Legal

June 29, 2026 Published by South Alberta Chapter - By Julie Malmberg

Technical Audit or Technical Analysis?

From the Spring 2026 issue of the CCI South Alberta CCI Review

Starting February 15, 2026, new condominium corporations in Alberta are now required by Bill 30 and the amended Condominium Property Act to complete a Technical Analysis. With this being a new requirement, many corporations may find themselves at loss when trying to navigate what needs to be done to set the corporation up for both short- and long-term success. Confusion abounds when it is recommended that the corporation commission a Technical Audit, which is a relatively common industry-known term, used for many years prior to the new requirements of a Technical Analysis being put in place this year.

Although the names are similar, there are fundamental and important differences between required Technical Analyses and optional, but recommended, Technical Audits. It is essential that property managers and board members of condominiums understand these differences to effectively lower risks (including adherence to legal obligations, documentation for warranty coverage, and reporting related to legal avenues for rectification of developer deficiencies).

What is a Technical Audit?

A Technical Audit is a review, and associated reporting, of a large sampling of the common property of a condominium with the intent to record deficiencies such as obvious design problems, code infractions, construction workmanship issues, and instances where construction deviates from the design. Technical Audits are not required by legislation but provide value as they can assist with both the documentation required for warranty claims (if done in advance of warranty elapse), and with the maintenance and long-term planning of the complex. Additionally, as there are no legislative requirements, there are no rules for whom the corporation hires to complete a Technical Audit. However, the Technical Audit provider should be knowledgeable and experienced with this type of assessment.

To provide the most value, the best time to complete a Technical Audit is at the beginning of a condominium’s life. At this time, the Technical Audit can be used as a basis on which a condominium corporation can produce a warranty claim to the developer and warranty provider / insurer within the most comprehensive one-year warranty period. Per the New Home Buyers Protection Act (NHBPA), the following basic warranty coverage periods apply:

• One year for defects in materials and labour.
• Two years for defects in materials and labour related to delivery and distribution systems.
• Five years for building envelope defects (with optional increases to seven years).
• Ten years for structural defects.

Note: it is possible for the corporation to purchase additional warranty coverage for some systems. This would need to be explored with the warranty provider.

Although a Technical Audit is intended primarily for deficiency identification (to produce a warranty claim within the warranty coverage period), this process is often coupled with a legal claim that runs alongside the warranty claim. The reason for this relates to limitation periods associated with the time after a claimant ought to have known there was a problem and the time before they progress to a lawsuit. We suggest speaking with legal counsel for optional recourses when retaining a consultant for a Technical Audit pending the results of the assessment, and with the understanding that the warranty claim may or may not be successful to the satisfaction of the corporation.

A Technical Audit can include (but is not limited to) the following:

• Review of design and as-built drawings to determine design intent, if there are code-related problems and poor design detailing, if there is missing documentation that should have been provided to the owners, and inconsistencies between design and the actual construction.
• Questionnaire provided to the condominium occupants to identify and summarize known problems with the condominium’s common property.
• Visual review of common property, which may include the walls, roof, mechanical systems, electrical systems, code/life/safety systems, structural elements, landscaping, site finishes, interior finishes, and elevator systems (Note: this highly differs from the review scope associated with the below-discussed Technical Analysis required by Bill 30).
• If needed, testing such as test openings, air leakage testing, mechanical studies based on operational concerns, infrared thermographic testing, water leakage forensics, structural analysis, etc. These would be considered supplementary, based on specific concerns at a complex.
• A report detailing the common property reviewed, a listing of deficiencies with priorities, and photographs of deficiencies.

There is still value in conducting a Technical Audit even if the first-year warranty period has elapsed since the assessment can provide detailed information to condominium owners on the current state of their complex, which can prompt board-initiated repairs, as well as inform the Reserve Fund Study to allow for proactive capital planning. A Technical Audit differs from a Reserve Fund Study in that it is significantly more thorough and focuses on deficiency identification rather than long-term planning for capital replacements.

It is worth noting that the New Home Buyer’s Protection Act previously required a Building Assessment Report (BAR) to be produced for new multi-family residential buildings. The intent of this article is not to describe the BAR, nor to relay why it is in the opinion of the undersigned that the BAR, in many respects, did not constitute an informative Technical Audit, but to simply advise that the BAR is no longer required by the provincial government and it is thus one less source of information that the Corporation can use towards ultimate identification and repair of deficient work.

What is a Technical Analysis?

As forementioned, a Technical Analysis is required to be completed, per Bill 30 and the Condominium Property Act. A Technical Analysis differs from a Technical Audit as it is a focused review of ONLY the structural and building envelope components of the condominium common property (i.e., “real and personal property of the corporation or the common property”).

Technical Analyses are required to be completed by a Professional Engineer or Registered Architect, using an arm’s length contract with the corporation. As part of the arm’s length contract, the corporation cannot hire anyone with conflicts of interest with the developer, or corporation itself, to complete the Technical Analysis (noting that there are special conditions for small condominiums of 12 units or less).

The Technical Analysis is to be completed within four years of the first unit being occupied. The intent of this timeline is to allow the corporation to file warranty claims within the five-year period for building envelope coverage, and the ten-year period for structural coverage (as defined by the New Home Buyers Protection Act). Unlike the Technical Audit process when completed within the first year, many elements that make up the complex (such as mechanical, electrical, site finishes, conveyance, fire/life safety systems, interior finishes, etc.) are not reviewed nor reported on as part of a Technical Analysis.

In addition, although there are mandated warranties that must be provided for the five-year and ten-year coverage periods in the NHBPA, it does not necessarily mean that all deficiencies observed and reported on that are associated with structural and building envelope systems are covered for insurer / developer repair. These extended warranties relate mainly to proven failures in these systems, and not necessarily other forms of workmanship issues that may be warrantable within the first-year warranty coverage period.

The scope of work for a Technical Analysis would be similar to that of a Technical Audit (as listed above). However, as mentioned, the Technical Analysis is focused only on the building envelope and structural components of the condominium. Additionally, there is a requirement that if there are reasonings to complete invasive testing on any of the components, the results are to be included in the Technical Analysis. As openings relate directly to what is and what is not covered by the five- and ten-year warranties in the NHBPA involving proven failures, it is suggested that the condominium rely on the consultant to explain where and why invasive openings would be recommended.

What Should Our Corporation Do?

In the undersigned’s opinion, the best practice for the majority of new condominiums would be to complete an optional, but important, Technical Audit within the first year of occupancy, followed by the mandatory Technical Analysis in year four.

It is common for deficiencies related to building envelope and structural system performance to take several years to develop (such as leakage rates resulting in observable deterioration, or the building experiencing design loads possibly resulting in structural distress). Therefore, many future failures may not be observable in the first year of operation when a Technical Audit may be completed. However, a lack of completion of a Technical Audit within the first year can affect efforts to rectify deficient building construction within the inclusive first-year warranty period. Hence, neither assessment substitutes fully for the other.

When used in conjunction, a Technical Audit and Technical Analysis will help a new corporation have the most success in identifying and acting on deficiencies in common property elements, will allow them to take advantage of various warranties, and provide information which may result in legal recourse early and within limitations periods.

Julie Malmberg, Dipl. Arch. Tech., Dipl. Civil Tech.
Building Science Consultant
Stantec Consulting Ltd.