Multi-Phase Condominium Projects in Cambodia: Who Pays for Common Areas Before Every Tower Is Built?

Prepared by the NovAsia Editorial Team

A large development is often sold as one complete world.

The render shows several towers around a pool, landscaped garden, podium, shops and an owners’ club.

The first phase opens earlier.

Buyers receive keys while construction continues behind a fence. Part of the site remains empty and the main entrance may still be temporary.

Questions appear after occupation:

• Why are Tower A owners paying for security across the whole site?
• Does the pool belong to them or remain under developer control?
• Will residents of later towers use a gym already funded by the first phase?
• Who maintains the podium while the shops remain closed?
• What happens if the next towers are never built?

The word phase is mainly a commercial and construction concept.

Legally, the important elements are:

• land parcels;
• co-owned parcels;
• private units;
• common areas;
• titles;
• internal regulations;
• access rights;
• shared-service agreements.

One master plan can contain several legally independent properties.

Several towers can also depend on one parcel and one engineering system.

A multi-phase project should therefore be analysed as a map of ownership and cost obligations rather than as a sequence of renders.

This article provides general information, not legal, planning or property-management advice. Parcel boundaries, common-property rights, cost allocation and cancellation consequences should be checked for the specific project.

The master plan is not a property map

A marketing master plan may show:

• future towers;
• retail;
• school;
• hotel;
• park;
• lake;
• clubhouse;
• parking;
• roads;
• sports facilities;
• additional plots.

It does not automatically identify ownership.

Land under Phase 1 and future phases may:

• sit under one title;
• be divided into several titles;
• belong to different companies;
• be mortgaged to different banks;
• enter co-ownership in stages;
• remain developer property;
• be available through a licence;
• be used jointly by several buildings.

Sub-Decree No. 126 provides that land associated with a co-owned building can become common property of the co-owners of that building.

Where different co-owned building categories are developed on one site, subdivision may be required according to the project structure.

This confirms the need for a precise parcel analysis.

It does not create one universal structure for every master-planned estate.

The key question is:

Which land and facilities are legally attached to this specific co-owned building?

One parcel with several towers creates common dependency

Where several towers are expected to sit on one future co-owned parcel, owners may share rights in the land and facilities.

The advantage is that the project can genuinely operate as one estate.

The risks include:

• title for Tower A depends on the wider parcel structure;
• future changes affect existing common rights;
• bank security may cover the whole site;
• costs may involve unbuilt units;
• developer retains strong influence;
• separation becomes difficult after dispute.

Separate parcels can allow the first tower to operate and title more independently.

The disadvantage is that nearby amenities may not belong to its owners.

A pool may sit beside Tower A but belong to:

• Tower B company;
• hotel operator;
• developer;
• another parcel.

Tower A owners may only have a contractual access right.

Physical proximity is not ownership.

Use does not automatically create ownership

Sub-Decree No. 126 describes land, access routes, structures, shared systems, parks and gardens as common-property categories.

A facility becomes common property of a particular building only within the applicable property structure.

An owner may use an amenity without owning it.

The distinction matters after:

• rule change;
• sale of land;
• operator replacement;
• insolvency;
• new fee.

A common-property right is generally harder to withdraw unilaterally than a contractual licence.

The phrase access to all project amenities should therefore be converted into a specific legal right.

Phase 1 should not fund an undefined future

After Tower A opens, the management budget may include:

• perimeter security;
• site lighting;
• pumps;
• landscaping;
• roads;
• temporary access;
• pool;
• clubhouse;
• podium;
• construction separation;
• waste;
• insurance;
• staff.

Some costs serve only Tower A.

Some genuinely serve the whole future estate.

Some exist because construction is continuing.

Owners should not assume that every shared cost is invalid.

Perimeter security may protect them today.

They should not automatically fund:

• sales-gallery security;
• construction-site electricity;
• cleaning of future towers;
• marketing;
• maintenance of private developer land;
• contractor access;
• repair of construction damage;
• capital cost of unfinished amenities;
• utilities used for new works.

The budget needs cost allocation rather than one blended invoice.

Service charges should follow benefit and ownership

The Cambodian framework broadly links common costs to the value or area of each lot unless valid rules provide another basis.

For a multi-phase estate, this needs more detail.

Costs can be separated into:

Building-specific

• Tower A lifts;
• lobby;
• corridors;
• tower staff;
• tower fire systems;
• local pumps.

Shared completed facilities

• pool;
• gate;
• park;
• road;
• estate security.

Future-phase expenses

• unfinished land;
• temporary structures;
• future clubhouse;
• construction logistics.

Commercial-component expenses

• retail;
• hotel;
• office;
• commercial parking.

Developer costs

• sales;
• marketing;
• construction;
• original defects.

A stronger budget uses separate cost centres.

A weaker one groups everything under management fee.

