Building manager (syndic): shortage, complexity, and permanent pressure in Belgium

The building management profession has been transformed over two decades. What was once a local role based on proximity and trust has become a technical profession, subject to growing regulatory pressure and an ever-present demand for availability. The consequences are now visible: a shortage of professional building managers, rising fees, and co-ownerships struggling to find a manager. An analysis of a crisis that is hitting property owners hard.

Reforms that structured the profession

2010: the great clarification of roles

The reform of co-ownership law in 2010 thoroughly modernised the legal framework. It clarified the respective roles of the different actors: co-owners, building manager (syndic), co-ownership council, and statutory auditor. It brought greater stability to building management and laid the foundations for the professionalisation of the sector.

2018: the lien on the sale proceeds

Another very important advance came in 2018, with the introduction of a lien in favour of co-ownerships on the proceeds of an apartment sale. When a selling co-owner has debts to the co-ownership, the notary may now deduct a portion of the sale proceeds to settle those debts. This measure has greatly facilitated the financial management of co-ownerships.

Structured access to the profession

Access to the profession is today much more structured and demanding, notably through the oversight of the IPI (Institut Professionnel des Agents Immobiliers — the Belgian professional body for real estate agents) and a more rigorous traineeship.

A dual register has also been established at the IPI, requiring real estate agents to choose between the role of intermediary and the role of building manager. This separation avoids conflicts of interest.

But the profession is attracting fewer and fewer people

Paradoxically, the building management profession is attracting fewer and fewer young professionals. Today, only around 7% of IPI trainees choose building management. This means that the renewal of the profession is insufficient to replace building managers who are gradually retiring.

A profession that has grown far more complex

The complexity of the profession has increased very significantly. Regulations have multiplied and now cover numerous domains:

Lift safety
Energy Performance of Buildings (EPC)
Asbestos regulations
Soil pollution
Environmental permits
Electrical installation compliance
Management of collective boiler rooms
Management of photovoltaic installations and cogeneration
Installation of electric vehicle charging points

All these regulations involve attestations, periodic checks, and deadlines that must be tracked with great rigour. Building managers must maintain very precise schedules to prevent a co-ownership from finding itself without valid authorisations.

Regional controls are tightening

At the same time, certain authorities are putting very strict control mechanisms in place. In Brussels, for example, boiler engineers are required to report to the authorities any installations that no longer meet certain efficiency criteria.

All of this contributes to a much more demanding and technical management of co-ownerships. Fortunately, the profession has organised itself around Federia, which groups building managers together and has helped structure continuing education via CEFIM.

The pressure from co-owners: a new reality

Beyond regulatory complexity, the building management profession is subject to growing pressure from co-owners. This extends well beyond the world of co-ownership: we live in a society where everything must be obtained immediately.

In practice, this translates into:

Email management, which has become extremely burdensome

It is not uncommon for a co-owner to send an email and then phone immediately afterwards to demand an immediate response, both by phone and in writing. This permanent pressure clearly does nothing to encourage managers to remain in the profession.

A building manager handles multiple co-ownerships simultaneously

Sometimes tens or even hundreds of co-owners. It is therefore inevitable that certain requests take a little time.

The "monopolising co-owner" phenomenon

In a co-ownership of 20 or 50 units, it is not uncommon for one or two people to consume far more energy than the rest, systematically challenging decisions or questioning everything. This type of behaviour can become very burdensome to manage.

Sometimes frustratingly, a single person can be enough to disrupt the functioning of an entire co-ownership and discourage the building manager.

The concrete consequences for co-ownerships

Shortage means building managers can choose their clients

The main consequence is that building managers can now choose which co-ownerships they wish to manage.

Small co-ownerships sometimes have great difficulty finding a manager, as their management is less profitable
Highly conflictual or financially fragile co-ownerships may also encounter difficulties
In some cases, building managers prefer not to renew their mandate and concentrate on simpler buildings

Rising fees

With this shortage, the law of supply and demand is working fully: co-ownerships are more in demand than building managers have capacity. This naturally translates into a significant rise in fees in recent years.

The balance of power has, in a sense, shifted: it is now more on the side of the building managers.

The volunteer building manager: an alternative?

Faced with the shortage, some co-ownerships are turning to the volunteer building manager — a co-owner who takes on management themselves, free of charge or for modest compensation.

When it works well

This solution works all the better as the shortage of professional building managers forces some co-ownerships to find alternative solutions. In small co-ownerships where dialogue is possible, a volunteer manager can work perfectly well.

The principle: a volunteer who handles 80% of the tasks is better than no manager at all

The formula must be nuanced: co-owners must also understand that if someone agrees to volunteer their time for the co-ownership, they need to be given a minimum of support. Criticism is always easy, but if someone commits and is constantly undermined, they will quickly say enough — and the co-ownership finds itself again without a manager.

Training and tools

Tools for volunteer building managers have developed considerably: training, practical documents, guides for general meetings. Several co-owner federations make these resources available.

The challenges ahead for co-ownership

Several major concerns are emerging for the coming years:

1. Public energy renovation policies

The abrupt halt of certain Brussels grants (see our article on Brussels Renolution grants 2025 abandoned) risks causing essential works to be delayed or abandoned.

2. The financial situation of certain co-owners

This is a source of concern, as it can complicate the execution of necessary works.

3. Relations with the banking sector

Persistent difficulties exist, notably around opening accounts in the name of co-ownership associations or accessing credit.

4. Management software

The range of specialist software is currently very limited and some available products are not perfectly adapted to Belgian accounting requirements. This is a notable drag on the productivity of building management firms.

What property managers should take away

If you are a property manager working with building managers, or if you are considering taking on a building management role yourself:

Anticipate the end of your current building manager's mandate: start looking for a successor 6 to 12 months in advance. The shortage is real.
Compare fees from several building managers before signing. Differences can reach 30% for comparable services.
Assess the quality of the relationship more than the price: a good building manager costs more but prevents regulatory disasters.
Consider a volunteer building manager for small co-ownerships (fewer than 10 units) where dialogue is possible. Support them with tools and training.
Invest in appropriate digital tools: email management has become the primary point of friction. A good centralisation tool makes a real difference.

In conclusion

A building manager who works well contributes directly to preserving and enhancing the property assets of the co-owners. In a context of shortage and growing complexity, the building manager-co-ownership relationship must evolve towards greater trust, mutual respect, and professional tools.

Managing a co-ownership is always more effective when it is based on a relationship of trust — not on permanent pressure.