In today's article from the series "Tuesday Mornings for the Construction Industry," we take a closer look at the next installment of the government's draft amendment to the Act on Residential Ownership – the version dated April 17, 2026 (the "Draft" version, available on the website of the Association of Polish Counties). We've written about this project several times before, but the new version includes further, new ideas for amending the Act on Residential Ownership.
Community Resolutions – Less Paralysis, But More Questions About Representativeness
One of the most significant changes is the new mechanism for adopting resolutions concerning, among other things, the economic plan, financial statements, and discharge of management. If an absolute majority of votes, calculated by shares, cannot be achieved at the shareholders' meeting, the management board will be able to continue voting by individual votes. In such a case, the resolution would be adopted by a simple majority of the participating shareholders.
This solution can counteract years of decision-making deadlocks, which in practice often hinder ongoing property management. On the other hand, with low owner engagement, there is a risk that crucial financial matters for the community will be decided by a relatively small group of the most committed individuals. This applies particularly to decisions related to costly renovations, modernizations, or the community's incurring liabilities.
In this regard, the Project undoubtedly shifts the emphasis from a formal majority of owners to efficient decision-making. The question is whether the adopted mechanism provides sufficient protection for owners who are less active but still economically burdened by the consequences of resolutions?
Aparthotels and condo hotels – greater control by municipalities, less predictability of investments
The April 17, 2026, version of the bill provides for a new mechanism for restrictions on the separation and sale of units in collective housing buildings, including aparthotels and condo hotels. Essentially, the sale of individual units in such buildings would be permissible only if the units meet standards appropriate for residential units, including minimum square footage and sunlight exposure, and additionally, the municipal council approves such a solution.
The purpose of this regulation is understandable – the legislator wants to limit the circumvention of housing standards by implementing investments that are formally non-residential, but are actually offered to buyers as premises for permanent or periodic residence.
However, the scope of discretion left to municipalities may raise concerns. The lack of precise criteria for adopting resolutions could lead to similar investments being assessed differently depending on their location. For investors, this means greater uncertainty even at the planning stage.
Additionally, the proposed cutoff date for building permit applications may be significant. The current draft is December 31, 2025, meaning that restrictions will also apply to projects already in the pipeline, potentially leading to disputes regarding the protection of existing interests and the principles of trust in the state and the law.
Changing the purpose of the premises – community protection or owner restriction?
Another proposed change involves the requirement to obtain community consent for changes to the intended use of a property. In practice, this could include converting an apartment into an office or commercial space, or using it for short-term rental purposes.
From the perspective of a housing community, this solution can be viewed as a tool to protect against disruptive use of the premises. Not every activity conducted in a residential building is neutral for the other owners.
At the same time, the proposed regulation significantly strengthens the community's influence over the use of premises under separate ownership. In practice, this could lead to disputes, especially where opposition to the change of use stems not so much from actual nuisances but from neighborly conflicts or a preemptive aversion to a specific type of activity.
In such cases, the owner will likely have to take legal action, which means additional costs, time and uncertainty as to the possibility of using the premises for the intended purpose.
Disadvantages of common areas – necessary facilitation, but with procedural risks
The bill also proposes changes to make it easier for communities to pursue claims related to defects in common areas of their properties. This approach should be viewed positively, as under current law, pursuing such claims can be organizationally and procedurally complex.
However, the mechanism for compensation claims may raise concerns. The draft bill includes, among other things, a six-week deadline for an owner who does not wish the association to pursue their claims to object. This solution may, in practice, raise questions about the extent of the association's legitimacy, especially if some owners object or if objections arise regarding the correctness of the notification. It cannot be ruled out that these issues will be used as procedural arguments in disputes with developers, potentially prolonging proceedings and complicating claims.
Summary
Despite its bold solutions, the Draft contains regulations that are not without risks. These may, among other things, limit owners' freedom to use their premises, increase the role of communities and municipalities in decision-making processes, and deepen uncertainty for investors.
Therefore, not only the adoption of the new regulations will be important, but also the manner in which they are applied. This will also determine whether the amendments will actually reduce problems and improve the functioning of communities, or become a source of further disputes between owners, investors, municipalities, and developers.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of April 27, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