Unfinished land still costs money

Future-phase land may need:

• fencing;
• drainage;
• security;
• pest control;
• grass cutting;
• lighting;
• safety barriers;
• insurance;
• temporary road maintenance.

The payer depends on ownership.

Where the land remains private developer property, the developer would normally be expected to carry the cost of owning and safely maintaining it, subject to the agreements.

Where it has already entered the common property of Phase 1, owners may receive both rights and burdens.

Where a facility benefits both sides, a cost-sharing arrangement may be appropriate.

The relevant evidence includes:

• parcel plan;
• title holder;
• handover boundary;
• service agreement;
• budget allocation;
• developer subsidy;
• construction obligations.

An empty plot should not be treated automatically as a completed common garden.

Construction disturbance is a real Phase 1 cost

Early buyers may receive a lower price because they enter before later phases.

After moving in, they may face:

• cranes;
• trucks;
• dust;
• worker access;
• temporary roads;
• noise;
• lighting;
• safety zones.

This affects rent and tenant retention.

The SPA may disclose future construction.

That does not authorise unlimited damage or unsafe operation.

The project should define:

• construction access route;
• resident separation;
• cleaning;
• damage responsibility;
• working hours;
• security;
• utility metering;
• insurance;
• restoration;
• target completion.

The risk is especially high where builders and residents share one entrance.

Temporary infrastructure can become permanent

Phase 1 may open with:

• narrow entrance;
• temporary guardhouse;
• temporary parking;
• one generator;
• unfinished drainage;
• temporary reception;
• road through future land.

The developer promises full infrastructure after Tower C.

If Tower C is cancelled, the temporary solution may remain for years.

A buyer should test whether Phase 1 is independently functional.

It needs:

• permanent legal access;
• sufficient parking;
• electricity and water;
• waste removal;
• fire access;
• drainage;
• safety;
• management office;
• separate meters;
• emergency route.

A first phase that only works economically after full build-out has higher completion risk.

Shared amenities may become overcrowded

At handover, Tower A has 150 apartments and a large pool.

After Towers B, C and D open, the same pool may serve 800 apartments.

The physical amenity remains unchanged.

The service level falls.

A buyer should compare design capacity with the full approved development.

Important questions include:

• number of future units;
• hotel guests;
• public access;
• membership;
• opening hours;
• parking;
• gym equipment;
• evacuation;
• water systems.

The developer may promise extra amenities in later phases.

If those are cancelled, early facilities carry the full load.

Access and cost shares should be documented rather than left to future managerial discretion.

Future phases can change view and privacy

A multi-phase project carries systematic master-plan risk.

The buyer should understand:

• approved building envelope;
• maximum heights;
• setbacks;
• sequence;
• distance between towers;
• orientation;
• podium rights;
• roof rights;
• potential density.

A clause stating that the master plan is subject to change may give the developer flexibility.

A lawful planning change does not automatically erase specific contractual representations to early buyers.

Where a particular view or separation distance appears in a signed plan, a material change may require separate review.

Sale of future land can alter the entire structure

The original developer may sell Phase C land to another company.

The new owner may:

• change the concept;
• increase density;
• use another access;
• reject informal shared amenities;
• require a new service agreement;
• delay construction;
• mortgage the land;
• change the brand.

Owners of Phase 1 need rights that survive a change of landowner.

Stronger protections may include:

• easement;
• registered access;
• shared-facility agreement;
• utility right;
• common-property right;
• binding covenant where valid.

A verbal promise that this is all one project is weaker.

Cancelling later phases can increase Phase 1 costs

Assume a clubhouse costs USD 120,000 per year to operate.

It was designed for 600 units across four towers.

At full build-out, the cost averages USD 200 per unit before area adjustment.

If only 150 units are completed, the same facility costs USD 800 per unit.

Possible responses include:

• developer subsidy;
• reduced operating hours;
• higher service charge;
• partial closure;
• reserve use;
• transfer to another operator;
• sale or conversion.

The render does not show this unit economics.

A buyer should test the budget under:

• one phase;
• two phases;
• full build-out.

Construction cost and operating cost must not be mixed

A future amenity has several cost stages:

• construction;
• equipment;
• commissioning;
• ongoing operation.

The sale price would normally be expected to fund promised capital construction unless the contract says otherwise.

Service charge normally funds operation and maintenance, not completion of an amenity already sold as part of the purchase package.

A special assessment for an unfinished promised facility may therefore be disputed.

Owners may still choose later to improve or complete common property.

The legal and accounting categories should remain distinct:

• developer delivery obligation;
• defect correction;
• owner improvement;
• routine maintenance;
• replacement;
• new capital project.

A budget line called pool works is not enough.

One management company does not create one ownership structure

A developer may appoint one manager across the whole estate.

This can improve efficiency through:

• shared security;
• common procurement;
• combined staff;
• one accounting system;
• central plant.

