Building your home

[Topaz]

I found this article and I wondered what the views on this forum would be if they caught themselves in the same position as this couple in Nfld. They started to build a house when the house inspector found they were more on their neighbours property than their own and they council put a stop order on it. So now they pay the $25,000 to the neighbour OR tear it down and start over, which would you do? My first thought was to give the money to the neighbour, then I thought what kind of relationship would you have with them in the future, but it would be the easiest and faster way to build the house and one could always sell it afterwards. IF, I was the neighbour, I let them have the inches. Thoughts? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/9-cm-error-turns-dream-home-nightmare-couple-090719734.html

[Guest Manny]

I found this article and I wondered what the views on this forum would be if they caught themselves in the same position as this couple in Nfld. They started to build a house when the house inspector found they were more on their neighbours property than their own and they council put a stop order on it. So now they pay the $25,000 to the neighbour OR tear it down and start over, which would you do? My first thought was to give the money to the neighbour, then I thought what kind of relationship would you have with them in the future, but it would be the easiest and faster way to build the house and one could always sell it afterwards. IF, I was the neighbour, I let them have the inches. Thoughts? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/9-cm-error-turns-dream-home-nightmare-couple-090719734.html

I didn't read the details but heard about it on the radio. The zoning rule was clear and they were given an exception from the city to be a few inches closer to the line than the rules set by zoning laws. But "they" made a mistake, and went even closer to the property line. If the mistake was made by the contractor, go after them.

But if not, I'd consider moving the wall away from the property line. Tear the wall down, supporting the structure with scaffolding and rebuild it. It might cost the same, but I wouldn't give money to the neighbour.

[guyser]

I dont think you would just give the land over without compensation topaz, in fact I can almost guarantee it.

When an apparaisser tells you, down the road, that you would be able to get $50,000+ more for your house if you didnt have the neighbours house on your property .....yea, I will take the cash thanks.

The problem and it didnt touch on in the article, is that the surveyor will be coughing up that cash pretty soon I suspect. They couldnt have started without a survey .

Move the house the reuired distance, down the road the options are even more expensive. The legal hassles in the future are not worth it.

[wyly]

distance between homes is critical to meet fire code, they're lucky the get the option to payout and not tear down...if it can be determined who was at fault either the surveyor, basement contractor or general contractor need to cover the cost...

Edited July 31, 2012 by wyly

[GostHacked]

That would have to be an agreement between the two parties. If the other person accepts compensation then everything can be easily solved. Some agreement can be made to satisfy both parties.

[WWWTT]

They started to build a house when the house inspector found they were more on their neighbours property than their own and they council put a stop order on it. So now they pay the $25,000 to the neighbour OR tear it down and start over, which would you do?

This is false.

Depending on the structure and zoning by laws for the area,there are set backs for different types of buildings.

From the limited info provided from the link it sounds like a residential area,single family detached home(size and style?)

The foundation of the structure must be built on the property with minimum distances between the front border,sides and back.Also to/from septic tanks,filter beds and bodies of water.There can be also a number of other restriction imposed by the municipality,regions,districts and even covenants imposed when in a specific sub division!

Anyways the link says that the home builder built this house,on his own property 9cm to close to one border.

Sounds like the guy forming the footings made a mistake or the surveyor.I doubt that this guy had it properly surveyed before hand since surveyors check their work over many times.

Many things are not known like the size of the lot?

Ultimately the builder/owner is on the hook.

However he can make the claim that the inspector did not do his due diligence when he inspected the footings as he should have before the concrete was poured(first inspection).

Either way the neighbour sounds like a stiff.But who knows maybe its the builder/owner(not enough data)?

WWWTT

Edited July 31, 2012 by WWWTT

[Guest Manny]

Right, that's how I understood it. Which makes me wonder why he should owe the neighbour anything, since he is not on the neighbours property. He's in violation of the city zoning law.

[WWWTT]

I should also add that it sounds like this guy was building his house to close to the one side in question.

When I build a house I always find the iron surveyor pins(app. 2' hammered into the ground with only a few inches exposed and in most cases very difficult to find without a metal detector and with a million mosquitoes stinging you to death in the bush!)

After finding the pins(If I can't,I,will get a surveyor) I clear the bush so I have visual from pin to pin and stretch a dry line(sting).

Then using a spray can and orange steaks I lay out the footings general footprint for the excavator operator to dig.

I always stay well clear of my set backs in case of error.

Sounds like this owner did not allow for error.

