Heritable lease agreement with renovation note

Good evening,
we intend to buy a house. The plot is to be leased from a church community on a hereditary leasehold basis - so far, so good. Now we have received the draft contract from the notary. It contains a § stating that we are to enter into the currently existing redevelopment procedure with all rights and obligations, including the payment of any possible compensation amount to the municipality (city). We do not want to accept this because, in our opinion, the payment of such a compensation amount is the responsibility of the landowner. However, in this case, we are not the owners but "only" the hereditary leaseholders. Unfortunately, I can find nothing about this online at all. Maybe someone here has an idea or experience with what to do in such a case.

Thank you very much

Regards
Mario

Phew, tricky question.

First of all, according to the Building Code, the landowner is obliged to make the payment. But in terms of the Building Code in the context of the heritable building right, the holder of the heritable building right is usually considered the "owner" within the meaning of the Building Code. Therefore, in my opinion, it is correct to include such a clause directly in the purchase contract, as you would very likely be called upon anyway (even without this clause).

Otherwise, there may be regulations in the heritable building right contract or in the municipality's redevelopment statute (but if so, it normally also states there that the holder of the heritable building right has to make the payment).

The background for all this is that you, as the entitled party, derive the benefit from the redevelopment. You get a higher-quality environment for a "low" ground rent and can take advantage of it.

If I were the issuer of the heritable building right, I would not negotiate with you. Digital decision: bite the bullet (from your perspective) or look for another plot without heritable building right. Sorry, I can’t give you a more positive answer. Just watch out that perhaps in return the ground rent is correspondingly low and the church does not demand today the ground rent for a property of tomorrow.

But in the sense of the Building Code in the context of the heritable building right, the heritable building right holder is usually considered as the "owner" within the meaning of the Building Code.

I can confirm this as a heritable building right holder. You are legally considered the owner.

how much money is involved anyway? and not everything is apportioned in all federal states. In any case, there is a cost estimate. Therefore, mentally add these costs to the purchase price

I can confirm this as a hereditary leaseholder. You are legally considered the owner.

The owner of the land in a hereditary lease is the lessor, i.e., the owner of the land. Often these are churches or municipalities, but they can also be private individuals. The owner merely transfers a right of use for the land to the lessee for a specified period. However, the lessee is the owner of the building erected on the leased land.

The compensation amount I am supposed to pay is calculated from the difference between the standard land value before the renovation measure and the standard land value after the measure and is intended to compensate for the increase in the land's value. If the church parish ever decides to sell the land, I have the right of first refusal. The purchase price is then based on the valid standard land value, which has increased due to the renovation measure. Ergo, do I then pay the value increase twice?! That cannot be right.

Unfortunately, no one can tell me at the moment what the final amount will be. :-(

The compensation amount I have to pay is calculated from the difference between the standard land value BEFORE the redevelopment measure and the standard land value AFTER the measure and is intended to compensate for the increase in the property's value.

That is the case in every redevelopment area.

The owner of the property in a hereditary leasehold is the lessor,

Nobody disputes that.

Should the church community ever decide to sell the property, I have the right of first refusal. The purchase price is then based on the applicable standard land value, which has increased due to the redevelopment measure. Ergo, I would then pay the value increase twice?! That can't be right.

It does not have to be that way. You simply do not buy and remain the leaseholder. However, in 30 years of experience in construction financing, I have never encountered the case where only the property is sold. That is because it is unpledgeable for a bank due to the hereditary building right attached to it. So a fool would have to be found who buys a property with equity but then cannot do anything with the property for the next 75 years. The case is as theoretical as death by a falling meteorite. Thinkable, but does not happen.

That can't be right.

But it is. I already explained the connections to you in my first answer.