Notarial Purchase Agreement - No Guarantee for Building Land

What we did regarding setback areas: Had the notary obtain an excerpt from the register of encumbrances. It then came back without an entry.

If you are unsure which property you are actually buying, I would take the development plan together with the seller, mark the property you believe is involved, and have it included as an annex in the notarized contract – but the notary can surely advise you on the cleanest legal way to do this.

In our case, it was also noted in substance that the seller does not guarantee that the property can be developed with the project we planned. That worked for us and it's understandable that the seller doesn’t want to guarantee developability, and we don’t complain if the apartment building isn't allowed to be built on the single-family house plot.

Apparently, there are differences from notary to notary regarding what is considered "standard."

If it later turns out without guarantee that the property is not buildable after all,

Do you have a scenario of what could happen? I currently lack the imagination, except..

Assume that YOU have to swallow the toad.

.. there is a pond on the property with toads that are protected by nature conservation. But I think you know the property?!
Another scenario would be that the soil is contaminated or you have to do soil replacement. But even then, the property would be buildable. Certainly with effort, but not impossible.

And if all that is not enough for you, then you submit a building pre-application.

Exactly. And a building ground survey.

to agree in the notary contract the buildability (possibly specified more precisely, such as a single-family house with 2 full floors, etc.) as a condition without the seller providing a guarantee for it.

It won't come to that: Dream house from so-and-so house is feasible, but the builder lacks the cash for the dream, can only build a little dream. Then goes to the seller and wants to undo the deal. It won't come to that.

This will never happen: Dream house from some so-and-so house is doable, but the builder lacks the money for the dream, can only build a little dream. Then he goes to the seller and wants to rescind the contract. This will never happen.

For me, it is incomprehensible how anyone could come up with the idea that, if there is the slightest doubt about the buildability of a plot, they would not secure themselves as best as possible against a possible total loss in the notary contract. The dream house does not need to be mentioned inside, but basically that it can be built on with, for example, a single-family house.

Or put differently: if the seller is firmly convinced that nothing speaks against building on his plot, why should he not accept such a rescission clause? It is certainly excluded that it applies … or is it?

but basically that it can be built on, for example, with a single-family house.

Then the reference to an existing development plan is sufficient and you even have a legal guarantee for it.

but basically, that it is buildable, for example, with a single-family house.

He does have the option to submit a building inquiry. When you buy pants, you try them on! And if not, then you have to see what to do. Maybe lose a few pounds. Or do you trust the seller when he says they will definitely fit? Building land is not a production item, not a Monday product or something with 2-year warranty claims. You do not have the right of return, nor can you return it due to damage. Even tree growth with deep roots, quack infestation, or a sh* cat with noisy children next door are not reasons for rescission. If it is building land, then it is up to the buyer to deal beforehand with the buildability, location, dimensions, and other conditions.

He does have the option to submit a building inquiry.

Does he? If the subdivision has not yet been completed, maybe there is no parcel of land at all for the building authority to compare with the development plan, at least not in terms of a legally binding response to the building inquiry.

What use is it to the buyer if, in turn, he submits the building inquiry based on the undivided plot, gets a positive answer, and then, for example, during the subdivision process, it turns out that encumbrances are necessary to ensure compliance with the development plan after subdivision? And these encumbrances would precisely prevent the intended construction?

That is why the question to the OP, whether and to what extent everything has really been legally verified.

If you buy pants, you try them on! And if not, then you have to see what you do. Maybe lose a few pounds. Or do you trust the seller when he says that they will definitely fit?

If I cannot try on the pants because they have not yet been manufactured (or because it is an online shop), but the seller offers me a money-back clause in my purchase contract if they do not fit, then why not?