One-size-fits-none

Rather than a blanket approach, the new regulations allow building-specific requirements to be determined by a risk assessment rate matrix. This considers three factors:

• Seismic hazard: The likelihood of earthquake in the building’s location
• Building vulnerability: Whether the structure itself is higher risk
• Consequence of failure: How many people are regularly in or around the building?

It means that an office building made from unreinforced masonry in Wellington CBD will face far higher seismic reinforcement requirements than a seldom-used warehouse in the outskirts of Auckland. The legislation also extends deadlines for remediations and removes the need to upgrade buildings for fire safety and accessibility at the same time.

The proposed changes mean that:

• Around 55% of EPBs (around 2,900 buildings) will be removed from the EPB system.
• Around 1,440 EPBs will have more affordable remediation requirements.
• 840 EPBs will have no mandatory requirement for remedial work.
• Only around 80 buildings will require a full retrofit due to the risk they pose.
• MBIE, September 2025

Right-sized responses

Instead of the all-or-nothing choice to strengthen or demolish, the action required by each building owner will depend on its level of risk:

• Notify building occupants of the risk by displaying a notice.
• Secure the façade, the collapse of which poses the most danger in an earthquake.
• Strengthen only the building’s highest-risk vulnerabilities.

Only buildings with the highest risk will need to be strengthened to the equivalent of the current minimums.

The new, more pragmatic legislation will unpick many of the issues from the old – here are just some of the impacts we’ll likely see.

Sustainability gains

With 20% of our greenhouse gas emissions coming from the construction industry, stronger reuse and repurposing of our existing buildings is imperative if we are to reach New Zealand's ambitious climate goals. However, existing seismic legislation has discouraged property developers and owners from investing in older buildings. These more flexible rules will make older buildings more immediately usable and significantly reduce the costs to bring them up to spec.

Protecting property values

A building’s seismic rating (often expressed as % of New Building Standard - ‘%NBS’) has become a key indicator of value and risk. Buildings with low %NBS are less attractive to tenants and lenders because of higher uncertainty or upgrade risk. Owners may find it harder to refinance, lease, or sell. At one point, Pringle House in Wellington dropped in value by 95%. The new rules essentially de-risk EPBs, helping to protect and even recover property values.

Bolstering the regional built environments

An impact summary from Regulation NZ observed that the existing legislation had a “disproportionate impact on provincial and small towns” – they faced the same seismic upgrade rules without the market size or demand to absorb costs. Many regions have been removed from the EPB scheme entirely, and remediation rules have been significantly relaxed across the board. This will help smaller centres retain their character, attract investment, and keep main streets active.

$5.3 billion in savings

Based on preliminary analysis that included only six centres, MBIE estimates the new legislation will save building owners $5.3 billion. This figure is likely to be significantly more once the rest of New Zealand is factored in.

Preserving heritage and character

With more options than to demolish or take on the crippling cost of strengthening older structures, we can expect to see more heritage preserved. According to the Ministry for the Environment, keeping the character in our cities and towns “is a matter of national importance.”  It boosts local economies through increased tourism, business activity and property values.

This shift in seismic-strengthening regulation could be the start of more vibrant and characterful cities and towns. Freeing thousands of building owners from an impossible financial burden, it also adds value back into our most beautiful structures, making restoration and adaptive reuse more accessible. Crucially, the pragmatic risk assessments still protect the community, focusing resources on the structures that pose the greatest danger.

It sets a new precedent for evidence-based policymaking, one that supports safety without stifling investment.