On 1 July 2026, Kazakhstan's construction law effectively entered a new era. The adoption of the Construction Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan was not merely another update to legislation. For the first time in the history of Independent Kazakhstan, architecture, urban planning, and construction have received unified codified regulation, consolidating numerous laws, by-laws, and building standards into a single coherent system.

However, the principal value of the new Code lies not in codification per se. The legislator has proposed a fundamentally different model for regulating the construction industry. Whereas previously the state predominantly responded to violations already committed, the emphasis has now shifted to their prevention. Digital technologies are becoming part of the legal mechanism, control is becoming risk-oriented, and the liability of construction participants is becoming personalised. It is these changes that will determine the substance of most construction disputes in the coming years.

Over the past few weeks, I have been approached repeatedly by practising lawyers, representatives of construction companies, civil servants, and fellow academics, all with the same question: what exactly has changed, and which provisions of the new Code will prove most significant in practice? This interest is entirely understandable. Many provisions of the Construction Code were previously absent from Kazakhstani legislation altogether, while some familiar institutions have acquired completely new meanings. The early years of the Code's operation will therefore inevitably become a period of forming new judicial and administrative practice.

Analysing the provisions of the new Code, I have identified seven key innovations that, in my view, will have the most noticeable impact on the construction industry and will become the subject of future litigation. These are what I shall discuss below.

1. Digitalisation becomes a new form of evidence.

The most underestimated innovation of the new Construction Code is neither the new permitting procedures nor even state control. The principal change is that digital platforms cease to be merely a tool for interaction between the state and business. They now become a full-fledged element of legal regulation.

Whereas previously electronic services were used primarily for submitting documents, it is now the data from state information systems that will confirm legally significant circumstances. System records, electronic logs, digital traces, and document revision histories – all of this is gradually being transformed into evidence that will be examined in court.

A legitimate question arises: who bears liability if the state information system fails? If, due to a technical error, a developer is unable to register documents or obtain a permit in a timely manner, judicial practice will have to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of construction participants. In my view, it is quite possible that in the coming years, courts will be hearing not disputes over construction quality, but disputes over the quality of state digital platforms.

Let us imagine a scenario: a developer duly submits documents through the state information system, but due to a technical failure, the information is not registered. Who will be held accountable for the consequences – the entrepreneur or the operator of the state system?

2. Fewer inspections, but more litigation.

The Construction Code changes the philosophy of state control. The state is gradually moving away from blanket inspections and placing its bet on a risk-oriented model.

In effect, the state shifts the centre of gravity from inspections to risk-assessment algorithms. This means that the subject of judicial review is gradually becoming not the inspector's actions, but the logic of the digital system, as already mentioned above.

At first glance, this is good news for business. Reputable companies will indeed face fewer inspections.

At the same time, however, the importance of decisions by state bodies classifying facilities into certain risk categories will increase significantly.

Most likely, this heralds an entirely new wave of litigation. The subject of dispute will no longer be the fact of a violation itself, but rather the question: how lawful was the classification of the facility as high-risk? How objectively did the state body apply the assessment criteria? Will the discretion of officials not turn into arbitrary administrative judgement?

It is precisely here that administrative courts will have to set the first benchmarks for the application of the new Code.

3. Identifying the culprit will become significantly more difficult.

Until recently, most construction disputes looked fairly straightforward: the client made claims against the contractor.

That approach no longer works.

Modern construction is a complex system involving designers, contractors, technical and design supervision, experts, engineers, and clients simultaneously. A mistake by any one of them can lead to serious consequences.

Therefore, the key question in future litigation will be different: who exactly committed the violation?

Did the designer miscalculate? Did the contractor breach the technology? Did technical supervision fail to notice a defect? Or did all participants commit their own violations?

Answering these questions without complex construction expertise will become nearly impossible. I believe this is precisely why the role of expert opinions will multiply in the coming years.

