My client bought property from a bank that had foreclosed on the previous owner. This town has many vacant properties due to foreclosure.
The property remained unoccupied for a considerable amount of time. So, the town building department claims the property must meet current zoning regulations. There is no way that this is going to happen.
I am advising my client to seek legal advice. There should have been knowledge by somebody prior to the sale that this would occur. I could see this coming during the telephone conversation I had with the client.
The building department is requesting a site plan. That is why the client contacted me in the first place. The site plan will show that the building and property does not meet current zoning. The client will be denied occupancy without a request for a variance to the current zoning bylaws. The variance will be denied. Finally, the client will not be able to occupy the property or even enter to do repairs.
Why is the bank allowed to sell this property knowing the outcome? This is fraudulent. Perhaps the bank is in collusion with the building department.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Neither. The buyer didn't do adequate research, or failed to retain someone who could. Buyer beware.
Steve
this is how people become shot.....
Due diligence is the responsibility of the buyer, not the seller.
Maybe the bank did it "legally" and it's buyer beware, but I would at least look in to whether this is a pattern. If I am buying a regular piece of property from another owner, they have an obligation to disclose problems or issues that they have knowledge of.
Your responses are predictable and I agree in general terms. However, these foreclosed properties are owned by a bank. Don't they have any ethical responsibility?
If I buy a product from a merchant that uses the same logic, it would certainly get that merchant a bad reputation. If you bought a new car and it did not work... then would you stoically accept your fate?
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Lawyer is the best step forward. Not sure where your property is but many areas likely have some protection from newer zoning rules for a pre-existing non conformance. I know sometimes "use" non conformities may lapse through a lack of activity, but the location of the structure has not changed. Statutes of limitations also may offer some help here too.
Jim in AZ, post: 450805, member: 249 wrote: Due diligence is the responsibility of the buyer, not the seller.
Spot on Jim.
If a buyer doesn't understand Due Diligence he or she should consult an attorney. The buyer in this situation is apparently a novice investor.
not my real name, post: 450809, member: 8199 wrote: Don't they have any ethical responsibility?
Absolutely not. Their only interest is unloading the property to recoup losses.
On the flipside, disclosure laws vary. Not only does the client need an Attorney, they need the RIGHT attorney...
The thing I'm having trouble with is why an "occupancy permit" is needed for an existing house. May I presume some major renovations are being proposed?
Mark Mayer, post: 450816, member: 424 wrote: The thing I'm having trouble with is why an "occupancy permit" is needed for an existing house. May I presume some major renovations are being proposed?
And if they are not changing the outside footprint of the house, even if the structure does not comply with zoning or setbacks, is it not an existing condition and grandfathered in?
The OP isn't real clear, but I suspect that this is a vacant lot that the building officials are insisting must meet the current regulations for a building permit. It runs 50/50 in this area for me. Some jurisdictions will go by setbacks listed on the plat or regulations in effect at the time the lot was created, others insist that new construction on old vacant lots needs to meet current requirements. Where they hold to the new requirements, variances can be had where the new requirements create a situation that will be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Stephen Ward, post: 450830, member: 1206 wrote: The OP isn't real clear, but I suspect that this is a vacant lot that the building officials are insisting must meet the current regulations for a building permit.
Well the OP did say "The property remained unoccupied for a considerable amount of time." which made me think it had to be previously "occupied", whether that means it had a house on it, I guess is not absolutely stated.
There is a reason there are many vacant properties due to foreclosure in this community. I would ask this question before I step up to the plate. Lets say that the property in question was a slaughter house (the op didn't say it was a residence) that does not meet current setbacks or other sanitary conditions. Why would the community vest the previous use?
Not enough information.
Tom Adams, post: 450831, member: 7285 wrote: Well the OP did say "The property remained unoccupied for a considerable amount of time." which made me think it had to be previously "occupied", whether that means it had a house on it, I guess is not absolutely stated.
Good point. The OP also doesn't mention whether the property is residential or commercial. I've never seen them try to make an existing residential structure meet current requirements unless the building footprint is being modified. Even in that case, the variances for existing portions of the building are nearly automatic (just have to go through the motions). Commercial is a completely different case especially in zoning where the specific use can change the required parking or setbacks. I had a recent case where a property that had housed a furniture business for 50+ years was bought by a couple after being vacant for a short while. They were planning on starting a gym. The difference in the use triggered all sorts of requirements. They needed more parking, the fire marshal required sprinklers due to the use, and because they needed a building permit, the city required that I combine all of the various tracts that the building occupied into a single recorded lot.
I think the main trick here is that (at least in this town) the property containing a former residence had been foreclosed and remained vacant for a period of time. That period of time will allow the building department to deny access unless the property complies with current zoning bylaws. This will be impossible because the building (a house) was constructed long ago when the zoning bylaws were different than they are now. The access is denied for occupancy, and for maintenance. Virtually all of the residential properties that were foreclosed during the economic crisis would be inaccessible through this restrictive zoning bylaw.
If the current ownership had remained the same then the use would be an existing non-conforming property. The period of time that it remained vacant triggered the zoning bylaw that make it necessary to comply with the current version of lot area, building setbacks and other rules. I have learned that some of the town officials are struggling with this. Before the economic crisis it made more sense as a means of ensuring the safety of individual property owners. Now after the end of the economic crisis investors are looking for properties. They will wind up looking elsewhere and avoiding this town completely.
I don't see the benefit to having a slew of derelict properties that are owned, but, not occupied. Maybe they are still collecting the tax dollars and that is all that matters to them. There is nothing unsafe or unsanitary about the property.
In summary it is and was a residence, now vacant and needing repair. The owner would like to occupy it as a residence. There are other similar situations in this town. If the lending institution is in the business of selling foreclosed properties to unwitting buyers (for whatever reason) that will never be able to be occupied (as a residence) then there is a serious ethical problem with the lending institution.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
not my real name, post: 450809, member: 8199 wrote: Your responses are predictable and I agree in general terms. However, these foreclosed properties are owned by a bank. Don't they have any ethical responsibility?
Bank and ethical in the same post. HA HA HA
Sounds like they have some unintended or unforeseen consequences from a rule meant to deal with dilapidated properties. Locally I think they have to condemn a property to prevent occupation in a residential situation.
Edit: Someone needs to point out that if they keep this rule in place that they'll end up with a bunch of unmarketable properties. Then the banks/owners will sue, or if the value isn't there, everyone will walk away and the county will end up taking them for back taxes eventually. Not a good situation for sure.
You don't think they'll be able to get variances granted for existing nonconformities? If he's not making any changes why wouldn't they grant the variance(s)?