The Evolving Role of Buyer Representation in
Commercial Real Estate
January 28, 2026
For decades, commercial and residential real estate transactions followed a familiar script. Sellers paid a listing agent a commission (often 5–6% of the sale price) which was split with a buyer’s agent. In theory, this ensured both sides were represented. In practice, it embedded assumptions about value, trust, and compensation that few market participants ever questioned.
This structure dates to the late 1800s and early 1900s, when local broker associations formed listing exchanges, the predecessors to today’s Multiple Listing Services. [1] Brokers shared property information and cooperated by splitting commissions with the cooperating broker to broaden market exposure. For much of the twentieth century, buyers were often legally represented by seller subagents within this cooperative framework, making seller-side payment the industry norm.
True buyer agency only became widespread in the 1990s as states modernized agency laws, and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) later formalized cooperative compensation through MLS rules requiring offers of compensation. The model was further reinforced by mortgage financing, which treated seller-paid buyer-agent fees as normal transaction costs—a position reaffirmed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2024. [2]
Yet even as it became standard practice, the arrangement drew growing criticism. When a buyer’s agent is paid from the seller’s side of the transaction, it can appear to create a built-in conflict of interest, raising questions about whether true fiduciary alignment is possible when compensation ultimately comes from the other party.
Those concerns culminated in antitrust lawsuits against NAR, most notably Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors, which alleged that NAR’s cooperative compensation rules were anticompetitive by effectively requiring sellers to offer buyer-agent commissions through the MLS, limiting true fee negotiation, and inflating transaction costs. In March 2024, NAR agreed to a $418 million settlement and abandoned key compensation rules. Sellers are no longer required to pay buyer-agent commissions, MLS listings can’t display them, and buyers must negotiate fees directly with agents before touring properties - challenging not just commission mechanics, but the default logic of buyer representation itself. [3]
​​​From Default Commissions to Intentional Representation​
​​​
While these changes promote transparency, market behavior has been slower to evolve, revealing that the settlement challenged not just commissions, but the default logic of buyer representation itself. Buyer-agent commissions have proven resilient rather than collapsing. The reason is simple: the settlement addressed mechanics, not psychology.
As sellers begin pushing back on compensating both sides of a transaction, a critical question surfaces: if a seller isn’t paying a buyer agent 3%, are they actually saving money, or losing exposure? Buyer agents undeniably influence deal flow. Listings without co-broke compensation may see reduced sharing, fewer tours, or slower velocity. In some cases, net proceeds may not improve and could even decline.
This tension explains why behavior has remained familiar. If buyer habits don’t shift organically, the real catalyst for change will come from sellers testing these assumptions and introducing friction into a system long built on default structures.
For many simpler commercial transactions, buyer representation may not mean hiring a real estate agent at all. Instead, buyers can engage professionals who specialize in legal strategy, negotiation leverage, and fiduciary clarity. As the market continues to recognize this distinction, this is where buyer behavior may shift.
What’s the same:
-
Sellers often prefer familiar deal structures
-
Buyer-agent commissions in many markets remain resilient
-
Buyers still seek advocacy and protection in major financial transactions
What’s changed:
-
Compensation is more explicit and negotiable on paper
-
Buyer-agency agreements are required before showings
-
Listing agreements now seek to separate seller-paid listing agent commission fees from seller-paid buyer-agent commission fees
The result:
-
In simple transactions, a buyer agent’s value lies in trusted advocacy, rather than materially altering price, terms, or financial outcome of the deal.
-
Having buyer representation doesn’t automatically mean hiring a real estate agent—it means choosing whoever brings the most value to the transaction.
-
Buyer agents remain critical for guiding inexperienced buyers, sourcing off-market deals, and navigating complex assets by leveraging proprietary information.​​​​​
​​​​Enter the Hybrid Model: Attorney + Appraiser / Consultant
​
​​​
As compensation norms loosen and expectations recalibrate, there is an opportunity for buyers to adopt a hybrid advisory approach. Attorneys bring contract expertise, fiduciary duty, and negotiation skills grounded in risk allocation, enforceability, and downside protection. Appraisers and valuation consultants provide third-party benchmarks, defensible pricing, and market-based evidence that lenders, courts, and counterparties trust.
Together, this hybrid model offers clear legal positioning, objective pricing benchmarks, defense against overpricing, evidence-based re-trades, and reduced reliance on legacy commission structures. Representation becomes value-driven rather than commission-driven, and advocacy is no longer assumed to require a percentage-based brokerage relationship – a potential win for both buyers and sellers by reducing transaction costs.​​​​​
​​​
Offer B delivers approximately $20,000 more to the seller at the same price, while the buyer still receives professional risk management at a fraction of the cost. The difference isn’t price—it’s structure: unbundling services makes costs explicit and right-sized, often strengthening offers, reducing friction, and restoring choice in competitive markets.​​​​​
How Professionals Can Reposition
​​​
As buyer representation evolves, then the question is no longer whether change is coming, but who adapts first. For appraisers, brokers, and attorneys alike, the opportunity lies in aligning services with how buyers and sellers are making decisions, not how transactions have historically been packaged.
For appraisers, the opportunity lies in moving toward more transaction-level advisory. Buyers increasingly need pricing credibility earlier in the acquisition process, sometimes on compressed timelines that call for quicker, fit-for-purpose appraisal reports for multiple decision makers. This requires the appraisal industry to effectively provide appropriately scoped restricted appraisal reports aligned to client needs, a clear understanding of investment value versus market value, and a closer ear to the market through more frequent conversations with brokers, investors, and other market participants. Simply put, appraisers need to be more forward-facing. As compensation within a real estate transaction becomes more aligned with value provided, appraisers are well positioned to serve as trusted partners rather than passive reporters of value.
For attorneys, this shift opens the door to a more hands-on role in guiding commercial deals, not just reviewing paperwork at the end. Attorneys help buyers think through entity setup, liability, financing, and risk before problems arise. They play a central role in negotiating purchase agreements, where due diligence rights, deposits, and walk-away clauses are often fully negotiable and can determine who bears the downside if something goes wrong. Attorneys also help quarterback the due diligence process; those who embrace this broader advisory role are well positioned to anchor the buy side.
For brokers, this moment is not a threat, but rather a challenge. Buyer agents who rely primarily on MLS access or convention may feel pressure, while those who clearly articulate how they improve financial outcomes will differentiate themselves. Off-market deal access, deeper underwriting, pricing insight, flexibility in compensation, and transparency around value creation will define the next generation of buyer representation.​​​​​
The Next Phase of Buyer Representation
​​​
Buyer representation in commercial real estate is evolving slowly, as long-standing habits and comfort with familiar deal structures take time to change in a relationship-driven industry. What is emerging is not a single “new” model, but a broader range of options. Traditional brokerage continues to play an important role where it clearly adds value, while hybrid approaches integrate legal, valuation, and advisory expertise. This shift allows compensation and representation to better align with the actual scope and complexity of each transaction. It represents an opportunity for more intentional decision-making and greater choice for buyers — ultimately fostering a more competitive marketplace that can reduce transaction costs and improve outcomes.​​​​​
​Brendan Wewer, MAI is a commercial real estate appraiser working throughout Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland.
He is a Partner at Commonwealth Commercial Appraisal Group.
Like this blog? Share it!