Conversion of agricultural land to building plot, objection, building authority, building regulations

I wonder where the catch is with such offers that appear cheap and are sold as field, hobby, or garden land.

Why hasn't the current owner already "converted" it into building land? Maybe he has already tried and failed? And if he even sells it as a field, then later you can't even claim anything from him. I would also engage very intensively with the authorities mentioned above beforehand.

I wonder where the catch is with such offers that seem cheap and are sold as field, hobby, or garden land.

Why hasn't the current owner already "converted" it into building land? Maybe they have already tried and failed? And if they even sell it as a field, then later you can't really claim anything against them. I would also deal very intensively with the authorities mentioned above beforehand.

It seems to me that there is still a lack of basics: For every property / parcel in Germany, there is a prescribed "use." For example, there is land that is building land. You are allowed to build there (usually according to the municipality's development plan), and there are many other types of use that cannot simply be changed. For example, there is garden land, grassland, arable land, bodies of water, and much more. Building is not allowed on these lands; the land may only be used according to the regulations.

That is the initial situation. Therefore, it is natural that building land (which is in demand) is more expensive than, for example, arable land or grassland. So if someone sells their grassland, they are not trying to deceive anyone; they are simply selling their grassland—period. Whether a change of use might be possible is best known by the building authority. If the municipality is not extremely interested in newcomers, then you should rather assume that it will not work.

It is not lacking in fundamentals, but apparently in reading comprehension. The word "made" was not in quotation marks without reason. I also quite know how to read a land use plan, even if I don't have much to do with it professionally.

Why should the owner now sell the property "cheaply," if it is now or soon to be land with development expectations, whatever. Hence my advice to deal with the relevant authorities.

The OP wants to buy the piece of land with the intention of building there... now I imagine the conversation with the seller. "Yes, sure you can build on it, it just needs to be approved, that's possible. But I'm selling it to you as garden land because it is (still) not building land."

Of course, the OP might just want to buy a piece of meadow with a barn to keep horses there. But I don't think that was his intention.

Even though I actually believe in the good in people, when it comes to money and actually strangers, this good unfortunately often stops. One should simply be cautious with all major investments and at least keep all eventualities in mind and check for pitfalls.

Exactly. I am going to the building authority. But if they tell me it "doesn't look good," I don't have to rely on that in good faith, but rather, if necessary, fight it in court if I am right. However, then with tricks or arguments, which I hoped to find here among other places.

I obtained the land use plan and cut out the important area. Since I am colorblind, I would be very grateful if you could explain to me what these "blue" thick lines mean and why my garden area is dashed white. Is that a "reserved area for special climate function" (dashed white) and "priority area federal" (blue thick line)? I can't make much of the latter.

Is that ultimately a definitive building exclusion criterion, or could one still somehow justify the construction, since for example, the fire department access and infrastructure are secured?

Unfortunately, I do not see an image there.