Or he tried to build a house that had dimensions that did not suit the lot?

I would apply for a variance with the municipality.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Right, that's how I understood it. Which makes me wonder why he should owe the neighbour anything, since he is not on the neighbours property. He's in violation of the city zoning law.

When the builder/owner applies for a variance,notice must be given to the immediate neighbours.

A sign is usually posted in front at the road(and letter in the mail) with info and contact info.

If no neighbours call then the zoning /building department usually give the green light(especially if it is only 9cm).

But if the immediate neighbour adjacent to the border in question complains then the department must enforce!

However if the building inspector did not do his inspections properly during the footing forms inspection then I do not know how this can go?

With limited info I can only make guesses.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

It sucks when neighbours find themselves in this sort of mess. The legal issues are one thing but so are any hard feelings that might develop. When I amalgamated 8 lots into an eventual subdivision of 4 the guvmint simply pocketed the portion that it's road trespassed on.

A kiss would have been nice before getting screwed but I guess that's just how some "neighbours" roll.

[wyly]

Right, that's how I understood it. Which makes me wonder why he should owe the neighbour anything, since he is not on the neighbours property. He's in violation of the city zoning law.

it can affect property value, if it's included on a disclosure form for resale buyers can and will likely use it as a negotiating tool forever depressing the value of both homes so the neighbour will be punished for something they did not do...as well it can create issues with insurance(fire) which I'm confident is the reason here, insurance company's have little if any tolerance for building violations when it comes to payouts...a home I worked on 40 years ago had the same issue, building code required homes to have a minimum distance between them to delay fire from spreading between them...the outside wall was the required distance from the property line but the roof overhang brought the homes too close to each other, we solved the problem by cutting a 1ft off the roof... Edited August 1, 2012 by wyly

[guyser]

it can affect property value, if it's included on a disclosure form for resale buyers can and will likely use it as a negotiating tool forever depressing the value of both homes so the neighbour will be punished for something they did not do.

Agree on that front.

..as well it can create issues with insurance(fire) which I'm confident is the reason here, insurance company's have little if any tolerance for building violations when it comes to payouts...a home I worked on 40 years ago had the same issue, building code required homes to have a minimum distance between them to delay fire from spreading between them...the outside wall was the required distance from the property line but the roof overhang brought the homes too close to each other, we solved the problem by cutting a 1ft off the roof...

But i have no idea where you are coming form on this one.

Insurance companies dont check up front for code violations, just for shoddy work or hazards that exist and are visible.

Is there more to this than you posted?

[wyly]

Agree on that front.

But i have no idea where you are coming form on this one.

Insurance companies dont check up front for code violations, just for shoddy work or hazards that exist and are visible.

Is there more to this than you posted?

building code violations are shoddy work...if the violation is on a disclosure and they see it they can deny fire insurance, no fire insurance and you won't be able to get a mortgage...the insurance can be denied if there is a fire if they find there was a known building code violation, this can affect both homes insurance...whether the insurance company finds out or not is a risk, if there is a fire the owner is also gambling on whether he/she will be paid out after the insurance company investigates, quite a gamble for the average homeowner with 400K invested in their home...if I was me I wouldn't accept my neighbours error if it threatens my homes value or insurance, good relations with my neighbour isn't worth my 600K investment...

here's another insurance issue, if you put in a claim for water damage in your home you take a risk mentioning "mold", once insurance hears that scary word you can have your policy cancelled until you remediate the entire home a potential cost of 100k or more, and every insurance company will know about it as they share info on customers and your policy has been red flagged...

[guyser]

building code violations are shoddy work...if the violation is on a disclosure and they see it they can deny fire insurance, no fire insurance and you won't be able to get a mortgage...the insurance can be denied if there is a fire if they find there was a known building code violation, this can affect both homes insurance...whether the insurance company finds out or not is a risk, if there is a fire the owner is also gambling on whether he/she will be paid out after the insurance company investigates, quite a gamble for the average homeowner with 400K invested in their home...if I was me I wouldn't accept my neighbours error if it threatens my homes value or insurance, good relations with my neighbour isn't worth my 600K investment...

Not generally true at all.

The fire code violation would have to have a direct cause on the fire occuring, and for that there are other remedies at play, including subrogation against the builder (but normally not since the builder will have closed the co. that built the house leaving only a shell)

The insurance company can decide to not replace the shoddy part that caused the fire, but the fire damage to the rest of the house is covered, and almost never can be denied. Ins Co's know this, and know its best to pay the damn claim than to waste time in court. There would have to be an egregious error or moral hazard or a grossly negligent change in material risk for them to decline......and even then they have to pay.

The attainment of a mortgage comes before the insurance. The mortgagor will of course want proof of such on closing day but that is normally not a problem.

The physical relationship of a neighbours house will not have any bearing on the insurance if the neighbours house does not in and of itself have any hazards that may present a problem. Just being close isnt one of those. Think row housing, condos, apts, all insurable but perhaps at varied rates.

here's another insurance issue, if you put in a claim for water damage in your home you take a risk mentioning "mold", once insurance hears that scary word you can have your policy cancelled until you remediate the entire home a potential cost of 100k or more, and every insurance company will know about it as they share info on customers and your policy has been red flagged...

The ins co wont hear that word since water damage reports are just that. If there is mould growing then it is obviously a maintenance problem that justifies denying a claim.

Mould resulting from a sudden and accidental escape of water cannot be denied. What can be denied is water escape and resultant mould that occurs in the heating season. So in winter if someone goes away for more than 4 days any water escape (and mould) that occurs can be denied unless a competent person checks on the home every 48 hours and keeps details of the visit. This can be as easy as a neighbours kid (prob should be 14 or more) going into your house, note the temp, time of day and date, recorded in a dollar store notebook and you are good to go.

If the water is seeping in, no claim.

If the water comes through the window frame, no claim

If the water comes through the cieling because someone shouldhave fixed the obviously worn shingles,no claim.

Think sudden and accidental for a claim to be paid. It cannot be used as a maintenance package.

Edited August 1, 2012 by guyser

[wyly]

Not generally true at all.

The fire code violation would have to have a direct cause on the fire occuring, and for that there are other remedies at play, including subrogation against the builder (but normally not since the builder will have closed the co. that built the house leaving only a shell)

my neighbours home being to close to mine would be the direct cause if fire spreads from his home to mine and vice versa as well...

The insurance company can decide to not to replace the shoddy part that caused the fire, but the fire damage top the rest of the hosue is covered, and almost never can be denied. Ins CO's know this, and know its best to pay the damn claim than waste time in court. There would have to be an egregious error or moral hazard or a grossly negligent change in material risk for them to decline......and even ten they have to pay.

it comes down to individual insurance company's they're not all alike they weigh the options and whether it's worth while denying coverage...I've had experience with an insurance company cancelling polices over only 3k...you're taking a huge gamble trusting any company to pay up when you're into figures upwards of 3-400K, you don't know what your insurance provider is really like until it's time to pay up...

The attainment of a mortgage comes before the insurance. The mortgagor will of course want proof of such on closing day but that is normally not a problem.

how is that not a problem? if you don't have home fire insurance you won't get a mortgage...

The physical relationship of a neighbours house will not have any bearing on the insurance if the neighbours house does not in and of itself have any hazards that may present a problem. Just being close isnt one of those. Think row housing, condos, apts, all insurable but perhaps at varied rates.

row housing, condo's apts have fire breaks and such which homes do not have and fire insurance will reflect that...

The ins co wont hear that word since water damage reports are just that. If there is mould growing then it is obviously a maintenance problem that justifies denying a claim.

If the water is seeping in, no claim.

If the water comes through the window frame, no claim

If the water comes through the cieling because someone shouldhave fixed the obviously worn shingles,no claim.

Think sudden and accidental for a claim to be paid. It cannot be used as a maintenance package.

if I hadn't just recently dealt with this I might agree but sudden breaks can remain hidden in walls and under floors promoting mold...and adjusters from the insurance company didn't need to hear of the mold from anyone because they came in and did a personal inspection, "twice"...I hid the mold on the advice from an air quality control engineer who deals with mold and insurance companies on an ongoing basis...check out the insurance requirements for remediation on a grow op home, they're very extensive, expensive and there's no insurance until all insurance requirements are met...

[guyser]

my neighbours home being to close to mine would be the direct cause if fire spreads from his home to mine and vice versa as well...

Fire spreading from a neighbours home to yours, close or not, will not result in any denial of coverage to your house.Matters not if it is a less than a foot to 50 yards or more.

it comes down to individual insurance company's they're not all alike they weigh the options and whether it's worth while denying coverage...I've had experience with an insurance company cancelling polices over only 3k...you're taking a huge gamble trusting any company to pay up when you're into figures upwards of 3-400K, you don't know what your insurance provider is really like until it's time to pay up...

