Remote Guarding & UL827 Monitoring: When to Replace Guard Hours (and When Not To)

The security paradox of 2025 is impossible to ignore: guard costs keep climbing, yet their effectiveness isn’t keeping pace with the complexity of today’s threats. Property managers, HOAs, and business districts are spending more on labor-heavy patrols, only to find that one guard can’t be everywhere at once especially across sprawling retail centers, parking lots, or gated communities.

Enter the hybrid alternative: remote guarding paired with UL-827 certified monitoring centers. These facilities operate as “virtual guard posts” that never blink, combining live operators with AI-driven analytics to watch dozens of feeds at once, issue real-time voice warnings, and dispatch mobile units when a physical response is truly needed. The result is broader coverage, faster detection, and often 25–40% lower costs compared to guard-only models.

But not every situation calls for replacing human guards. Some roles concierge desks, high-risk posts, community-facing patrols require the judgment, presence, and reassurance that only a trained officer can deliver.

That leads to the guiding question of this guide: When does it make sense to replace on-site guard hours with remote monitoring and when is a human presence still indispensable?

What Is Remote Guarding & UL-827 Monitoring?

Remote guarding is more than just watching cameras. It’s an active, technology-enabled security model where live operators monitor surveillance feeds in real time, assisted by AI analytics that detect movement, loitering, or unusual activity. Instead of reviewing footage after the fact, remote guards intervene the moment something happens issuing voice-down warnings through speakers, contacting property managers, or dispatching mobile patrols.

At the heart of this approach are UL-827 certified monitoring centers. UL-827 is the gold standard in the industry, ensuring a facility has redundant power, multiple internet pathways, and rigorously trained staff on duty 24/7/365. In other words: no downtime, no missed alerts, and no excuses. A UL-827 certified center is built to remain operational through blackouts, natural disasters, or cyberattacks giving property owners confidence that their sites are never unwatched.

This model differs sharply from traditional alarm systems or self-monitored cameras. An alarm panel might notify you or a call center after a break-in, but by then the damage is often done. Remote guarding, by contrast, is proactive. Operators can see, verify, and act on incidents before they escalate, often preventing thefts or vandalism outright.

For decision-makers evaluating security models, the key distinction is this: remote guarding with a UL-827 center isn’t about watching video it’s about responding to threats in real time, with the same accountability you’d expect from on-site staff, but with far greater coverage and resilience.

Cost Pressures Driving the Shift

Security directors and property managers across Southern California know the math is becoming unsustainable. Guard wages in Los Angeles County now average $20–23 per hour for unarmed officers, with armed posts running significantly higher. Add in overtime, turnover, training, and liability insurance, and annual guard spend can quickly exceed $175,000 to $600,000 for a single retail property.

The problem isn’t just cost. A single officer no matter how professional can only be in one place at a time. In sprawling environments like open-air malls, gated HOAs, or business districts, that means paying for multiple overlapping shifts just to create the appearance of coverage. Even then, blind spots remain, and incident reports often reveal that a guard was on the opposite side of the property when thefts, vandalism, or disturbances occurred.

Remote guarding changes that equation. A UL-827 certified monitoring center can watch dozens of cameras across multiple sites simultaneously, with AI filtering out false alarms and highlighting only true threats. What once required three guards pacing empty lots overnight can often be replaced by one remote operator plus a mobile patrol unit on standby at a fraction of the labor cost.

For many organizations, this shift translates into 25–40% lower total security spend while actually improving coverage and deterrence. The budget that once disappeared into guard hours can now be redirected into technology upgrades, tenant improvements, or community amenities.

The financial pressure is real, and for many properties, it’s the catalyst for exploring hybrid security models. The question is no longer if remote guarding saves money it’s where and when it makes the most sense to deploy.

When Remote Guarding Outperforms

Remote guarding isn’t a blanket replacement for every security role but in the right situations, it dramatically outperforms guard-only models. The sweet spots are clear:

1. Large, open perimeters
Retail parking lots, HOAs with multiple gates, and industrial campuses often require multiple guards just to create basic coverage. Cameras paired with remote monitoring watch every entrance and corridor simultaneously. One operator in a UL-827 center can cover what would otherwise take three or four roving guards and dispatch a mobile unit precisely where needed.

2. Overnight and low-traffic hours
Most properties don’t need a uniformed officer greeting visitors at 3 AM. What they need is deterrence and fast response if someone trespasses, attempts a break-in, or vandalizes property. Remote operators can issue live “voice-downs” through speakers, which deter up to 97% of intrusions before they escalate a rate far higher than a lone night guard walking the grounds.

3. Business districts needing visibility and reporting
BIDs and city partnerships often have to demonstrate measurable outcomes to stakeholders. Remote guarding provides not just deterrence but also data: incident logs, heat maps, and video clips that prove coverage and justify assessment budgets.

4. Multi-site portfolios
Property managers overseeing multiple retail centers or office campuses can centralize coverage through remote guarding. Instead of staffing each site with its own overnight guard, a monitoring center provides consolidated oversight across the portfolio delivering scale and cost efficiency.

The takeaway: wherever deterrence, broad coverage, and data matter more than physical customer interaction, remote guarding outperforms guards every time.

When You Still Need Physical Guards

Remote guarding is powerful, but it isn’t the answer everywhere. Certain roles still demand a trained, physical presence that no camera or monitoring center can replace.

1. High-touch customer service
Concierge desks, lobby reception, or HOA gatehouses often double as first impressions. Residents, tenants, and visitors value the reassurance of a uniformed officer who can welcome guests, check IDs, or assist with directions. Technology can support these roles, but it can’t fully replace the human element.

