Peculiarities of buying an old house in a village or an apartment in a building recognized as dilapidated or in disrepair: nuances of transactions

Is it possible to sell dilapidated housing or not?

The owner of housing recognized as unsafe is not deprived of his rights to real estate after a verdict is passed on the dilapidation of the building by the interdepartmental commission. This means that the owner of an apartment or house has the right to carry out any actions, including resell square meters. It is important to remember that housing is considered unsafe if the wear and tear of load-bearing structures, walls or roofs is dangerous to the life and health of residents. If the house is recognized as unsafe, then citizens can count on relocation.

Dilapidated housing - what is it? Legally, this is a different term, although it is considered together with the above in Federal Law No. 185 “On Dilapidated and Disrepair Housing”. Sometimes owners of dilapidated properties are offered relocation, but renovations are also possible. In the article we discuss only the actions of the owner of emergency housing. There are two options - sell your apartment, house, or wait for an offer to purchase the housing space from your city or rural administration.

Attention! After concluding an agreement on the purchase of housing by the municipality, the owner cannot dispose of the apartment, including transferring rights to it to third parties. After all, from this moment on, the city administration already owns the housing.

Official website of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prohibited taking additional payments from displaced persons from dilapidated houses: compensation by citizens for the difference between the cost of seized and provided housing is not provided for either by federal legislation or by the regional targeted program.

The crux of the matter

A dispute between residents of the Arkhangelsk region and local authorities has reached the highest authority. The applicants were required to make an additional payment for the apartment into which the plaintiffs were supposed to move from emergency housing. Officials explained their demand by the difference in market value between new and dilapidated real estate.

According to the case materials, the administration considered that the apartment building in which the applicants lived needed to be demolished, since it was recognized as unsafe. In connection with this, the parties entered into an agreement on the seizure of the old apartment and the provision of new housing. In the same document, the administration prescribed the obligation of displaced persons to pay approximately two million rubles - the difference between the market value of the provided and seized residential premises.

The owners expressed disagreement with the additional payment and challenged this requirement of the contract in court and even received support during the proceedings in the first instance. The court indicated that since the house was recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition and was included in the regional targeted program, and the plaintiffs chose a way to ensure their rights by providing new residential premises in their ownership instead of the unsafe one, therefore, the administration’s demands to pay the difference in price are illegal. In connection with this, the district court ordered the authorities to provide the plaintiffs with living quarters.

However, the appellate court overturned this decision, citing the norms of housing legislation on the obligation to pay the difference in price: in the absence of an agreement between the parties and in the case of provision of residential premises worth more than the purchase price. The regional court considered that since the applicants did not agree with the wording of the agreement, it means that the parties did not reach an agreement on the conditions for the seizure of real estate from them and the provision of a new apartment.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court did not agree with this interpretation of the laws.

Position of the Armed Forces

The Supreme Court reminds that in accordance with Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to housing and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of it.

In order to create safe and favorable living conditions for citizens, as well as improve the quality of housing and communal services reform, the legislation establishes the legal and organizational framework for providing financial support to constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities for major repairs of apartment buildings and the resettlement of citizens from emergency housing stock, the Supreme Court points out.

He recalls his legal position set out in the review of judicial practice in cases of housing rights of citizens dated April 29, 2014: if a residential building is recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition, then the owner of the premises in such a house has the right to provide another housing property or ransom

“At the same time, the owner of the residential premises has the right to choose any of the above methods of ensuring his housing rights,” notes the Supreme Court.

The regional resettlement program regulates that after August 1, 2013, payment for the difference in area between the housing being resettled and the housing received is carried out at the expense of the fund and the regional budget.

If the cost of residential premises being purchased or under construction exceeds the cost of resettlement, it is paid for from the local budget of the municipality on whose territory the apartment building being resettled is located, the program provisions say.