All companies have underwriting rules,true,but once the policy is issued they cannot as a general rule deny coverage unless there was a material risk not disclosed.

Cancellation is a whole'nother ballgame and can be done based on claims , but not normallybased on one $3k claim unless it appears that there is more wrong in the house than they want to cover. Having a claim is not cause for cancellation , but is casue to lose the claims free discount (typically 15%) which then looks like an increase and is for all intents and purposes.

how is that not a problem? if you don't have home fire insurance you won't get a mortgage...

Virtually every house can be insured. It all boilss down to premium.

row housing, condo's apts have fire breaks and such which homes do not have and fire insurance will reflect that...

Actually, plenty of them do not have any fire break. Think older homes built in the 60's or earlier including row housing in inner cities. Not normally a problem in outlying areas since the density need not be sought.

A small minority of homeowners dont carry damage insurance on their homes, but they do carry liability. People of means figure why bother when I can pay for any damage myself? May not agree but there ya go.

if I hadn't just recently dealt with this I might agree but sudden breaks can remain hidden in walls and under floors promoting mold

Then by definition it is not a sudden break. That would be a leak and should be covered by yourself through maintenance.

...and adjusters from the insurance company didn't need to hear of the mold from anyone because they came in and did a personal inspection, "twice"...I hid the mold on the advice from an air quality control engineer who deals with mold and insurance companies on an ongoing basis

The first thing you should have done was investigate the leak and mould yourself, do a cost analysis vs the deductible and then read the policy as respects sudden and accidental. Calling a broker is a wise thing to do, but only to discuss, but never never ever call a direct writer company and ask about water damage and mould as they are instructed to start and report a claims right then and there.(besides, they work for the comapny and a broker does not)

...check out the insurance requirements for remediation on a grow op home, they're very extensive, expensive and there's no insurance until all insurance requirements are met...

If an ins co discovers they are on risk at a grow op, they are off risk immediately.

If they discover after a claim, they are able to vooid the policy, not deny a claim, they deny the policy existed in the first place.

The remediation of a grow op can be sever, but normally it is not a bad form of mould to deal with. The mould exists only because of the increased humidity present in the house. Dry it out, cut out that which needs to be and replace the drywall etc and you are good to go.

Yes it is expensive , or rather can be, but not prohibitive for many cases.

Once that is all done,most insurers will come back on risk.

Edited August 1, 2012 by guyser

[WWWTT]

it can affect property value, if it's included on a disclosure form for resale buyers can and will likely use it as a negotiating tool forever depressing the value of both homes so the neighbour will be punished for something they did not do...as well it can create issues with insurance(fire) which I'm confident is the reason here, insurance company's have little if any tolerance for building violations when it comes to payouts...a home I worked on 40 years ago had the same issue, building code required homes to have a minimum distance between them to delay fire from spreading between them...the outside wall was the required distance from the property line but the roof overhang brought the homes too close to each other, we solved the problem by cutting a 1ft off the roof...

You are assuming that the neighbours house is also only that 1.35m(or whatever the minimum distance) from the border directly across.

We do not know this.Do you?

In southern Ontario I have seen houses very close together and the spread of fire was never a concern.When the land has more value,the lots get smaller and allowances get tighter.

I doubt that something like a variance would ever show up on a title search.Or maybe it does,I do not know?

And keep in mind that different regions have different rules.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

All of this fuss over 3 1/2 inches? I sure wouldn't care. What difference could it possibly make?

Edited August 1, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

I doubt that something like a variance would ever show up on a title search.Or maybe it does,I do not know?

And keep in mind that different regions have different rules.

WWWTT

Yes, it is suppose to show up on a title search . It will also have the legal doc's attached to show that both parties agreed.

[guyser]

All of this fuss over 3 1/2 inches? I sure wouldn't care. What difference could it possibly make?

Well, it could very well affect one down the road.

As a neighbourhood gets older and or more established the value goes up. If the neighbour decides he wants to build near his lot line ..legally...he may find he cannot do so because of the proximity to his neighbours.

Once something is left untouched for a time (normally 20 yrs) one gets an established right as it was never contested. This too could pose a problem.

an example would be my cottage road. All my neighbours have access across our neighbours property.Effectively I drive across my neighbours lawn (made out of gravel now mind you) and my neighbour does the same thing across mine. We cannot restrict access in any way shape or form since it has existed since Hurrican Hazel (1958 IIRC) forced us to reverse access from a previous (and now washed out section)

All cool right? Our cottage was bought in 1974 w a value of $40,000, much the same value as the rest of the neighbours. Summer homes only and all that.

But....3 yrs ago my neighbour sold for just shy of a million dollars. The buyer wanted, in writing, that access was guaranteed , even though we all expressed no concerns to drive on our lane since we always have and always will do so.

It was forced on all 7 neighbours to pay for a survey on each property to show the lot lines and easement restrictions/access. Approx $3500 for each of us.

And that survey we had done? We all had a surprise thinking that 'our prop line is here, not there?"

My neighbours septic tank is jutting into his neighbours lot, turns out someone not on our lane but abuts it has had our lane migrate onto his property. Luckily we all kind of shrugged and said that it is not what we thought but at the end of the day it really doesnt change anything since we use it like we always have.

Now it works since we all get along, but sooner or later one of them will create a stink, and if an easement restriction is sought, we could all be in a world of hurt.

So, getting back to the point....as the value of your property increases , the risk of those inches becoming a hazard could play out. And guess what....it will occur when you are trying to sell and you will be forced to correct it either thru cash or moving said problem. Its the worst thing to happen at the worst time.

Edited August 1, 2012 by guyser

[wyly]

You are assuming that the neighbours house is also only that 1.35m(or whatever the minimum distance) from the border directly across.

We do not know this.Do you?

In southern Ontario I have seen houses very close together and the spread of fire was never a concern.When the land has more value,the lots get smaller and allowances get tighter.

I doubt that something like a variance would ever show up on a title search.Or maybe it does,I do not know?

And keep in mind that different regions have different rules.

WWWTT

and building codes change over time in the same location, what was okay 60,40, 20 even 5 yrs years ago may no longer acceptable,...often things are grandfathered but new renovation can open up a can of worms as inspectors in some cases demand everything be upgraded to new building codes...

again depending on region I can see variances being included on title searches, everything is recorded it's just a matter of amount of due diligence that's required by realtor/lawyer/buyer...

[WWWTT]

Yes, it is suppose to show up on a title search . It will also have the legal doc's attached to show that both parties agreed.

Thank you.

WWWTT

[wyly]

So, getting back to the point....as the value of your property increases , the risk of those inches becoming a hazard could play out. And guess what....it will occur when you are trying to sell and you will be forced to correct it either thru cash or moving said problem. Its the worst thing to happen at the worst time.

ya...I had a friend who raised hell because his neighbour built a masonary wall on the property line which was allowed but he built it an inch to far over into my friends property...he complained to the city and demanded the wall be ripped down, I told him he was being a dick and it served no purpose but he insisted and the wall was torn down...was it the right thing to do? I dunno I would've let it go but maybe for the sake of future resale and other unforeseen problems he did the right thing...

[wyly]

and did this slip my memory...in my last home I shared a drive with my neighbour for years with no issues then he sold and moved into a smaller condo... the new neighbour for some unknown reason decides to build a fence on the drive which left me with 7'9" wide drive the tension between us was high to say the least since I could no longer access my garage...only the intervention of her brother-in-law a city building inspector saved the day, explaining to her what she was doing would devalue both our properties if I was unable to sell mine for top dollar(which was true)....she relented and took down the fence, I sold and got the hell outta there asap...lesson there was I should've paid the previous neighbour for a permanent use of small section of his drive not counted on a future neighbours good will...

not having side by side drives was high on my list of priorities when I bought my new home...

Edited August 2, 2012 by wyly

[WWWTT]

All of this fuss over 3 1/2 inches? I sure wouldn't care. What difference could it possibly make?

And you could be right!

That is why I am suspicious of what may have occurred.

I have heard of people actually move surveyors iron pins back and forth.(Do not ever do this because it is a criminal offense!)

Sounds like the builder/owner may be a very abrasive person?Or maybe the neighbour is pulling a scam?

There was a lot listed for sale that I recently checked out in the Kawarthas.The legal description puts it at roughly 150'width x260' deep.Two neighbours,one on the east,one on the west.The one on the west had his lot properly surveyed with extra steaks to mark the borders,in the fall the owner is building a house.The lot on the east was developed 20-30 yrs ago.I measured the depth of the listed property along the property line with the west property-no problem there.However on the east property border I could not find the adjacent rear corner pin.The front pin east border pin I found as well.

However the front width only measures roughly 102' from iron surveyors pin to iron surveyors pin.I mentioned this to the real estate agent selling the place and he told me to just get title insurance if I was to buy the place.I sense a neighbour from hell on this one and will probably not put an offer in.

WWWTT