Ŝi nun loĝas ĉe nova adreso, en domo kun blua pordo.

They are both location words, but they are not the same.

• ĉe means something like at, by, or in connection with
• en means in or inside

So:

• ĉe nova adreso = at a new address
• en domo = in a house

In other words, ĉe nova adreso talks about her new place in an address/contact sense, while en domo kun blua pordo gives the physical description of where she lives.

Using ĉe with adreso is very natural in Esperanto.

Because none of those nouns is a direct object here, and the sentence describes location, not movement toward somewhere.

• loĝi = to live, to reside
• It does not take a direct object in this sentence.
• ĉe, en, and kun are prepositions, and the nouns after them normally do not take -n here.

So we get:

• ĉe nova adreso
• en domo
• kun blua pordo

Compare:

• Ŝi loĝas en domo. = She lives in a house.
• Ŝi iras en domon. = She goes into a house.

In the second sentence, domon has -n because it shows motion into the house.

In Esperanto, adjectives always end in -a.

So:

• nova = new
• blua = blue

Adjectives also agree with the nouns they describe in number and case.

Here the nouns are singular and have no -n, so the adjectives also stay simple:

• nova adreso
• blua pordo

If the noun changed, the adjective would change too:

• novaj adresoj = new addresses
• novan adreson = a new address, as a direct object
• bluajn pordojn = blue doors, as direct objects

Because kun is a preposition meaning with, and the noun phrase after it is not a direct object.

So:

• kun blua pordo = with a blue door

Both words stay in their basic form:

• pordo
• blua

If you said bluan pordon, that would suggest an accusative/direct-object role, which is not what is happening here.

This phrase simply describes the house:

• domo kun blua pordo = a house with a blue door

nun means now or at present.

Its position is fairly flexible in Esperanto. The sentence given is natural:

• Ŝi nun loĝas ĉe nova adreso...

But these are also possible:

• Nun ŝi loĝas ĉe nova adreso...
• Ŝi loĝas nun ĉe nova adreso...

The choice is mostly about style and emphasis. The original version sounds very normal.

Because loĝi specifically means to live or to reside somewhere.

So:

• Ŝi loĝas... = She lives/resides...

If you used estas, the meaning would be different:

• Ŝi estas en domo. = She is in a house.

That could describe where she is at the moment, but not necessarily where she lives.

So for a home or residence, loĝi is the right verb.

Because Esperanto has la for the, but it does not have a separate word for a/an.

So:

• nova adreso = a new address
• domo = a house
• blua pordo = a blue door

If the speaker meant a specific, already known one, they could use la:

• ĉe la nova adreso
• en la domo kun la blua pordo

Without la, the nouns are indefinite here, which matches English a new address, a house, a blue door.

A native English speaker often wonders about the special letters.

• ŝ sounds like sh in ship
• ĉ sounds like ch in chair
• ĝ sounds like j in judge

So roughly:

• Ŝi ≈ shee
• ĉe ≈ cheh
• loĝas ≈ LOH-jahs

A few helpful pronunciation points:

• Esperanto vowels are simple and steady.
• Stress normally falls on the next-to-last syllable.

So loĝas has stress on lo.

Yes. Esperanto word order is more flexible than English because the endings carry a lot of grammatical information.

For example, you could also say:

• Nun ŝi loĝas ĉe nova adreso, en domo kun blua pordo.
• En domo kun blua pordo ŝi nun loĝas ĉe nova adreso.

But not all versions sound equally natural. The original sentence has a very neutral, easy flow.

Even when word order changes, you usually keep closely connected words together:

• nova adreso
• blua pordo

The comma separates the second part as extra descriptive information.

Main statement:

• Ŝi nun loĝas ĉe nova adreso = She now lives at a new address

Added detail:

• en domo kun blua pordo = in a house with a blue door

In practice, some writers might include the comma, and some might leave it out. With the comma, the second phrase feels a little more like an added description.

So this punctuation is natural, even though the sentence would still be understandable without it.

They give two different kinds of information.

• ĉe nova adreso tells you that her address has changed.
• en domo kun blua pordo helps identify or describe the place physically.

So the sentence is doing two jobs at once:

1. saying she now lives at a new address
2. describing the building she lives in

That combination is perfectly normal in Esperanto.