The rights of those displaced from dilapidated housing are also enshrined in the relevant code, the norms of which also determine that owners receive either new housing or a buyout for old unsuitable property.

“Citizens evicted from residential premises in a dilapidated apartment building that belong to them by right of ownership are given the right to choose, in accordance with Article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, to receive compensation for the residential premises seized from them or, by agreement with the owner, they are provided with another residential premises.

Thus, neither federal legislation nor the regional targeted program establishes an additional payment by citizens moving from residential premises in a dilapidated apartment building for the difference between the cost of the seized residential premises and those provided again,” the Supreme Court emphasizes.

In this connection, the judicial panel for civil cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation canceled the appeal ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court (definition No. 1-КГ19-9).

Alice Fox

Pros and cons of such an acquisition for the new owner

When a new owner becomes the owner of an apartment in a dilapidated building, all the rights of the former owner are transferred to him. The municipality conducts its own negotiations with each owner of an apartment in an old building.

According to Article 87 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, families living in such buildings are subject to resettlement. The municipality also has the right to enter into a deal with the owner to purchase the housing space. Its assessment will take into account the average cost of one square meter.

It is profitable to buy an apartment in disrepair if the owner offers you a significant discount. In this case, you definitely can’t go wrong – you will either receive an apartment in a new building, the market value of which will significantly exceed the funds spent, or compensation. Before purchasing, we advise you to check whether the house is included in the targeted relocation program (read about the conditions for relocation from emergency housing here).

The Supreme Court ordered the provision of equivalent apartments instead of emergency ones

Natalya Fedorova* owned a 25-meter one-room apartment on the second floor of a high-rise building in the city of Kasimov, Ryazan region. In November 2003, the commission recognized that the house was in disrepair and should be demolished. The city administration approved the procedure according to which it was going to move residents to new apartments. Fedorova was also offered new premises, but she refused it. The new housing was significantly inferior to the previous one in terms of area, location, and characteristics. The apartment was located on the ground floor and was a corner one, it had central heating rather than individual heating, as in the previous one, and the walls were covered with mold.

The administration was unable to reach an agreement with the owner of the apartment, and the case went to court. Officials sought the right to take the apartment and pay in return its market value - 214 thousand rubles. The first instance upheld the claim; the decision was upheld on appeal. Thus, from the date of payment, Fedorova’s ownership of the apartment ceased, and the administration became the owner.

The courts confirmed the legality of the decision to seize the land plot on which the dilapidated house is located. And since Fedorova herself refused to enter into an agreement and receive a new apartment, the premises can be forcibly purchased using Art. 32 LCD. The courts did not take into account Fedorova’s arguments that she did not refuse an equivalent apartment, but only rejected a worse option.

The Supreme Court protected the apartment owner. The Collegium for Civil Disputes, chaired by Judge Igor Yuryev, in the ruling on the case (case No. 6-КГ17-8) confirmed that it is possible to seize an apartment in a dilapidated building in the case where the land plot under an apartment building is seized - such actions are allowed for state and municipal needs . But there is a nuance: “providing compensation for part of the residential premises is permitted only with the consent of the owner.”

If the house is included in a regional targeted program for the relocation of citizens from emergency housing stock, then the owner of the home has the right to choose money or another comfortable apartment to own. Fedorova preferred the second option. And the fact that the premises turned out to be unequal does not mean that she refused housing in principle, the Supreme Court concluded. The panel sent the case for a new trial at first instance.

The owner has the right to receive an equivalent comfortable living space that meets all the necessary criteria. The size of the total area and the number of rooms in the new apartment must be no less than in the previous one. New housing must be comfortable, comfortable and have either similar or improved living conditions. For example, 18 sq.m. should be provided for 1 person.

Nadezhda Popova, lawyer at Pavlova and Partners.

