I have been living in a newly developed area for 3 years. At least every second person has built incorrectly here. Whether it’s an unapproved second garage, the garden shed placed incorrectly, too much area sealed, terrace not permeable to water, etc.
Every building authority employee, every architect, and every publicly appointed surveyor is fully aware that practice and theory differ. The question ultimately is how far one goes and what consequences that entails.
According to the surplus, someone would now have to evaluate and assess all pictures (besides holding the valid development plan with all exceptions). In our municipality, no one has time for that.
Your cadastral office also has employees for that – just believe it. What eventually follows is a request for the building to be surveyed (see above, I referred to cadastral reconciliation!), so that the cadastral map can be updated. However, there is no automatic overlap between the cadastre and building authority here locally, meaning we survey buildings daily so they appear on the map without checking whether there is a building permit for it. That is irrelevant for the cadastre and also does not allow any conclusions about the building law approval (capability).
That is only done when a complaint comes in. Hence my saying “No plaintiff, no judge.” Of course, this is not the correct way, but what happens in the worst-case scenario? You get the construction burden entered afterwards or reduce the shed – both are no “doomsday” options...
That is your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to, and there are people who manage wonderfully with that. But one cannot endorse this path as the holy grail in a forum like this, because from my personal practical experience I know that it can also lead to further complications that can cost prospective builders a lot of time and thus money.
For example, if you dismantle your garage/shed at the boundary to regularize your (!) property under building law and, say, to create space for an extension, it can well happen that the building permit is not granted because the clearance area of your extension encroaches on the area where the neighbor would need a construction burden for their building project – which does not yet exist precisely because of the “no plaintiff” approach.
So. Now you stand there with a paid building application (the architect finally needs to be paid for their planning) and bank financing but receive no building permit because your neighbor couldn’t care less about your extension and might even try to prevent it.
The building authority will then enforce one of the following by force: either the dismantling or a forced entry of a construction burden (really a very last resort, legally so sensitive that all building authorities get cold feet), which maybe is so badly positioned that your extension is impossible and needs to be redesigned.
Until a judge finally says “Yes and amen,” your financing request has probably expired three times – and that is just one (!) simple (!) scenario that can happen.
As I said, we do this daily and professionally here, and the nonsense currently being caused in exemption procedures is a wonderful job creation measure for all publicly appointed surveyors (outside Bavaria). We are dealing with all of it right now – if not tomorrow, then in 10 or 20 years.
However, in the long run, it is cheaper: pick up the phone and at least ask the architect and/or publicly appointed surveyor how big the disaster can be in the individual case. Whoever does not take the time takes a risk that laypeople cannot consistently foresee to the very end (can’t).
And that must at least be made clear here in the forum.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe