The Government has finally released its long-awaited review of the Earthquake-Prone Building (EPB) system — a key framework for managing New Zealand’s seismic risk. The review outlines a range of reforms and recommendations that will shape new legislation over the next two years, with potentially significant implications for building owners, financiers, and tenants.
The Government has finally released its long-awaited review of the Earthquake-Prone Building (EPB) system — a key framework for managing New Zealand’s seismic risk. The review outlines a range of reforms and recommendations that will shape new legislation over the next two years, with potentially significant implications for building owners, financiers, and tenants.
At the heart of the review is a shift toward a more risk-based, proportionate approach to managing seismic safety. One of the headline outcomes is that more than half of the buildings currently designated as earthquake-prone will be removed from the EPB register. For those that remain, the level of remediation required is expected to be reduced. Low-rise buildings located in low to medium seismic zones stand to benefit the most under the new framework.
The revised system places greater emphasis on addressing life-safety risks rather than building resilience or post-event repairability. This represents a philosophical shift from the “strength at all costs” approach toward one that balances safety outcomes with economic reality. For many building owners, particularly those with smaller or older properties, this could significantly reduce or even eliminate the financial burden of seismic remediation.
However, for most commercial tenants — especially in markets like Wellington and Auckland — the review is unlikely to change leasing behaviour in any meaningful way. Few occupiers choose to operate from EPB-designated buildings, driven by understandable concerns over staff safety, business continuity, and reputational risk. In Wellington, the “flight to safety and quality” remains firmly entrenched, and demand for seismically strong, well-presented space continues to outpace supply.
For landlords, the challenge remains one of perception and competition. Buildings rated below 80% of the New Building Standard (NBS) will still need to “meet the market” amid rising vacancy levels and subdued tenant demand. Even if legislative requirements soften, owners may find that upgrading or further strengthening is essential to retain quality tenants and preserve asset value.
One of the more contentious aspects of the review is its critique of the NBS rating system itself. The Government acknowledges that the current percentage-based system has led to confusion and, in some cases, unintended consequences. A low NBS rating does not always equate to greater life-safety risk, and inconsistencies in engineering assessments have only added to market uncertainty. The continual evolution of seismic engineering guidelines has also made it difficult to maintain clarity and comparability between assessments.
In response, the review proposes a move away from the percentage-based model toward a new measure — potentially a letter grading (A–D) or star rating system — that softens the differential between numerical ratings. The aim is to deliver a more proportionate, transparent understanding of risk. Yet, such a change will not be simple. Insurers, financiers, and investors will still demand a clear, quantifiable link between rating and risk. Any ambiguity could result in higher premiums or financing costs as lenders price in uncertainty.
For owners of higher-performing buildings, maintaining differentiation will be vital. Grouping 180% NBS-rated buildings together with those at 80% NBS would erode the commercial benefits of seismic strengthening and remove a key marketing advantage. In an investment environment increasingly focused on risk transparency and ESG performance, clarity around building resilience will remain crucial.
Ultimately, the NBS system measures the performance gap between existing buildings and those designed to today’s standards. As engineering knowledge evolves, that gap will continue to widen. Policymakers will need to consider how to integrate future advances in engineering and avoid repeating the inconsistencies that have challenged the current system.
For most tenants, seismic performance is just one part of the decision-making equation. The right location, efficient floorplates, a healthy and attractive work environment, and brand representation all play major roles. While the review marks an important step toward a more balanced seismic risk framework, the market itself will continue to define what “safe enough” looks like — and reward buildings that offer both resilience and quality.
