Increasing number of Canadians considering home co-ownership: poll

Costs of living have steadily increased over the past year

Increasing number of Canadians considering home co-ownership: poll

Amid steadily rising costs of living, a growing number of Canadians are choosing to enter into co-ownership of homes with family members or friends, according to a recent Royal LePage survey.

Approximately 6% of Canadian homeowners currently co-own their property with another party (not including their spouse or significant other). Of this cohort, 89% said that they co-own with family members, while 7% do so with friends.

Around 56% of co-owners live with their parents or in-laws, while 18% co-own with their adult children.

“Different generations of families living under one roof is not a new phenomenon, but has been growing in popularity in recent years,” said Karen Yolevski, COO of Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd. “Census data shows that multigenerational households are now the fastest growing household type in Canada.”

However, while households have traditionally grouped together for reasons of communal care of children and elderly parents, “the decision to live together, including co-owning a home, is a decision increasingly made for financial reasons,” Yolevski said.

The poll found that 76% of Canadian co-owners only agreed to the set-up in the first place due to a lack of housing affordability, with 32% of those motivated by low affordability saying that they purchased their homes after the Bank of Canada began raising interest rates in March 2022.

“In an environment where home prices and interest rates have risen quickly and sharply, and where the threshold to qualify for a mortgage has become much more challenging, Canadians are pooling their resources and buying homes together,” Yolevski said.

“By dividing the cost of a home between more people, Canadians can not only get their foot on the property ladder more easily, but also expand their home search to more desirable locations or larger properties that may not have been accessible with their budget alone.”