Pazellenhäuschen without permit, get it approved retrospectively

You don’t go straight to the district building authority, but first to the municipality where the house should actually be known. And so far, nobody has done anything there. You speak just as honestly there as here, and then we’ll see if a door opens. So, if you came to me, and I had the feeling the man is decent and doesn’t want to pull anything over on me, for example I would establish a file loss—it can happen over 30 years—and then you just start again, although certain basic criteria regarding structural stability, supply and disposal would already have to apply. However, probably even the Cologne Cathedral has neither a building permit nor calculated statics nor a thermal insulation certificate.

If you came to me, I would look into the relevant building regulations and probably order the dismantling.

Illegal construction remains illegal construction ;)

Wouldn't something like that first need to be legalized as a weekend cottage?

As I said: It depends on many circumstances. If it's an outer area, probably not even a tool shed is allowed. Has anyone read the condition description of the OP in the other thread? I recommend a package of tongue-and-groove boards, a roll of roofing felt, a warm sleeping bag, and living in illegality. The insulation wool can be auctioned on eBay. Once the studies are finished and the first six-figure amounts flow into the account monthly, building consultation, demolition, and new construction.

Around here, there is a small illegal settlement. There are about 5-10 buildings that are not yet 100 years old but cannot be easily demolished. On the one hand, it must be clear that they are still inhabited, maybe not permanently but occasionally. They cannot be sold, but can be inherited within the family. The buildings may not be enlarged, but they can be renovated. Suppose you inherit the house and the land or a part of it. You register your residence there (it does have a house number, right?) and live there. Does he then have to leave if it becomes apparent that the building is illegal and the place has to be demolished (possibly at his own expense)? I don’t think so, at least not initially. I would invest the initial capital in legal advice that MAYBE can let sleeping dogs lie and provide clarity.

If you came to me, I would look into the relevant building regulations and would probably order the demolition.

Illegal construction remains illegal construction ;)

Egon, I cannot understand that. We do not have our offices to stick to principles or to annoy citizens, but to organize our coexistence and to shape it according to the law. If such a house, without knowing it!, has been standing there for a good 30 years and is therefore not secret, because it has always been clearly visible in broad daylight and still is and will be, if for 30 years neither injustice nor danger has arisen from this thing, so that no one felt compelled to poke around here, then why categorically take the hammer out, order demolition, and say it cannot be what cannot be? That is unrealistic and only feeds bureaucratic prejudices. Karsten

Egon, I cannot understand that. We do not hold our offices to cling to principles or annoy citizens, but to organize our coexistence and make it lawful. Now, if such a house, without knowing it!, has been standing there for a solid 30 years and thus is not a secret, because it has always been clearly visible in broad daylight and will remain so, and if for 30 years neither illegality nor danger has emanated from it, so that no one felt compelled to intervene here, then why categorically bring out the hammer, order demolition, and say it cannot be what must not be. That is unrealistic and only feeds bureaucratic prejudices. Karsten

Where do you draw the line where it must not have bothered anyone for 30 years, 10 years, 3 years, 6 months, 4 weeks, or are even 3 days enough?