I would say: a - yes, it will change the shape of the Earth and b - no,
it will not change the vertical, because of a.
Now, this needs a clarification.
a - Yes, because the Earth is globally in hydrostatic equilibrium, and
the change in rotational speed is so slow that it cannot drive the Earth
out of this equilibrium. Faster excitations, like plate tectonics or
glaciations, do drive some out of equilibrium behavior, but the rotation
slow down is just too slow.
Just to get an idea of how slow this is: The earth flattening is now
$f = 1/298$. Assuming it is proportional to the rotational speed of the
Earth, and assuming a slowdown of 2 ms/d/century as suggested before, we
get
$$
\frac{df}{dt} = - f \times 2.3\times 10^{-8}/\text{cy}
= - 7.8\times10^{-11}/\text{cy}
$$
That means that the equatorial radius is getting shorter by 0.16 mm per
century, while the polar radius is increasing at twice this rate.
b - It actually depends on what you are comparing the vertical to. If
you compare the new vertical with what the old vertical was at the same,
fixed geocentric latitude, then yes, it will change. If you compare at
the same position on the crust, it will also change, but for another
reason: plate tectonics will move your reference point far from where
it was originally. If you compare at a fixed geographic latitude, it
will not change, simply because the geographic latitude is defined by
the direction of it's vertical. In any case, the vertical will stay
perpendicular to the geoid because of the definition of the vertical
(gradient of potential) and of the geoid (equipotential). It will also
stay roughly perpendicular to the Earth's crust because of point a.
Comparing with tall buildings will not be possible because the buildings
we build today will not be here in a billion years.