Checking an off-plan project in Bali

What requires extra checking when the asset does not yet exist in finished form?

First turn the future asset into a verifiable description: where it will be, what will transfer, which specification and fit-out are promised, who must build and hand it over, what counts as a stage and what happens on change or delay.

What is known and what to verify

1. Fix the future asset before the first payment

A render does not define the subject of a transaction. A working description of the future asset needs the address and boundaries, asset type and number, plan, area and measurement method, rooms, finishes, furniture/equipment, common areas, parking, infrastructure and anything that affects the decision to buy. If an item ‘may change’, say so rather than hiding it in an attractive image.

You do not need to pretend to be an architect. Ask one simple question: can the future result be compared to this description at handover? If not, the agreement’s subject is not yet sufficiently defined.

2. Connect the land, project and contract party

The national agrarian framework distinguishes land rights and registration; PPAT is connected to deeds used for registration changes. This does not mean one document confirms a future project. It does mean that a future asset cannot be reviewed separately from the parcel, underlying right, current holder and the party undertaking to build or hand over the result.

Request a documentary map: who holds the underlying right, who is the contract party, who builds, who receives money and on what basis each role connects to the asset. If different people appear in the chain, the question is not whether that is ‘normal’ in general, but which records explain the connection here.

3. Permits are not one tick box

For an off-plan project, separate the planning layer for the address, building records and intended use after handover. Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021 connects building function and classification with PBG, SLF and SBKBG. SIMBG describes PBG and SLF as distinct system elements: one record should not be presented as the answer to every project question.

TARUBALI can help identify current planning documents and their status, but the portal expressly limits the role of digital maps and data. So ‘show the permit’ is too vague. Request a list of records, their reference details, their connection to the parcel and project, and the specific question each one is meant to answer.

4. A construction stage needs evidence

Words such as ‘foundation’, ‘shell’, ‘70% complete’ or ‘handover soon’ are not one standard. Before signing, fix how a stage will be determined: what is included, who provides evidence, whether it can be reconciled with the asset and which records or inspection are required before the next payment.

SIMBG contains PBG/SLF-related processes and data, including construction and inspection sections in its applicant guidance. This does not give a buyer a ready report for a private project, but it confirms that construction and fitness are different stages requiring more than photographs.

5. Payment should follow evidence, not a calendar

A payment calendar is convenient for a seller, but a buyer also needs a trigger: which result has been achieved, what evidences it, who receives the amount and what follows if evidence is absent. For every sum, state whether it is price, deposit, service, processing or another item, and what you receive in return.

Government Regulation No. 34 of 2016 concerns certain rights-transfer events and related agreements. It does not set a safe off-plan payment schedule. It does remind us that contractual payment logic and legal/tax events should not be blended into one unexplained line.

6. Change and delay must be described before they happen

In an off-plan project, not only the promised date and specification matter, but also the mechanism for changing them. What may change, who approves a change, how the buyer is told, how price or timing changes, what counts as delay and which options remain for the parties? If there is no answer, do not treat the stated date as a guarantee.

A useful review result is not predicting delay. It is removing ambiguity: which records prove a stage, what obligation rests on the contract party, when the buyer need not move to the next payment and what action sequence is fixed.

Decision steps

1. Fix the future result

   Collect the plan, specification, fit-out, boundaries and every point that affects the purchase decision.

2. Map parcel, project and parties

   Reconcile the underlying right, holder, contract party, builder and payee.

3. Separate the record questions

   For every layer, request the address, record, reference details, status and the question it answers.

4. Tie every payment to evidence

   For every amount, state the trigger, evidence, payee and consequence if the result is absent.

What to check

FAQ