ᐅ House Construction – We Must Respect Boundaries, But Our Neighbor Does Not
Created on: 26 Mar 2016 03:17
T
titoz
Hello everyone,
We are planning a new construction after demolishing the current house in Rhineland-Palatinate.
The old house is located on the northern boundary line.
In theory, we are allowed to build right on the boundary again, but since we plan the driveway on that side, we must keep a 3m (10 feet) distance from the boundary. Unfortunately, due to an error by the draftsman, the building authority approved only a 2.8m (9 feet) distance, so we will likely need to revise the plans.
Now I've noticed that the neighbor to the north built closer to the boundary than shown on the site plan. He extended an old long, narrow building with a much wider upper floor, so I estimate the boundary distance is sometimes less than 2.0m (6.5 feet).
What would you recommend?
Do I have to accept the neighbor’s smaller distance to the boundary?
Of course, I don’t want to cause him to have to modify his building, but could we simply agree that we are also allowed to build closer to the boundary if he already is? Or does this have to be handled formally through the building authority, including rights of way or easements?
On the south side, we were denied permission for a terrace because, due to the slope of the land, it is classified as a balcony rather than a terrace. Here, a 3m (10 feet) distance from the southern boundary is also required.
I could accept that, but the neighbor to the north also has a roof terrace on the boundary-adjacent area.
Why is he allowed to have that, but we are not?!
By the way: what would be the best way to graphically illustrate such spatial situations? Is there a simple tool for this?
Best regards
titoz
We are planning a new construction after demolishing the current house in Rhineland-Palatinate.
The old house is located on the northern boundary line.
In theory, we are allowed to build right on the boundary again, but since we plan the driveway on that side, we must keep a 3m (10 feet) distance from the boundary. Unfortunately, due to an error by the draftsman, the building authority approved only a 2.8m (9 feet) distance, so we will likely need to revise the plans.
Now I've noticed that the neighbor to the north built closer to the boundary than shown on the site plan. He extended an old long, narrow building with a much wider upper floor, so I estimate the boundary distance is sometimes less than 2.0m (6.5 feet).
What would you recommend?
Do I have to accept the neighbor’s smaller distance to the boundary?
Of course, I don’t want to cause him to have to modify his building, but could we simply agree that we are also allowed to build closer to the boundary if he already is? Or does this have to be handled formally through the building authority, including rights of way or easements?
On the south side, we were denied permission for a terrace because, due to the slope of the land, it is classified as a balcony rather than a terrace. Here, a 3m (10 feet) distance from the southern boundary is also required.
I could accept that, but the neighbor to the north also has a roof terrace on the boundary-adjacent area.
Why is he allowed to have that, but we are not?!
By the way: what would be the best way to graphically illustrate such spatial situations? Is there a simple tool for this?
Best regards
titoz
titoz schrieb:
Thanks for the detailed response.
I plan to look into it more thoroughly in the next few days... but I want to ask one quick question first:
1. How does a surveyor obtain the file? Do they just knock on the door and say, "Hello, I would like to see your file"?
Regards,
Tito They go to the building authority and submit a request to view the file.
titoz schrieb:
Thanks for the detailed response.
I plan to look into it more closely in the coming days... but I want to quickly ask one thing:
1. How does a surveyor get the file? Do they just ring the bell and say "Hello, I would like to see your file"? Exactly. You just need to ring the right doorbell, which is the building authority—not the neighbor. The building authority checks whether the so-called legitimate interest exists. In your case, it does; the architect and surveyor have full access to the file, and not just, as @Wastl describes, the right to inspect the file, but they receive the relevant plans and information to clarify the matter, also in copy form or, if available, in digital form—possibly from the architect who planned and applied for the neighbor’s extension.
This also makes logical sense—how else could your architect properly plan your construction project if, for example, they had no knowledge of any building encumbrances or boundary infringements by the neighbors?
2. Do you know of any software where you can quickly draw plans that are reasonably detailed? Why? You are paying an architect and a surveyor who are managing your construction project and both are equipped with standardized software for this purpose. Moreover, both have full access to the original data.
Of course, you can print an online cadastral map and add measurements or sketches, but that doesn’t really help without knowing the building file. So no matter how well you might draw it, before I could say anything meaningful here, I would have at least 20 follow-up questions or prefer to see the site myself. The faster, more reliable, and more cost-effective way is to go directly to your architect or surveyor at this point.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
P
Peanuts7431 Mar 2016 13:40Isn’t there something like building up to the boundary if the neighbor agrees?
With approval from the building authority and the involved property owners, it is possible to mark a boundary in a zigzag pattern around the dining chairs, if absolutely necessary.
So yes – there really are every kind of option. However, this invariably increases the (follow-up) costs; if there is no corresponding benefit or structural necessity, it usually remains the standard that everyone stays within their own property.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
So yes – there really are every kind of option. However, this invariably increases the (follow-up) costs; if there is no corresponding benefit or structural necessity, it usually remains the standard that everyone stays within their own property.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
Similar topics