Multi-Phase Developments in Cambodia: Who Pays for Shared Areas Before Every Tower Is Built?

Prepared by the NovAsia Editorial Team

A large residential development is usually marketed as one integrated environment: several towers, a swimming pool, landscaped gardens, a retail podium, a residents' club, parking and internal roads. In reality, the first tower may be handed over years before the rest of the scheme is completed. Owners receive their keys while construction continues, parts of the site remain empty, access is temporary and some promised amenities exist only on the master plan.

Predictable questions follow. Why are residents of the first tower paying to secure the whole site? Do they own the swimming pool or merely have permission to use it? Will occupants of future phases use a gym already funded by the first owners? Who pays for the podium while the shops remain closed? What happens if the later towers are never built?

The word *phase* mainly describes a commercial and construction timetable. Ownership rights and costs depend on a different map: land parcels, registered co-owned buildings, private units, common property, titles, easements, internal regulations and management agreements.

A multi-phase project should therefore be assessed as a legal and financial structure, not only as a sequence of construction.

A Master Plan Is Not an Ownership Plan

The master plan shows how the developer intends the completed estate to look. It may include:

• future towers;
• retail;
• a school or hotel;
• parkland;
• a lake;
• a clubhouse;
• parking;
• internal roads;
• sports facilities.

It does not by itself establish who owns any of those elements.

The land beneath the first tower and the later phases may:

• remain under one title;
• be divided into several titles;
• be owned by different project companies;
• secure loans from different banks;
• enter co-ownership at different times;
• remain the developer's private property;
• be made available only through a contractual licence;
• be shared under a separate facilities agreement.

Cambodia's framework for co-owned buildings treats the parcel registered for a co-owned building and its legally defined common elements as common property of the co-owners. Where several buildings or different uses occupy a broader development, subdivision and legal structuring become crucial.

The buyer must identify the exact parcel, rights and facilities attached to the particular tower.

One Parcel for Several Towers Creates Both Benefits and Risks

Where all towers are intended to stand on one co-owned parcel, owners may ultimately share rights in the land and estate infrastructure. This supports the commercial idea of one integrated development, but the first phase becomes dependent on the structure of the full scheme.

Possible risks include:

• the first tower's title process depends on the broader land arrangement;
• future design changes may affect existing common rights;
• bank security may extend across a large site;
• costs must be allocated among completed, incomplete and unregistered units;
• developer influence continues for longer;
• separating one tower after a dispute becomes difficult.

Separate parcels can make the first tower easier to register and manage independently. The disadvantage is that the swimming pool, road or clubhouse on the neighbouring parcel may not belong to it.

Physical proximity does not create ownership. Access may depend on:

• an easement;
• a facilities agreement;
• a licence;
• a management contract;
• a term in the sale and purchase agreement.

Those rights may carry a separate fee, duration and termination mechanism. They may also be vulnerable if the neighbouring land is sold.

Use of a Facility Does Not Prove Ownership

Different facilities can have different legal bases.

This difference matters during a sale of land, a change of operator or insolvency. A common-ownership right is not as easily withdrawn as a revocable licence.

The phrase "access to all development amenities" should be translated into specific questions:

• Who owns the facility?
• Is the right registered or purely contractual?
• How long does it last?
• Who may change the rules?
• Who contributes to operating and capital costs?
• Does the right bind a future landowner?
• Can access be suspended for arrears or operational reasons?

The First Phase Should Not Fund an Undefined Future Without a Formula

Once the first tower opens, the management budget may include:

• perimeter security;
• site lighting;
• pumps and drainage;
• landscaping;
• internal roads;
• swimming pool;
• clubhouse;
• podium cleaning;
• insurance;
• estate staff.

Some expenditure serves only the first tower. Some supports shared facilities already in use. Some arises solely because construction continues.

A credible budget should therefore be divided by cost centre rather than presented as one line for "estate management".

The first phase should not automatically fund:

• the sales office;
• construction-site security;
• utilities consumed by building works;
• cleaning of future towers;
• marketing;
• upkeep of the developer's private land;
• contractor access;
• repairs to damage caused by construction;
• completion of promised facilities;
• temporary infrastructure created for later works.

That does not mean every cost outside the tower is improper. Perimeter security or an access road may protect and serve first-phase owners immediately. The key issue is whether the benefit, ownership and allocation are transparent.

