Land division boundary construction

Hello everyone

I would appreciate an exchange and assessment of my problem.

We, a young couple expecting a child, want to build a new building on an existing property with an old structure in a municipality in Upper Bavaria.

We have come across the following:

The old structure is located on a approximately 450 sqm plot which originated from a property subdivision in 2006.

The plot was surveyed by the surveying office in 2006 and a boundary was drawn on the west side. The boundary runs along the west side of the old structure and further southwards to the street.

The building dates from around 1930 and has been extended over the years with annexes.

Around 1946, a carpenter’s workshop was added to the west side of the residential building along the entire width. The roof structure was then extended to include this annex.

Around 1960, another annex was built on the north side of the building up to the boundary of the neighboring property. Shortly thereafter, the building was extended by another annex on the north side, also adjacent to the neighboring boundary. A diligent carpenter. According to our plans, at this point there was a boundary development of 14.28 m.

In the 1970s, an easement for the setback area was agreed upon and registered with the northern neighboring property. All modifications and annexes are approved and the boundary development is “secured” on the north side of the building by the easement. The workshop has been “abandoned” and the rooms are used as storage and utility rooms.

Before the subdivision of the property in 2006, the then co-owner and current neighbor converted a workshop shed next to our current building into a residential house in the 1980s.

According to the submission plan of this residential house at that time, a part of the first annex of our residential building, the former workshop, was supposed to be partially demolished in order not to interfere with the required setback areas of the neighboring residential building.

The then joint owners, two brothers, apparently refrained from demolition since the building remains in its planned dimensions and, in my assessment, the neighbor (brother) built as planned.

In 2006 the subdivision of the joint ownership took place by the owners and we acquired the property. Since the subdivision there has existed a boundary development of 26.18 m to this day.

This brings me to the first questions. The permissible boundary development of 15 m for outbuildings according to BayBO (let’s assume these are outbuildings) appears to have been exceeded since the survey.

If there is an easement for the setback area on the north side of the building and this development is legal, what about the new boundary and the resulting boundary development? Is it unlawful in terms of building regulations?

The neighbor to the west built as planned at the time, but the partial demolition for the setbacks was not carried out. Even if the subdivision were reversed, the setback areas of the buildings would not be observed, how does this present itself?

I hope this was not too much for now and that you have an opinion on it.

Attached is a site plan with the theoretically planned demolition marked.
But maybe more on that later. The parcel number is 335/4

Regards
Martin

I don't understand it, yet a question, possibly good to know for others:

Before the subdivision of the property in 2006, the then co-owner and today's neighbor converted a workshop shed next to our current building into a residential house in the 1980s.

If there is a distance surface easement for the north side of the building and this development is lawful,

Could it be that a change of use from workshop to residential house was not applied for?
And then the house would not be lawful either.
And should a demolition have possibly been carried out, but none was done?
The consequence is that there is now a boundary development over 25 meters?

Where is your property now?
Shouldn't something about the distance surfaces be recorded in the land register?

surely knows how it could be and might be

Illegal building division?

IMHO yes. In NRW, the division should not have taken place. In Bavaria, however, the legal situation is different as far as I know -> specialist lawyer.

Even if the division were reversed, the distance areas of the buildings would still not be complied with, how does that look?

A contradiction to your assumption that these are supposed to be outbuildings. Very complicated legal situation, as the entire history of Bavarian building law would have to be taken into account. According to current law, the western annex is relevant for distance areas even as a workshop, so that the division has led to illegal building circumstances. Or from a planning law perspective, one assumes a closed building style, so that no distance areas arise at all and thus no length limitation for privileging is required. A discussion with the approval authority is likely indispensable.

Could it be that a change of use of the workshop into a residential building was not applied for? And then the house would also be unlawful. And should a demolition possibly have been carried out, but there was none? The consequence is that there is now over 25 meters of boundary development?

Misunderstanding. There was never a change of use for the extensions to our house, assuming you mean our house. Interestingly, even in the neighbor’s plan back in 1983, the room facing our house was designated not as a living room but as a garage. However, today that room is part of his living room.

Yes, according to the neighbor’s submission plan, it is indicated that our "extension," i.e., on the plan the right part of the building towards the neighbor in the west, should have been demolished over a width of 1.5 m and a length of 11.80 m. The buildings would then have had a distance of 6 m. At that time, in 1983, there was still no boundary between the two buildings.

The over 25 m boundary development resulted from the subdivision. The western boundary runs along the western building wall.

Since apparently no permission has been required for land subdivisions since 1998, the control over the legality of a subdivision apparently falls to the owners of a property. Neither the authority nor the surveying office checks the subdivision. Even the notary who draws up the contract for subdivision and purchase does not check it. I suspect quite a bit has gone wrong here.

So far, the situation seems to be "where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge."

A discussion with the approval authority is likely essential

I agree.

Can the building authority force us or the neighbor to carry out reinstatement? All building measures on the buildings, i.e., on ours, demonstrably have permits.

Would we be allowed to modify the extension so that it comes as close as possible to the dimensions of a legal boundary garage? Lower the roof, possibly shorten the total length of the boundary wall? Taking over distance areas by the neighbor or signature?

According to §63 BayBO there are possibilities for deviations from individual paragraphs, including Article 6, distance areas. Is there room for maneuver for the authority if the neighbors agree and public law is observed as far as possible without demolition?

Many thanks in advance

Double contribution

assuming you mean our residential building. Interestingly, in the neighbor's plan from 1983, the room facing our residential building is not labeled as a living room but as a garage. However, today the room is part of his living room.

No, I meant the neighbor's garage, which is now a living room.