Inland development (second row)

No matter what the ownership structure is in the end, it does not change the floor area ratio for the entire property.

In the case of real partition, each property has its own floor area ratio. You don't have to think collectively. That is why there is often the problem that some properties cannot be divided because the existing house is too large.

According to building advice, all sealed surfaces count 100% towards the floor area ratio-2 and that also includes gravel/pebbles or similar

That is of course nasty. Has it always been like that in Hamburg? On the outskirts of Hamburg, unpaved paths are tolerated… tolerated by the user, mind you ;) … Either the seller doesn’t consider it, or he settles for what’s left. But I think it’s the former.

In case of real division, each plot has its own floor space ratio. There is no need to think collectively.

That doesn’t help anyone here because then the rear plot remains garden land due to lack of development.

But that’s not my problem, is it? If I buy a plot as offered, I don’t have to worry about the buildability of the front plot (apart from the right of way). I do it rather in the interest of good neighborliness and to avoid a nasty surprise one day before the notary appointment.

That’s a difficult question. I could imagine that it might be considered immoral if the front owner loses a large part of the value of his property because of your request. If there is no compensation, I would probably sue you as the heir of this idiot. It also matters less who was smarter and who was not. But I am not a lawyer.
I would expect the notary to intervene.

Who would act immorally? The former owner himself made the division and is not being forced to register the right of way. In this respect, it is indeed shooting oneself in the foot, but he did so completely voluntarily.

From my side, everything was said here:

Dimeto knows that just as well as Escroda ;-)

Wayback Machine ;-)

Who would act immorally? The previous owner himself carried out the partition and he is not being forced to register the right of way. In that respect, it is a self-inflicted wound, but one he voluntarily took.

Immorality is, as far as I know, rarely recognized anyway. It does not necessarily (!) have anything to do with coercion. Rather with fraudulent deception. If the seller is 95 years old, a bit confused, and the buyer deliberately withholds information for their own benefit... hmm, a good lawyer might be able to make something of it. That is not to say that this is the case. I just want to illustrate the suspicion.

More likely with fraudulent misrepresentation. If the seller is 95 years old, a bit muddled, and the buyer consciously withholds information to their own advantage....

What are you talking about? Look at the initial situation: first the owner divided the property, then offered it for sale. Then Schnubbi entered his life two weeks ago - at least as explained here and in the thread from September 14

Initial situation: - Large property with old buildings was legitimately divided by the owner into two equally sized parcels (both approx. 545 sqm) - The owner keeps the front property, we want to buy the rear property