Boundary distance across a narrow strip of land (1m)

Hello everyone,

I have the following situation on a property:

[ATTACH alt="grenzabstände.jpg" type="full"]49132[/ATTACH]

It concerns property 708/a. The neighbor 708/b has a small access path (width 1m) to his property on the north border and thereby separates 708/a from 708/f. The house on 708/f (house number 1) is a residential building and is built directly on the border to 708/b. There are no building obligations registered for me – for 708/b I do not know.

On my border stands a garage, built around 1960, which is to be demolished. Replacing it with a new one should be possible since garages are permitted as border developments.
It gets more interesting with another building – I am considering building a kind of guest/vacation house here (e.g. Schwörerhaus Flying Space). Here we would also have to comply with the distances of building 708/f in addition to our own boundary distance, or does the "strip" 708/b render the distance rule ineffective (which I do not believe)?

Thanks in advance for the help!

With us, strip 708/b was not sufficient.
A (we built with existing buildings)
B (public staircase about 1 m wide)
C (existing building was supposed to be demolished and rebuilt)
All existing buildings do not comply with the current distance regulations.

C planned newly with a building on the boundary development. Distance, fire protection ignored. A was not asked, C referred to the fact that B is sufficient as a direct neighbor and B agreed.
The municipality approved the whole thing, but the building authority at the district office rejected it.
Reason: A must comply with the complete distance and fire protection regulations minus B. Therefore, A must agree, which A did not do, as the property was no longer buildable.

Compromise after construction stop (C simply started creating facts)
A is allowed to build on the rear building line in the area of the distance surfaces as before in height and depth, C must build a fire protection wall, in the front area of the old residential building, the distance and fire protection surfaces of A must be taken into account and adopted in case of a new building.

I have quickly sketched it. Now shows the new development.
Hope it helps you.

The house on 708/f (Hnr 1) is a residential house and built directly on the boundary to 708/b. There are no building encumbrances registered with me – I do not know about 708/b.

You don't care about that. The house on 708/f is allowed to stand there due to existing legal protection, obligation to build an extension, or whatever – otherwise it would have a 3 m or 1/2 h distance obligation, which could not be properly replaced with a building encumbrance on the narrow 1 m strip of 708/b here, so a distance encumbrance would also have to be registered with you.

It gets more interesting with another building – I am considering building some kind of guest/holiday home here (e.g. Schwörerhaus Flying Space). Here we would then have to observe the distances of building 708/f in addition to our boundary distance,

With a non-boundary-privileged building you have to observe the full boundary distance, in my opinion both to 708/b – the buildability of which at this location is not your concern – and to the next building (even if it is on 708/f). In the worst case – but you will see this in your land register sheet if this is the case – there could still be a distance assumption on your property if the owner of 708/f wanted to keep the possibility open to erect a new building at the same location. Because, as mentioned above, only part of this could be fulfilled on 708/b, so that a “remainder” would fall on your property.

Here we would then have to observe the distances of building 708/f in addition to our boundary setback.

This cannot be answered in general terms, as it depends on the individual case. For this, one would have to review the parcel history and building development history. A common procedure is that the fire protection distance must be observed, but not the setback areas of the existing building. When erecting a fire wall on one of the buildings, it might even be possible to reduce the setback area of the new building by applying for a deviation. It is best to take many photos and discuss the case with the approval authority.

In the worst case – but you can see this in your land register sheet if that is the case – there could still be a setback transfer on your property if the owner of 708/f wanted to keep the option open to build a new building at the same location.

No setback transfer is entered in my land register sheet. That means a new building should not be built like that. The old building (presumably around 1940) may therefore also exist with a window facing 708/b.

When erecting a fire wall on one of the buildings, the setback area for the new building could even be reduced by applying for a deviation.

The new building is just a pipe dream for now. But I will then consider a larger setback area in my thoughts. Let's see if there would still be enough garden left for the main house... Presumably, there will first be a new garage/carport built there. Thank you all very much!