Is the denial justified?

Hello there :)

I’ve already read a lot and thought, I’ll just sign up. A little about me/us, we are a couple who would like to build a multi-generational house with my mother-in-law and her 16-year-old daughter.

We already have a plot of land; before the purchase, an inquiry was made to check if it was a building plot and what could be built. This was confirmed with the condition that a one-and-a-half-story building could be built.
Off to the notary, who prepared the purchase contract, took a look at the district court to verify if it really was a building plot, etc. Well, everything was notarized, signed, and paid for. After submitting the building application on 12/01/2014, a few letters came requesting supplementary documents, which were promptly submitted. By mid-February, all positive statements had arrived. Two weeks later, we received the denial from the building authority. A slap in the face; no one expected that. So much was asked for and everything was properly submitted. Now the building authority maintains that the plot is in an outer area and is a scattered settlement. In the municipality’s land use plan, the area where the plot is located is designated as a mixed-use area. In addition, everything is argued according to §35. However, our plot would only be an infill, since there are houses everywhere to the right and left, meaning actually §34.

After we filed an appeal and that didn’t help, the nice lady from the building authority told our architect, “Well, then they should come with a lawyer.”

We have now done so. He has now filed an appeal against the official denial.

My questions to you: Who has experienced something like this? What are the chances? We are two young families being driven into financial ruin. I wouldn’t have bought the plot if it wasn’t building land. Is the notary partly to blame? Can I demand a repurchase if building is not possible since the plot is not what he sold it to us as?

I hope you can help me/us. We are already completely worn out by this statement from the building authority.

Thank you and best regards :)

---------------------------

Hello "oOMissKittyOo",

Your avatar is protected by trademark law. Since it is subject to trademark or name rights, these rights must be observed when reusing it, which is why I deleted it. Please use another image. Thank you very much!

Greetings from the Rhineland

Who confirmed the request?

The municipality, and as already mentioned, it was sold to us as a building plot by the notary, and this is also stated in the purchase contract.

Here are some things that are still unclear or misunderstood. There are several parties involved in this matter who act within the scope of their roles:

1. Seller (previous landowners)
Has this person made any statements regarding the buildability of the property? Are these found in the purchase contract for the property?

2. Notary
This person only certifies the content of the purchase contract. He reads it aloud, explains some content, and answers questions during the notarization appointment within the scope of possibilities. In this respect, the statement "...it was also sold to us by the notary as a building plot..." is certainly wrong, unless he himself were the seller. But that is excluded, because he would not be allowed to certify in that case. ;-)

3. Buyer (that is you)
As with washing machines, cars, toasters, etc., it is assumed that one obtains an overview of the characteristics of the object being purchased. In the case of land, the proven accessibility is decisive. Now it would be important whether the "inquiry" you made before the purchase was answered reasonably and bindingly or not.

4. District Court
Manages the land register, i.e., ownership, encumbrances and restrictions, land charges, etc. What the land registry office cannot say is whether it is a "building plot." It is simply not responsible for this. ;-)

1. So the property was sold through a real estate agent who also advertised the property as a building plot. The purchase contract states right in the first sentence, "The seller is the owner of the building plot located in ...". The land registry excerpt states "building and open space", in the municipality's land use plan "mixed-use area" (without settlement; otherwise that would have been indicated). Additionally, the property is fully developed, with water, sewage, and utilities already on the property. As mentioned, on the neighboring properties to the left and right there are also several houses; partly new buildings.

2. According to our lawyer, the notary has reviewed all documents related to the property and confirmed that it is a building plot. The contract also includes some provisions that allowed us, for example, to already conduct soil surveys, measurements, etc.

3. We had previously made an inquiry with the municipality. But that’s not where the problem lies; we have a positive statement from them, as well as from all others. Except for the lower building authority, which accepted the application but then issued further demands, for example, we lacked a third parking space. The application was accepted on 1.12.14, the rejection came in mid-February. Why process a building application for 3 months and only reject it so late? During that time, many costs also arose, for example tree felling. According to the "kind" lady from the building department, the application probably should not even have been accepted. But now it has been and, as mentioned, we have approval from everywhere except from her. Could this now be used to our advantage?

First of all, it can (unfortunately) now be ruled out that the seller may have deceived you regarding the lack of buildability. Apparently, he could and was allowed to assume that there were no obstacles to this.

A three-month processing time for a building application is annoying, but it is present here. The problem with applications, however, is generally that they may not be approved. If it were otherwise, no application would be necessary. ;-) If expenses have therefore been incurred in reliance on an approval, that is normally one's own risk. It is somewhat different, however, if the actions of the authority have pointed sufficiently concretely to the upcoming approval in such a way that you were allowed to assume from these statements that it is only a formal act here, and doubts about the upcoming approval could not arise.

These would be points of departure that I would initially work through. However, the chances of success here are rather poor.

Your lawyer will gain a deep understanding of the factual and legal situation based on the documents and will give you a realistic outlook on any potential proceedings.