2. Immediate risk environments
Some sites carry elevated risk from high-value assets to volatile situations where escalation is likely. In these cases, having an on-site officer ready to physically intervene is non-negotiable. Armed or specially trained guards may be required, backed by remote monitoring for added awareness.

3. Crowd management and events
Shopping centers during the holidays, live events, or BID-sponsored gatherings all need visible, on-the-ground coverage. No remote system can substitute for a guard managing a crowd, calming a disturbance, or providing first aid in person.

4. Sensitive community interactions
Business districts and HOAs often face challenges around homelessness, disputes, or emotionally charged situations. Remote warnings alone can escalate tension; a trained, compassionate officer on-site is better equipped to de-escalate and coordinate with outreach teams or local authorities.

In short, remote guarding is about replacing wasted guard hours not eliminating human security altogether. The right balance blends technology for coverage and cost efficiency, with officers deployed where personal presence and judgment are truly indispensable.

ROI & Payback Timeline

For most properties, the decision to shift guard hours to remote monitoring comes down to dollars and sense. The good news: the numbers are compelling.

Direct labor savings
Replacing just one overnight guard with remote guarding can save $80,000–$120,000 annually, depending on market wages. Retail centers and HOAs that historically paid for multiple overnight posts often see 25–40% reductions in total security spend after adopting hybrid models.

Faster payback than expected
Most clients achieve a full return on their technology investment in 12–14 months. Beyond that, the savings compound year after year as guard wages rise but monitoring costs remain stable.

Indirect financial benefits

• Lower liability claims: AI-verified footage reduces slip-and-fall fraud, theft claims, and property damage disputes.
• Reduced shrink: Retailers see measurable declines in shoplifting and after-hours break-ins.
• Insurance savings: Many carriers now recognize UL-827 certified monitoring as a risk reduction factor, helping lower premiums.
• Tenant/owner retention: Safer environments increase satisfaction and reduce costly churn.

Total cost of ownership (TCO) is where hybrid models shine. Rather than paying for idle guard hours, every dollar is directed toward either active monitoring or meaningful on-site presence. That efficiency adds up quickly making hybrid security not just a safety upgrade, but a budget optimization strategy.

The takeaway: with the right mix of remote and physical security, the question isn’t whether you’ll see ROI it’s how quickly.

Implementation Best Practices

Shifting from a guard-heavy model to a hybrid approach is a strategic move. Done well, it improves coverage, lowers costs, and builds stakeholder confidence. Done poorly, it risks gaps in protection or pushback from tenants and boards. Here’s how to get it right:

1. Start with a pilot, not a rip-and-replace.
The most successful transitions begin with a controlled trial for example, replacing two overnight guard shifts at one gate or property with remote monitoring and mobile response. Within 60–90 days, you’ll have measurable data on cost savings, incident deterrence, and resident or tenant sentiment.

2. Choose UL-827 certified monitoring.
Not all monitoring centers are created equal. UL-827 certification guarantees redundancy, 24/7 staffing, and rigorous reliability standards. It’s the difference between trusting your property to a true security command center versus a generic alarm call desk.

3. Integrate technology, don’t just add it.
Remote guarding is most effective when cameras, access control, alarms, and patrols are connected under one platform. Integration means an operator can see a trespasser, trigger a gate lock, issue a live warning, and dispatch a mobile unit all without leaving their console. Without integration, you’re just adding gadgets, not creating a system.

4. Balance cost savings with visibility.
Cutting too many guard hours too fast can undermine stakeholder confidence. Keep visible guard presence where it matters daytime concierge desks, high-traffic retail periods, or BID ambassador patrols while shifting low-value hours to remote. This “right-sizing” reassures stakeholders that security isn’t being reduced, it’s being optimized.

5. Communicate results with data.
Boards, owners, and city partners want proof. Provide monthly reports showing reduced incidents, faster response times, and lower costs. Visual tools like heat maps or side-by-side spend comparisons make the ROI story easy to grasp.

The formula is simple: pilot small, measure, integrate, and communicate. When you follow these steps, the hybrid model sells itself because the results are undeniable.

Case Example: From Guard-Only to Hybrid

A mid-sized open-air retail center in Los Angeles was spending nearly $16,000 per month on three overnight guards. Despite the investment, incidents continued break-ins in back corridors, vehicle vandalism in remote lots, and recurring slip-and-fall claims that were hard to verify.

The property manager agreed to pilot a hybrid model. AGS Protect installed 30 AI-enabled cameras covering entrances, loading docks, and parking areas, all linked to our UL-827 certified monitoring center. Instead of three overnight guards, the site transitioned to remote monitoring plus a shared mobile patrol unit, while keeping one on-site officer during evening peak hours.

The results were immediate:

• 35% cost savings roughly $6,000 per month reinvested into lighting and landscaping.
• 40% drop in incidents trespassers deterred by live voice-downs, vandals caught before damage escalated.
• Improved tenant satisfaction merchants reported feeling safer and appreciated the data-rich monthly reports showing exactly how issues were handled.

After the 90-day pilot, the center’s ownership group expanded the model to two additional properties in its portfolio. For them, the hybrid approach proved it wasn’t just about cutting guard hours it was about creating smarter, verifiable security at scale.

Conclusion

The reality is clear: guard-only models can no longer keep pace with today’s security and budget pressures. Remote guarding and UL-827 certified monitoring centers offer a smarter alternative expanding coverage, cutting costs, and delivering data-rich accountability. But hybrid security isn’t about replacing people with cameras. It’s about eliminating wasted hours, then redeploying trained officers where they truly add value: at front desks, in communities, and during high-risk or high-touch moments.

The guiding principle is balance. Use technology where constant watchfulness is needed, and human presence where judgment, service, and physical response matter most. Properties that get this balance right not only improve safety, but also prove ROI to owners, boards, and stakeholders in record time.