The legal owners and buildings may remain separate.

The management agreement should explain:

• which buildings are covered;
• who the client is;
• how costs are allocated;
• which staff are shared;
• who owns equipment;
• bank accounts;
• tax invoices;
• what happens if one tower terminates;
• how disputes are handled;
• who controls data.

If Tower A changes manager, should it lose access through the common gate?

Dependencies need to be documented before they become leverage.

Separate tower boards and one estate committee can coexist

A multi-phase estate may use two governance levels.

Tower level

• lobby;
• lifts;
• local budget;
• tower staff;
• defects.

Estate level

• roads;
• gate;
• landscape;
• central utilities;
• clubhouse;
• shared security.

Each tower can have its own board.

The estate can have a joint committee.

Sub-Decree No. 126 requires co-owner management structures but does not provide one universal modern model for every large estate.

The structure must therefore be built through internal regulations and agreements.

The main risk is paying for a shared estate without meaningful representation until all future phases are complete.

Foreign owners carry the same common-property burdens

The Foreign Ownership Law gives foreign co-owners rights in private units and common areas.

It also subjects them to the same obligations and burdens as Cambodian co-owners.

Foreign ownership does not remove the obligation to fund valid shared costs.

That obligation relates to legally defined common property and applicable agreements.

It does not automatically extend to every piece of developer land shown in a brochure.

This boundary analysis is particularly important for an overseas owner who receives invoices without visiting the site.

Documents that should be reconciled

A serious multi-phase review can include:

• master land titles;
• subdivision plan;
• co-owned parcel plan;
• approved construction plan;
• phase plans;
• strata plan;
• SPA;
• internal regulations;
• service-charge schedule;
• shared-facility agreement;
• management agreements;
• easements;
• access rights;
• utility agreements;
• bank encumbrances;
• development licence;
• handover boundary;
• subsidy undertaking;
• future-phase rights;
• cancellation consequences.

Each document answers a different question.

The SPA may promise the pool.

The title shows who owns the land.

The internal regulations show who pays.

The management agreement shows who operates.

The approved plan shows what may be built.

A practical phase-risk matrix

A stronger structure does not guarantee every phase will be built.

It reduces the damage if they are not.

Questions before buying Phase 1

Ask:

1. Can the tower function independently?
2. Which amenities legally belong to it?
3. Who pays for future land?
4. Are construction utilities separated?
5. How many users will each facility have at full build-out?
6. What happens after cancellation?
7. Can the developer sell neighbouring land?
8. Is permanent access secured?
9. When do owners receive governance rights?
10. Who funds the budget deficit before all phases open?

The developer will arrange everything is not a document.

Conclusion

A multi-phase project should not be analysed as one attractive image.

Rights and costs depend on:

• parcels;
• buildings;
• facilities;
• titles;
• common-property boundaries;
• internal regulations;
• shared-service agreements.

Owners of the first tower should fund its common property and a fair share of genuinely shared facilities.

They should not automatically fund:

• construction;
• marketing;
• future private land;
• developer operating costs.

The central test is self-sufficiency.

If no later tower is built, will Phase 1 still have:

• legal access;
• utilities;
• a safe site;
• a workable budget;
• the core amenities promised?

A strong multi-phase development can operate phase by phase.

A weak one uses owners of the first phase as a temporary funding source for a future that is not guaranteed.

Sources

1. Royal Government of Cambodia — Sub-Decree No. 126 on the Management and Use of Co-Owned Buildings, 12 August 2009.
2. Kingdom of Cambodia — Law on Providing Foreigners with Ownership Rights in Private Units of Co-Owned Buildings, 24 May 2010.
3. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Cambodia — Access to Land and Real Estate Development.
4. RICS — Property Agency and Management Principles, effective 1 January 2025.
5. EuroCham Cambodia — Charge Collection in Co-Owned Buildings.

Frequently asked

Must owners of the first tower pay for amenities planned for future phases?

Not automatically. The answer depends on the co-owned parcel, titles, approved master plan, internal regulations, SPA and service-charge allocation. A marketing image of one shared estate does not by itself prove an obligation to fund the whole development.

Can the developer add new towers and increase the number of users of the pool?

That depends on retained development rights, approved plans and buyer contracts. A lawful change to the master plan does not automatically remove private obligations under the SPA.

What happens if later phases are never built?

The first phase can be left with unfinished land, temporary access and amenities that are too expensive for the smaller owner base. Responsibility depends on ownership and the contractual structure.

Should the developer pay for empty land intended for a future phase?

The answer depends on whether the land is common property of the first phase, remains private developer land or is subject to a shared-services agreement. There is no universal answer without the project documents.

How can a buyer confirm that an amenity really belongs to the first tower?

The strongest evidence is the cadastral plan, title, approved plan, internal regulations and a signed SPA schedule. Renders and master-plan brochures are weaker.