THE SHORT ANSWER
Build four separate records for a Tokyo resale apartment: the unit, the shared building, the exact location and the money required. A renovated interior and a premium address cannot answer all four. This guide provides an original comparison worksheet, not listings or a valuation.
Start with a decision brief you can actually compare
Write down the intended use, expected holding period, available cash, financing status and essential layout requirements. Keep an unconfirmed loan separate from available funds. Name the regular destinations that matter to you; “central Tokyo” is too broad to describe a daily journey.
Create one folder per home, using the provider’s unit identifier and full address. Keep the original Japanese records alongside any translation. Add the document date, who supplied it, what it establishes and what remains unresolved. A brochure, an agent’s explanation and an original building record are different kinds of evidence.
The building documents behind the apartment
MLIT’s condominium management material highlights the significance of building rules, monthly management and repair-reserve contributions, and planned repairs when buying a unit. Its management portal supplies a detailed checklist. Use those official resources as background; have an appropriate local professional interpret the records for the building you are considering.
| Request or question | What to put in your comparison record |
|---|---|
| Current management rules and use rules | Version/date; the clauses relevant to your pets, renovations, parking and intended use; points needing interpretation |
| Long-term repair plan | Issue date; planned work; the funding assumptions you need explained |
| Current fees and planned changes | Monthly amount; effective date; evidence of any proposed or approved change |
| Management association financial information | Period covered; questions about reserve funding and outstanding obligations |
| Recent meeting records | Decisions affecting the unit or common facilities; unresolved questions for the reviewer |
| Building condition and work history | What was inspected or repaired, by whom and when; matters requiring a technical specialist |
This table is our request framework, not a complete due-diligence standard. Document access may need the seller’s or manager’s cooperation. “Not supplied” should remain visible in the record. Do not quietly turn a missing document into a positive rating.
Keep the purchase budget and ownership budget separate
| Budget layer | Figures to obtain for the specific transaction |
|---|---|
| Purchase and settlement | Agreed price, payment schedule, quoted brokerage and professional charges, registration and tax estimates, settlement adjustments |
| Financing, if used | Lender quote, fees, repayment schedule, rate assumptions and conditions |
| Recurring ownership | Management charge, repair-reserve contribution, optional parking and services, tax/insurance estimates, utilities |
| Works and contingencies | Quoted interior work, planned building charges and a separately identified contingency |
Avoid a universal “extra costs percentage”. The relevant amounts depend on the property, transaction and financing. Ask the professionals handling the purchase for an itemized estimate with a date and scope. A blank field means the budget is incomplete, not that the cost is zero.
Here is a deliberately partial, fictional example of why monthly charges matter: Home A has ¥30,000 in management charges, ¥20,000 in reserve contributions and ¥30,000 for the parking you intend to use. Home B has ¥20,000, ¥35,000 and ¥0 respectively. At constant charges for 60 months, those selected payments total ¥4,800,000 for A and ¥3,300,000 for B—a ¥1,500,000 difference. These are invented inputs, not Tokyo prices. They exclude the purchase, financing, taxes, insurance, utilities, works and future charge changes; they are not the total cost of ownership.
The point is to expose a recurring difference for further investigation. It does not establish which home is better value. Ask how much of a difference is explained by included services, reserve planning and your actual use.
Compare evidence on the same basis
For each potential comparison, record whether the figure is an asking price, a reported transaction or an appraisal. Keep its date, area definition, floor area, building age, floor, condition and tenure information where available. Do not divide a price by a different area measurement and present the result as directly comparable.
MLIT’s Real Estate Information Library provides a contents-and-sources table, including usage conditions that vary by layer. Check the original dataset’s scope and reuse terms before republishing records. We have not imported transaction comparables into this guide or claimed a current market valuation.
| Evidence log field | Example of how to record it |
|---|---|
| Figure type | Asking / reported transaction / appraisal; never leave the type implicit |
| Source and date | Original URL or document reference plus the observation date |
| Comparability | Known differences in area measure, condition, tenure and building characteristics |
| Missing information | List the absent fields; do not fill them with assumed facts |
| Conclusion | Question for a qualified reviewer, rather than an unsupported price target |
Use a shortlist review before proceeding
Arrange the records side by side. Separate deal-breakers from preferences: a layout that cannot serve your routine, an unresolved intended-use restriction or an incomplete financing assumption is different from a finish you would prefer to change.
Ask a qualified local real estate professional, legal adviser or technical specialist to review the relevant issues before you commit. This page has not been reviewed as transaction advice by a locally licensed professional. It is an editorial preparation tool. No property is offered through it.
Put this into practice
Sources & further reading
Sources support factual context. The checklists and business concepts are our editorial analysis, not statements of provider endorsement.
Sources consulted: 7 October 2026
Corrections, scope and AI-assisted preparation are described in our editorial policy.