Costs Should Follow Ownership and Benefit

The basic Cambodian approach links co-owner contributions to common property and valid internal rules, commonly by apartment area or ownership share. A complex estate often needs more than one general formula.

A practical classification has five groups.

Tower-Specific Costs

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

These should be charged to the relevant tower.

Completed Shared Infrastructure

• main gate;
• completed internal road;
• operational swimming pool;
• park;
• central utility serving occupied phases.

These can be allocated among the phases that legally and practically use them.

Future-Phase Costs

• undeveloped plots;
• temporary site structures;
• construction logistics;
• works that serve only uncompleted buildings.

These should not be hidden in the first tower's ordinary service charge.

Commercial Costs

Retail, hotel and office components may generate income and impose different loads on security, parking, cleaning and utilities. They need a defined share.

Developer Costs

Sales, advertising, construction, defect correction and project-company expenditure belong to the developer unless documents clearly and lawfully provide otherwise.

Empty Land Still Costs Money

An undeveloped plot may need fencing, lighting, drainage, security, waste removal, grass cutting and safety work.

The question is not whether the cost exists. It is who owns the plot and who benefits from the work.

If the land remains the developer's private property, the developer would generally be expected to fund its possession and safe upkeep. If it has already become common property, the co-owners acquire both rights and obligations. If the land serves both the occupied tower and future development, the parties need a transparent sharing agreement.

The buyer should request:

• parcel plan;
• title owner;
• handover boundary;
• maintenance agreement;
• cost allocation;
• developer subsidy undertaking;
• future land-use rights.

An empty plot should not be charged as a completed landscaped amenity merely because that is how it appears in the rendering.

Continuing Construction Creates Separate Cost and Liability

Residents may live for years beside cranes, lorries, workers, dust, temporary roads and noise. This affects quality of life, rent and tenant retention.

The sale agreement may reserve the developer's right to continue construction, but that does not automatically transfer the cost or consequences to residents.

The documents and operating plan should address:

• construction vehicle routes;
• separation of residents and workers;
• dust control and cleaning;
• repair of damage to common property;
• working hours;
• separate electricity and water meters;
• contractor insurance;
• reinstatement;
• access security;
• estimated completion dates.

The use of a residential entrance or passenger lift by construction crews without a controlled procedure is a material warning sign.

Temporary Infrastructure Can Become Permanent

The first phase may open with:

• a narrow temporary entrance;
• a portable guard post;
• temporary parking;
• one interim generator;
• incomplete storm drainage;
• access across land reserved for a future tower.

The developer may promise a permanent solution after the third phase. If the third phase is cancelled, the interim arrangement may remain for years.

The core test is whether the first tower can operate independently. It should have:

• permanent lawful access;
• sufficient water and electricity;
• fire-service access;
• workable drainage and sewerage;
• adequate parking for its approved use;
• independent management;
• reliable metering;
• an emergency route.

A tower that becomes viable only after every later phase is completed carries greater non-completion risk.

Shared Facilities Must Be Sized for the Final Development

A swimming pool may feel generous when one tower is occupied. After three more towers open, the same facility may serve several times as many residents.

A buyer should examine the capacity of:

• swimming pools;
• gym equipment;
• parking;
• internal roads;
• lifts serving a shared podium;
• water and drainage systems;
• fire evacuation;
• security and access control.

The calculation should include:

• all proposed apartments;
• hotel guests;
• retail or office visitors;
• operating hours;
• guest rules;
• future phases.

The internal rules or shared-facilities agreement should define who may use each facility and how they contribute. These questions should not be left entirely to a future manager.

Sale of a Future-Phase Plot Can Change the Whole Estate

A developer may sell the neighbouring plot to another company. The new owner might:

• change the design and density;
• delay construction;
• require a different entrance;
• reject shared-facility participation;
• alter utility arrangements;
• propose a new management agreement.

First-phase owners are better protected where they hold:

• registered access;
• easements;
• binding shared-infrastructure rights;
• utility rights;
• agreements that bind successors;
• clear cost-allocation rules.

An oral assurance that "it is all one project" is much weaker than a right that survives a transfer of the land.

Cancellation of Later Phases Can Increase the Cost Per Apartment

Assume a clubhouse was planned for four towers and costs USD 120,000 per year to operate.

With 600 apartments, that is roughly USD 200 per apartment before area adjustments. If only 150 apartments are built, the same cost is about USD 800 per apartment.

Possible responses include:

• developer subsidy;
• reduced operating hours;
• higher service charges;
• partial closure;
• use of reserves;
• outsourcing to an operator;
• repurposing the facility.

The financial model should address these scenarios before the first sale. Buyers should ask for the operating budget with one phase, two phases and full completion.

The cost of constructing a promised amenity should also be distinguished from the cost of operating it. The purchase price would normally fund delivery of what was sold. Using service charges to complete an unfinished promised facility requires separate legal and contractual analysis.

One Management Company Does Not Mean One Ownership Structure

A single manager can reduce duplication across security, procurement, landscaping and staff. The land, buildings and owners may still be legally separate.

The management contract should explain:

• buildings covered;
• contracting client;
• allocation of shared staff and equipment;
• bank accounts;
• tax and invoice responsibility;
• the right of one tower to change manager;
• dispute resolution between phases;
• access to information and reports.

A larger estate may use two levels of governance:

• a tower board for lifts, lobby, local staff and tower defects;
• an estate committee for roads, gate, landscaping, central utilities and clubhouse.

The structure should exist in the documents, not merely through developer custom.

Documents to Compare

A review of a multi-phase project may require:

• master land titles;
• subdivision plan;
• co-owned parcel plan;
• approved construction and phasing plans;
• individual apartment plan and title;
• sale and purchase agreement;
• appendices and disclosure schedules;
• internal regulations;
• service-charge schedule;
• shared-facilities agreement;
• management agreements;
• easements and access rights;
• utility agreements;
• bank encumbrances;
• handover boundaries;
• developer subsidy undertaking;
• cancellation provisions.

One document cannot provide the whole answer. The sale agreement may promise a pool; the title shows the landowner; the internal regulations allocate cost; the management contract defines control; the approved plan shows what may lawfully be built.

Questions Before Buying in the First Phase

1. Can the tower function fully without the later phases?
2. Which facilities legally belong to it?
3. Who pays for undeveloped future land?
4. Are construction and residential utilities separately metered?
5. How many final users will share the pool, roads and parking?
6. What happens if a phase is cancelled?
7. May the developer sell neighbouring land?
8. Is permanent access registered?
9. When do owners obtain a meaningful governance role?
10. Who funds the operating deficit before full completion?

"The developer will take care of it" is not an adequate answer.

The Practical Conclusion

A multi-phase project should not be evaluated as one attractive image. Rights and expenditure depend on which parcels, buildings and facilities form part of the co-ownership structure of the relevant phase.

Owners in the first tower should fund its common property and a fair share of completed infrastructure they genuinely use. They should not automatically finance future construction, marketing or the developer's private land without a clear contractual and legal basis.

The decisive question is first-phase independence. If no later tower is built, will there still be lawful access, reliable utilities, a safe site, a workable budget and the core promised facilities?

A strong project can function phase by phase. A weak one uses early owners as a temporary source of money for a future that is not guaranteed.

This article is for general information and is not legal, planning or property-management advice. Parcel boundaries, common property, cost allocation and cancellation consequences should be checked in the documents of the particular project.

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 — official overview of access to land and real estate development.
4. RICS — Property Agency and Management Principles, effective 1 January 2025, used as a comparative professional benchmark.
5. EuroCham Cambodia — materials on service-charge collection in co-owned buildings.

Frequently asked

Must owners in the first tower pay for facilities planned for later phases?

Not automatically. The answer depends on parcel boundaries, title structure, approved plans, internal regulations, the sale agreement and the cost-allocation method.

Can a developer add more towers and increase the number of people using the swimming pool?

That depends on retained development rights, approved planning documents and contractual promises to existing buyers. A lawful planning change does not necessarily remove private contractual obligations.

What happens if the later phases are never built?

The first phase may be left with temporary access, unfinished land or shared facilities that are too expensive for its smaller number of owners. Responsibility depends on the ownership and contractual structure.

How can a buyer confirm that a facility belongs to the first tower?

The strongest evidence is normally the cadastral and co-ownership plan, title documents, approved project documents, internal regulations and signed sale appendices. A brochure or rendering alone is weak evidence.