Buy the land first and then finance it?

In our municipality, an obligation to build is also imposed by the municipality on existing plots (private) that have not been developed since the 1980s when these plots change ownership. I would inquire about that again.

You are welcome to explain that in more detail: Does the municipality exercise its right of first refusal and then put the plots back on the market?

You are welcome to explain this in more detail: does the municipality exercise its preemptive right and then put the plots back on the market?

Since I renovate existing properties, I am not deeply involved. But the mentioned plots are privately owned, and with the resale a building obligation is notarized and registered. Two years ago, there was a case where a homeowner found out that the plot below him, which had been vacant for over 30 years, was going to be sold, and he wanted to buy it himself immediately so that no one could build there. Then the building obligation came up again, meaning he would have to build.

The plots in the new development areas do not have this situation either. There, the municipality itself bought all the plots first and is the sole owner of all the plots. In the 80s, anyone who contributed land to the development area also received plot(s) in return. Much has been built on, but a few gaps have always remained free.

But the mentioned plots are privately owned and a building obligation is notarized upon resale. Two years ago, there was a case where a homeowner found out that the plot below him, which had been free for over 30 years, was about to be sold, and he wanted to buy it himself directly so that no one could build there. Then the issue of the building obligation came up again, and that he would then have to build.

A building obligation can only be agreed upon notarized—either when buying from the municipality because the municipality wants it that way or when buying from a private party because the private party wants it that way. The municipality has no legal basis to have a notarial building obligation included in the contract during a private property sale. The municipality only has the following options: - Building order, which is imposed on an owner (see legal basis in the Building Code) - Exercising pre-emptive rights and resale with a building obligation. Therefore, , something must be missing in the situation you described. Because as described, it is factually impossible.

A building obligation can only be agreed upon notarized – either when buying from the municipality because the municipality wants it that way or when buying from a private person because the private party wants it that way. The municipality has no legal basis to have a notarized building obligation included in the contract when selling a private property.
The municipality only has the following options:
- Building order imposed on an owner (see legal basis in the Building Code)
- Exercise of pre-emption right and resale with building obligation.

In this respect, , something is still missing in the situation you described. Because as described, it is practically impossible.

Actually, it probably runs through the right of first refusal. But without guarantee, as I’m not that deeply involved. There are definitely possibilities that something like this can happen, but of course it is not always like that and also not the standard.

My hint was also just to prevent that there might be special constellations with the property of the thread creator, which could influence the options available. With us, this is intended to at least prevent that the properties change owners and still remain undeveloped for decades.

Since I am renovating in the existing stock, I am not that deeply involved. But the mentioned plots are privately owned and a building obligation is notarized with the resale.

Maybe you would like to name the affected municipality, then one could inquire at their legal office how they handle this. As a "best practice" for other municipalities.

Two years ago, there was a case where a homeowner found out that the free plot below him, which had been free for over 30 years, was about to be sold and he wanted to buy it himself immediately so that no one could build there. Then the building obligation came up again and that he would then have to build.

Because of exactly such selfish idiots with the attitude "my greatest happiness is that others have none," the topic of building obligations keeps coming up. This is a burden for the municipal community. Living space always starts with building land, and others need some too.

In the 80s, everyone who contributed land to the development area also received plot(s) for it.

Land readjustments still work like that today. Every contributor in such a procedure may leave his regained plot fallow until doomsday – that cannot be prevented.

My hint was only to prevent that there might be special circumstances affecting the options available for the thread creator’s plot. Here, at least it is supposed to be prevented that the plots change owners and still remain undeveloped for decades.

I found (and still find) your hint valuable. My inquiry is only motivated by the wish to recommend the "trick" to other municipalities as well, since a building obligation (should be avoidable in places with reasonable people, though) serves the common good.

Actually, this probably works via the right of first refusal. But without guarantee, as I'm not that deeply involved. There are definitely possibilities that something like this can happen,

Yes, only the two cases I described (or rather only one case concerning the building obligation). It's just unfortunate for the municipality if it exercises the right of first refusal at a high price and at the same time the potential buyer does not buy after all. Then, by chance, the standard land value goes down (as in 2024 in most major cities in Germany) and the municipality can only sell at a loss...