Revision of the Swiss Civil Code in Condominium Ownership: What Owners Need to Know Now - Qualicasa

About the job

On 13 May 2026, the Federal Council took note of the results of the consultation on the revision of condominium ownership law and adopted the message to amend the Civil Code to Parliament. Important: The new law is not yet in force. The consultation is complete, and parliamentary deliberations now begin. Nevertheless, it is already worthwhile for condominium owners' associations, administrations, and buyers to take a closer look today. The draft clearly shows the direction: more legal certainty, more binding obligations for maintenance and renewal – and more pressure on communities to realistically plan their renewal funds.

Why the revision is so important

Condominium ownership is no longer a marginal topic in Switzerland. In 2023, 12.3 percent of occupied apartments were condominiums – corresponding to 589,170 apartments. The planned changes therefore affect a significant portion of homeowners. The Federal Council does not intend to completely overhaul condominium ownership law but to make targeted improvements where uncertainty, deadlocks, or financing gaps frequently arise in practice.

Perhaps the most important point for owners: the renewal fund will not be mandatory. However, individual condominium owners will in future be able to legally demand under certain conditions that a renewal fund be established or that an insufficiently funded fund be adjusted. This makes the preservation of a property's value more enforceable – no longer just a matter of good management but, in case of conflict, also a matter for the courts to decide.

What changes specifically?

The following section highlights important points from the perspective of Qualicasa experts, but the revision also includes other legal topics not covered in this text.

Renewal fund: no obligation, but a new right to sue

Currently, a community can function for years without or with an insufficient renewal fund – until roof, facade, heating, pipes, windows, or balconies all become issues simultaneously. Then special contributions, disputes, or postponed renovations threaten.

In future, condominium owners will be able to apply to the court to establish a renewal fund or adjust an existing fund if the assembly has previously rejected a corresponding proposal. In communities with more than three members, at least two owners must sue; in two- or three-member communities, each member may sue alone. The court can decide, in particular, on the annual contributions and the duration of the fund.

This represents a paradigm shift in practice. It is no longer just about whether a community wants to set money aside. It is about whether the financing of necessary maintenance, restoration, and renewal work is objectively secured.

The Federal Council refers in the message to recommendations that annual contributions often range between 0.2 and 1.2 percent of the building insurance value. For court-ordered funds limited to necessary work, a possible benchmark of 0.4 percent of the building insurance value is mentioned, as long as the fund is less than 6 percent of this value. However, the decisive factor remains the individual case: age, condition, fittings, technical systems, and renovation strategy of the building. This is the crux: a flat percentage figure cannot replace a building condition analysis. A house with an imminent facade renovation, old heating, and lift system requires different planning than a young building with low investment needs.

Underfunded funds become more vulnerable

Many communities have a renewal fund. But that does not mean it is sufficient. The message refers to a study of the Lucerne agglomeration: 84 percent of the examined condominium communities had a renewal fund; three-quarters considered the contributions appropriate. In fact, only a quarter to half of the funds covered the foreseeable renovation costs.

This is the real message behind the legal revision: it is not the existence of a fund that matters, but its viability. A fund of 80,000 Swiss francs can be solid for a small, young building – or massively insufficient for a larger property with upcoming roof, facade, and heating modernisation. The challenge is further exacerbated by construction price developments. Rising material costs, higher energy requirements, and ongoing price increases in construction have led to many originally calculated renovation costs being significantly higher today. A fund that seemed sufficient ten years ago can therefore be structurally too low today despite regular contributions. This also shows that flat benchmarks often do not suffice. What matters is whether the actual building condition, remaining service life of components, and realistically expected investments are taken into account. Modern preservation planning increasingly works with lifecycle-oriented and data-based condition analyses rather than rigid empirical values.

Off-plan purchases are better legally secured

Condominium ownership is often sold today before the building is completed. This practice is widespread but was previously insufficiently regulated in the Civil Code. In future, the land register will note when condominium ownership is established before completion or conversion. After completion, owners must notify the land registry office within four months that the work is finished – possibly with a corrected division plan. For buyers of new apartments, this is an increase in transparency. For developers, administrations, and communities, it also means that plans, completion, deviations, and defects must be better coordinated and documented.

Defects in communal parts are coordinated

Defects in communal parts – such as facade, roof, underground garage, window fronts, waterproofing, or building services – are particularly sensitive. Individual owners have their own contractual relationships with contractors or sellers, but the community is affected.

The revision therefore provides for a coordination obligation. Anyone who raises a defect complaint about communal parts must inform the administration or community. A meeting must then be convened within three months to coordinate warranty rights. Relevant contract contents must be disclosed insofar as they concern defect rights and the agreed characteristics of the defective communal parts. In practice, this means: no one should act in isolation when defects occur in communal components. Early, structured coordination can prevent claims from being lost or owners blocking each other.

When does the new law apply?

Not yet. The Federal Council has adopted the message, but Parliament must first deliberate on the draft. Then the law is subject to an optional referendum. Only when the law is definitively passed and the referendum period expires unused – or a possible popular vote is positive – will the Federal Council determine the date of entry into force. A concrete date is not yet known.

The timeline is as follows:

• 20 September 2024: The Federal Council opens the consultation on the amendment of the Civil Code in condominium ownership.
• 13 May 2026: The Federal Council takes note of the consultation results and adopts the message to Parliament.
• Next: deliberations in the National Council and Council of States.
• Then: optional referendum.
• Finally: entry into force by decision of the Federal Council.

What does this mean concretely for condominium owners?

The revision does not impose an immediate obligation to increase the renewal fund tomorrow. But it changes the starting point. Those who currently have no or obviously insufficient fund should not wait until a single member considers legal action. It is better to transparently show the financing needs and create a factual basis at the assembly. Especially for older properties, the question becomes central: Is the fund sufficient for the next 10, 20, or 30 years? Or will future owners face high special assessments? A renewal fund must not only exist on paper. It must fit the building.

What condominium owners' associations should do now

• First: objectively assess the building condition. Roof, facade, windows, balconies, heating, lift, pipes, electrical systems, communal rooms, and underground garage should be systematically evaluated. Without a condition analysis, any discussion about fund contributions remains an estimate.
• Second: plan renewal needs over time. Not every measure is immediately due. But every component has a lifecycle. Knowing which investments are due in five, ten, or twenty years allows smoothing contributions and avoiding special assessments.
• Third: mathematically review the renewal fund. The current fund balance should be compared with expected investments. What matters is not whether the annual contribution "has always been like this," but whether it fits the actual property.

Why the Qualicasa preservation plan is particularly sensible now

The planned revision makes visible what many communities have long known: the renewal fund is only as good as the calculation behind it. A fund set without reference to building condition, component lifecycles, and realistic renovation costs can give a false sense of security.

The Qualicasa preservation plan, offered in cooperation with HEV Switzerland, provides exactly this basis. It combines building condition analysis, lifecycle consideration, and financing planning. The community thus receives an understandable and transparent decision-making basis: which components need renewal when? What costs are to be expected? How high should the renewal fund be today? And what annual contributions are necessary to maintain value without financial shocks? For condominium owners' associations, this is more than a technical analysis. It is a tool for conflict avoidance. Those who present numbers transparently discuss less about gut feelings and more about facts. This is likely to become more important with the new legal situation.

Conclusion

The revision of condominium ownership law is not a radical system change. But it is a clear signal: condominium ownership should be managed more professionally, transparently, and proactively. Especially regarding the renewal fund, expectations are rising. Communities that plan their value preservation properly have an advantage – financially, legally, and personally. The best time to review the renewal fund is not after the new law comes into force. It is now.