I recently did a survey for a client who had just purchased a home in town. He said he was told that it was a zero lot line, so he was surprised to find out that he actually had 3.5' side lines on both sides of the house. I told him you hear the term "zero lot line" in this area pretty often referring to properties like his, which actually are not zero lot lines. Is this how large homes on small lots are referred to in other areas, or is it just here?
I thought this usually referred to setback requirements, or condominium property lines with common walls.
For this area it refers to zoning.
R1 - 5' minimum setback required
B1 - 0' setback allowed. It doesn't mean the building is going to be on the line, just that it could be.
My thought, which is apparently the same as my client's, is that it means the wall of the building is placed directly on the property line. In his case, that would not be allowed because the plat shows a 3.5' side line.
Does the roof overhang 3.5'?
No, it overhangs about a foot. It goes into the setback but not to the property line. The planning commission allows that.
Around here I've seen the term used for a lot line that runs trough the party wall of a duplex.
> He said he was told..., so he was surprised to find out...
You mean a buyer believed "his" real estate agent, and it wasn't true? I am SHOCKED!!!
sometimes there is a landscaping easement favoring the neighbor so you get the effect of zero lot line without true zero lot line.