss private entrance, unit layout, views, and surfboard storage, but do not describe a card- or fob-based building security system. No evidence supports this feature.

Across 1/1 current listings, no remarks mention a security guard, on-site security personnel, or 24/7 security. The MLS amenities also do not indicate security guard service, suggesting the building does not offer staffed guard security.

The public remarks do not describe any security patrol service. The building context also indicates no security guard, and nothing in the listings contradicts that.

In 1/1 listings, there are no mentions of security cameras, CCTV, or video surveillance. Combined with the unchecked MLS security system field, this suggests the building does not advertise or provide video security as a feature.

Across 1 listing, no MLS checkboxes for central AC are selected and the remarks never mention 'central air', 'central AC', or 'HVAC'. Given that central AC is a major selling point that agents almost always advertise, this strongly suggests the building does not have central air conditioning. Evidence is limited to one agent but is consistent between the structured data and remarks.

In the single available listing, no split-AC-related inclusions (ACSPL) are marked and the narrative remarks contain no terms like 'split AC', 'mini-split', or 'ductless'. Agents generally highlight split systems when they exist, so the absence of both checkbox and textual mentions points to no split AC in this building. Evidence is limited but internally consistent.

The single listing has no ACWIUN flag set and contains no phrases such as 'window AC', 'window unit', or 'wall AC'. Given that other minor features are highlighted but AC is not, it is more likely that window AC is not a defined feature of the building. The conclusion is based on one consistent but limited data point.

Concrete construction is consistently reported in 4 of 4 current listings through the CONCRE construction-materials code. This is strong, building-level evidence across the available listings, even though the public remarks do not explicitly use the phrase “concrete construction.”

Double-wall construction appears in 1 of 4 current MLS records via the DOUWAL code, and none of the four public-remarks sections mention or disprove it. Although the current checkbox evidence is limited and may reflect inconsistent agent data entry, the prior determination was high confidence, so the feature is retained.

No current listings (1/1) indicate hollow tile construction, and remarks are silent on it. This makes hollow tile construction very unlikely for this building.

The single MLS listing does not list masonry/stucco and provides no textual support for it. This indicates the building is not categorized as masonry/stucco construction in MLS.

1/1 listings mark concrete construction and do not check steel frame. With no remarks indicating steel-frame construction, it is very likely this is not a steel-frame building in MLS terms.

The 1/1 current listing does not identify slab construction and provides no textual support for a slab foundation. Therefore, the building is very likely not recorded in MLS as slab construction.

No analysis available

1/1 current MLS listings omit wood-frame construction and instead mark concrete as the construction type. No remarks mention wood-frame construction, so it is very likely not applicable for this building.

Above-ground construction is identified in 1 of 4 current MLS records through the ABOGRO code, while no public remarks explicitly mention or reject above-ground construction. Current support is sparse and may reflect checkbox inconsistency, but the prior high-confidence determination is retained.

Brick construction is not checked in the 1/1 MLS listing and is not mentioned in remarks. This strongly suggests the building is not classified as brick construction.

Single-wall construction is not selected in the 1/1 MLS listing and is incompatible with the recorded concrete construction. No remarks suggest single-wall construction.

The listing describes flexibility and rental potential, but this is not explicit authorization for short-term rentals. No language confirming or prohibiting STR use was found, so STR permission cannot be confirmed.

The remarks contain no reference to participation in a hotel rental pool or similar program. Because short-term-rental permission is not confirmed, hotel-pool participation is not supported.

The listing does not state that owners must participate in a hotel rental pool or rental program. No mandatory-pool language was found, and the prerequisite STR permission is not confirmed.

The single available listing describes the unit as 'fee simple ownership.' Thus, the building clearly offers fee simple units (1 of 1 listings observed are Fee Simple), though other tenures may also exist.

The only available listing is explicitly fee simple and does not reference any lease or lease rent, and MLS tenure data shows no leasehold flag. With limited data, we treat leasehold as not evidenced in this building, but with moderate (not absolute) confidence.

Fee simple ownership indicates that the property is not subject to a ground lease. Therefore, no applicable leasehold expiration year exists; no lease year was found in the remarks.

The remarks do not state that the building is VA loan approved or that VA financing is accepted. Because there is no supporting or denying language, VA approval cannot be confirmed.

The remarks do not discuss HOA insurance or the extent of building coverage. Since there is no explicit evidence of full or walls-in insurance, this remains false with medium-low confidence.

No current listing or remarks indicate the presence of a fire sprinkler system, and the relevant MLS checkbox is unchecked. Because agents frequently omit this detail even when present, this is a low-confidence 'false' based on lack of evidence rather than proof of absence.

The public remarks discuss unit features, condition, location, ownership, and an assessment, but do not address fire or life safety evaluation status. With no current positive value or explicit evidence of approval, this remains false with medium-low confidence.

Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.

No analysis available

Across 1 listing, no remarks or MLS view fields mention ocean, water, or makai views. Evidence is limited to a single unit description focused on location and interior features, so ocean views cannot be confirmed.

All 4 current listings contain mountain-view data, and multiple remarks explicitly mention "views toward the mountains" or "unparalleled views ... and Mountains." The evidence is consistent across listings and strongly confirms that the building offers mountain-view units.

For the single listing reviewed, there are no mentions of Diamond Head, DH, or crater views in remarks or view fields. There is insufficient evidence that any units offer Diamond Head views.

Three of 4 current listings contain CITY in their view descriptions, supporting availability of city-view units. However, none of the supplied public remarks explicitly quotes "city view," "cityscape," or "downtown view," so the evidence may partly reflect MLS checkbox reuse.

The single listing provides no indication of coastal or shoreline vistas. Thus coastline views are not verifiable at this time.

The single listing does not reference garden, courtyard, or landscaped views in remarks or view fields. There is no clear evidence of garden views in this building.

Across 1 listing, nothing indicates a golf course outlook. The absence of golf-related view terms means golf course views are not currently verifiable.

All 4 current listings contain marina/canal-view data, while multiple remarks explicitly mention the Ala Wai Canal. This repeated, specific wording across listings strongly confirms that the building offers marina or canal-view units.

Only 1 of 4 current listings contains SUNRIS, and none of the four public remarks mention sunrise views, morning sun, or eastern exposure. Given the previously low confidence and lack of supporting remarks, sunrise views should not be included as a validated building feature.

For the 1 listing, there is no explicit or implied reference to sunset or evening views. Current evidence does not support confirming sunset views for the building.

Across 1 listing, there are no mentions of a cemetery, which agents usually disclose due to sensitivity. Given this and the lack of any cemetery view codes, it is very likely the building does not have cemetery views.

The listed views are toward the mountains, Ala Wai Canal, and golf course. References to the Waikiki Shell and nearby entertainment describe location, not a fireworks view from the residence.

No analysis available

No analysis available

The only listing provides no information about pets and MLS does not mark a 'no pets' restriction. With no explicit language either allowing or prohibiting pets, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that pets are allowed, so this field is treated as not confirmed/false by default.

None of the 4 listings mention a resident manager or equivalent phrase. Only 1 of 4 MLS records selects RESMAN, with no supporting remarks and a history of low confidence, so the isolated checkbox is likely inaccurate.

1/1 listing frames the property as owner-occupied with no language about hotel rental pools, front desk, or condotel/condo-hotel operation. With CONDOT not selected in the MLS style data, it is very likely the building is not operated as a condotel.

The listing clearly notes 'fee simple ownership,' which aligns with condominium, not co-op, ownership. With no cooperative terminology in the remarks or MLS fee-includes data, the building is almost certainly not a co-op.