4. Technical supervision will no longer be able to remain a bystander.

One of the most fundamental changes is the enhanced status of technical and design supervision.

Previously, many viewed the technical supervision engineer as the client's representative, merely recording the progress of construction. The new Code fundamentally changes this concept.

Now, technical supervision becomes an independent participant in the construction process, accountable not only to the client, but also to the state. The signed act ceases to be a mere formality – it may become grounds for civil, administrative, and, in certain cases, other legal liability.

This will inevitably lead to higher standards for engineering control and a change in the way professionals approach their work.

It is quite possible that the engineering services market will be among the first to change. Increased personal liability will inevitably lead to stricter internal control procedures, higher professional insurance costs, and a more cautious approach by engineers to signing as-built documentation.

5. In the new construction process, the winner will not be the one who built better, but the one who documented better.

Most construction disputes are won not on the construction site, but in the document file.

The new Code significantly strengthens the importance of as-built documentation. Work logs, concealed work inspection reports, as-built drawings, and other documents become not merely technical support for construction, but fully fledged evidence.

Moreover, the court will assess not only the existence of documents, but also the circumstances of their preparation. When were they signed? Who prepared them? Do they correspond to the actual condition of the facility?

In essence, construction documentation is turning into a legal asset, on which the outcome of a multi-million-dollar dispute may depend.

Paradoxically, digitalisation may increase the number of court proceedings. The more electronic evidence there is, the more questions arise about its authenticity, immutability, and legal force.

6. Protection of equity participants shifts from damage control to violation prevention.

For many years, legislation primarily addressed the consequences of dishonest construction practices.

The new Construction Code focuses on preventing such situations.

Requirements are being raised for construction control, digital project support, as-built documentation, and procedural transparency. All of this should significantly reduce the scope for so-called "grey schemes" in attracting citizens' funds.

If this model works as the legislator intended, it will be necessary to protect the rights of equity participants far less often, as the number of violations itself should decrease.

7. Commissioning the facility no longer means the end of the story.

This is perhaps the most important innovation of the new Code.

For many years, it was believed that once the commissioning certificate was signed, the main legal issues were settled. The new approach effectively demolishes this stereotype.

Even after a building is commissioned, hidden defects, violations of building standards, or faults that could not have been detected at the time may be discovered.

Consequently, the acceptance certificate ceases to be an absolute guarantee of construction quality. It merely confirms the completion of a certain stage, but does not rule out further legal proceedings.

It is for this reason that one can confidently predict that a significant portion of the most complex construction disputes will arise after the official commissioning of facilities.

A fairly obvious conclusion follows: the new Construction Code is not just another legislative novelty, but an attempt to rethink the entire system of legal regulation of the construction industry. It is not only individual provisions that are changing, but also the very logic of relationships between the state, business, and participants in the construction process. Digital technologies are becoming a legally significant instrument, state control is becoming preventive, and the liability of each construction participant is becoming clearer and more personalised.

However, the true effectiveness of the Code will be determined not by the text of the law, but by the practice of its application. It is the courts that will have to answer the questions that remain debatable today: how to evaluate digital evidence, where the limits of administrative discretion of supervisory bodies lie, how to allocate liability among construction participants, and what legal consequences the new regulatory mechanisms will entail.

That is why one can confidently assert: the story of the new Construction Code is only just beginning. And it will be written not by legislators, but by judges, lawyers, and law enforcers, shaping the judicial practice that will ultimately determine the real content and effectiveness of the reform.

It is quite possible that in a few years, most of the fundamental provisions of the Construction Code will be formulated not so much by the legislator as by the Supreme Court in the process of resolving the first major construction disputes. This is how modern law often develops: first, a law is adopted, and then judicial practice fills it with real substance.

By Nurzhan MAKSATOV,
PhD, Associate Professor at the "Adilet" Higher School of Law,
Chief Researcher at the Institute of Legislation and
Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan