Ready building review

Operating-building due diligence before purchase

You may have found a suitable unit in an operating building, but the condition inside the apartment is only one part of the decision. Before purchase, review the rights and liabilities attached to that unit, the records and governance of the whole building, and the observed condition of lifts, water, power, fire systems and common areas. A lift working during a viewing does not establish maintenance quality, a transparent budget or the absence of major works. Records, physical inspection and, where appropriate, independent professional advice should be read together.

We do not assign a composite building-quality rating or replace records, inspection or specialist review with a marketing conclusion.

Updated 23 July 2026

In short

Keep three reviews separate: the unit and transaction; the building as a legal and governance system; and the building as a physical asset. A well-presented unit cannot compensate for weak building management, while an occupancy record does not prove the current condition of engineering systems.

The output should not be a single score. It should identify supported facts, contradictions, open questions, transaction conditions and the points that require a lawyer, engineer or financial specialist.

Do not mix the three review layers

Unit and transaction: seller, title or contractual right, unit arrears, SPA, payments, tenants, defects and completion.

Building as a legal and governance system: occupancy and permit scope, internal rules, management authority, budget, reserves, voting, insurance and major works.

Building as a physical asset: lifts, power, water, fire systems, drainage, roof, façade, parking, damp, access and maintenance history.

Each layer requires its own evidence and specialists. A positive conclusion in one layer does not automatically transfer to another.

How to organise the building review

Start by identifying the exact unit, tower, phase and transaction. Request the records covering authorised use, building rules, management authority, budget, reserves, insurance, major works and any amounts attached to the selected unit.

Carry out a separate inspection at a busy time and, where possible, after rain. Check lifts, generator coverage, water, drainage, fire routes, parking, damp and access to common areas. Reconcile the observations with maintenance history, incidents, contractors and defect close-out.

Six evidence tracks

Identity and authorised use: exact tower, phase, function and documents that truly cover the relevant component.

Governance: rules, management body, signatories, management contract, owner decisions and related parties.

Finance: tariff, budget, actuals, arrears, reserves, special assessments, subsidy and major works.

Technical operation: asset register, service contracts, scheduled work, incidents, defects and close-out.

Inspection: observations at peak time and after rain, access to common areas and review limitations.

Unit interface: selected-unit arrears, parking, access, open requests, tenants and cut-off allocation at completion.

What occupancy evidence does and does not establish

Cambodia’s construction framework provides for an occupancy certificate for construction requiring a building permit and for related control procedures. A buyer should check the number, authority, date, authorised use and exact tower or phase covered.

Even an applicable document does not prove present technical condition, absence of later alterations, maintenance quality, financial resilience or the seller’s right to the unit. Authorisation evidence, operating history and inspection therefore remain separate.

Buyer workflow

Identify the exact unit, tower, phase and transaction.

Build an evidence index showing scope, date, source and unknowns.

Use the existing field checklist at peak time and after rain where possible.

Reconcile condition with maintenance history, contractors, incidents and major works.

Review budget, collection, reserve and unit clearance separately.

Allocate legal, technical and financial questions to the appropriate specialists.

Build a transaction-specific building decision register with conditions, deadlines and residual risk.

Refresh the conclusion immediately before unconditional payment or completion.

Signals that justify pausing

The record authorising use of the relevant tower or phase cannot be identified.

The manager, payment recipient and authorised body are not connected by a clear evidence chain.

A fire route is unavailable and management provides no competent explanation and corrective plan.

Critical systems have repeat failures without root-cause close-out.

Reserve, budget and bank balances cannot be reconciled.

A major work is known but scope, payer and approval mechanism are undefined.

Records, site observations and party explanations materially conflict.

The seller demands unconditional payment before critical evidence or unit clearance is available.

Minimum building-review output

Building map and document scope by tower and phase.

Evidence index and contradiction log.

Concise governance, rules and finance summary.

Asset and maintenance history with open findings.

Reference to a separate engineering report where commissioned.

Unit clearance and transaction-date cost allocation.

Building risk register without an invented total score.

Decision memo: proceed, proceed subject to conditions, appoint a specialist, reprice or decline.

NovAsia’s role and the limits of the review

NovAsia can coordinate document requests, organise responses, flag inconsistencies and prepare questions for the seller, manager and relevant professionals. That does not amount to a guarantee that the building is safe, legally compliant or financially resilient.

Legal conclusions require an independent lawyer, technical condition requires an appropriately qualified specialist, and building finances and obligations must be supported by records covering the relevant tower, phase and transaction date.