This paper analyzes the transaction costs of the Condominium Management Ordinance (CMO) of Taiwan and the Property Management Ordinance (PMO) of China based on statutory restrictions and decision forms, responsibility of professional organizations, funds raising and administrative expenses, and violation supervision. Controlling for the influence of environment differences between Taiwan and China, we conclude: () comparing with the PMO, the CMO can reduce the transaction costs of resolving special affairs, designating a convener, and preparation for council. Yet, the ordinance increases the transaction costs of resolving general affairs and lacks diverse resolution methods. (2) The CMO can reduce the financial supervising and enforcement costs for builders and the inheritance of agreements, but increase supervising and enforcement costs of changing management company. It also lacks the guidelines for transferring facilities from builders to condominium management committee, repairing guarantee for builders, expanding funding sources, enforcing owner’s jointly guarantee responsibility of administrative expenses and agreements, and imposing appropriate fines on violators. We suggest that the CMO should emphasize the responsibilities of professional organizations, raising funds and administrative expenses, and a more efficient supervising mechanism to reduce the transaction costs of condominium management.