Since its inception in 2006, the Living Building Challenge (LBC) has established itself as an ideal for sustainable performance, pushing the boundaries of building design toward regeneration. However, this ambition has limited its widespread adoption, with just 34 projects achieving full ‘LIVING’ certification globally. These rare examples may offer valuable insights into the systemic issues limiting the transition to high-performance building design and a circular built environment. This study examines the implementation of LBC in the Australian context and explores potential support mechanisms to broaden its feasibility and impact. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining semi-structured interviews with members of the National Circularity Centre Building (NCCB) design and delivery team with a review of previous LBC cases. Located in the regional town of Bega on the Far South Coast of New South Wales, the NCCB is the third project of its kind to attempt LIVING certification in Australia. Interviews were conducted with 10 NCCB project team members as well as external professionals experienced in LBC delivery. Transcripts were automatically generated, and thematic analysis was undertaken with the assistance of NVIVO12. While adverse time and cost impacts owing to LBC’s stringent requirements are frequently cited as deterrents, this study reveals these may often be symptoms of broader industry challenges and project management complexity. Key identified barriers include inadequate team composition at initiation and delayed adoption of LBC in design. Additionally, challenges in LBC’s strict material procurement criteria are further exacerbated by a lack of support and transparency in the manufacturing sector. These preliminary findings suggest that optimised early-project support, as well as the advent of material passport (MP) databases (e.g., Declare Label and Product Aware) and process automation, may offer promising avenues to improve the feasibility of high-performance sustainability outcomes.