In practice, there is no uniform approach to whether the owner should be offered an equivalent residential space or whether it can be smaller - with an additional payment up to the purchase price, notes Olga Benedskaya, partner at Muranov, Chernyakov and Partners. Courts often believe that the Housing Code does not guarantee the owner exactly equivalent housing, since the law, namely Part 8 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code, such an obligation is not prescribed. But if we are talking about a social rent agreement, Art. 89 residential complex, which talks specifically about equivalent housing, says Benedskaya. As an example, she cites the appeal ruling of the Tula Regional Court dated February 28, 2013 in case No. 33-492.

The ruling of the Supreme Court in the Fedorova case does not provide a detailed interpretation of the norm of Part 8 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, but still it was concluded that the residential premises provided in exchange for those seized must be of equal value. And the claim for redemption is satisfied only if the owner of the apartment refuses a truly equivalent replacement. Such a legal position can be included in the review of judicial practice so that the courts do not make decisions that are contrary in meaning.

And for the owner who is being evicted, it makes sense to obtain a report from an appraiser who will compare the characteristics of the previous housing and the one proposed in its place.

Olga Benedskaya, partner at Muranov, Chernyakov and Partners.

*The name and surname of the participants in the process have been changed by the editors

• Irina Kondratyeva

• Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

What should owners of private old properties in villages and cities do?

In the village, the commission that must inspect the house also meets after the owner’s application. It must indicate: “I ask you to recognize the house as unfit for living” and attach documents indicating ownership of the dilapidated house and the plot on which it is located. The state does not impose additional restrictions on the owners of such houses, however, resettlement programs in small towns are being implemented more slowly. And the owners use the unsuitability of their main home mainly as an argument for obtaining an apartment (when will a decision be made about the unsuitability of the house and what documents will be needed?).

If the house is not included in the targeted resettlement program, then the city government has no obligations to its residents, and you will not receive compensation/new housing. You need to clarify the timing of the program. In some cases, you have to wait several years - this is a common reason for owners’ decisions to sell their home. To receive funds immediately, even in smaller quantities, and not wait for an apartment for years.

If we are talking about replacing an apartment with another, the owner can buy housing profitably with a rather modest discount, because the new apartment can be located in a well-developed area. However, there is also the other side of the coin - sometimes housing is provided in poorly developed areas, and you have to wait a long time for it.

Reference! A deal with local authorities seems less risky, the main thing is that the starting price of the apartment is lower. Agree with the owner and receive a significant bonus.

Pros of purchasing an apartment:

• Opportunity to make a profit by concluding a buyout agreement.
• Opportunity to obtain housing in a new building under the relocation program.

Disadvantages of purchasing an apartment:

1. Long wait for an apartment.
2. Low assessment of the apartment when purchased by local authorities.
3. New apartment in an area with poor infrastructure.

NTVP "Kedr - Consultant"

LLC "NTVP "Kedr - Consultant" » Services » Legal consultations » Housing: purchase and sale, maintenance, payment » What can the owner of a room in an apartment building get if the house in which his room is located is being demolished?

Print

The applicant owns a room in an apartment building; the house is currently being demolished.

Question: What can the owner of a room in an apartment building get if the house in which his room is located is demolished?

Lawyer's answer.

The rights of the owner of residential premises in connection with the demolition of a house are regulated by Article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

According to Part 5 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a residential premises subject to seizure, from the moment of the state decision on its seizure until an agreement is reached or a court makes a decision on the purchase of the residential premises, can own, use and dispose of it at his own discretion.

Redemption price of residential premises, terms and other conditions of redemption, as established by Part 6 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, are determined by agreement with the owner of the residential premises. At the same time, Part 7 of this article provides that when determining the redemption price of residential premises, it includes the market value of residential premises, as well as all losses caused to the owner in connection with demolition and relocation, including losses that he incurs in connection with a change in place of residence , temporary use of another residential premises before acquiring ownership of another residential premises, relocation, search for another residential premises to acquire ownership of it, registration of ownership of another residential premises.

By agreement with the owner, he may be provided with another residential premises in exchange for the seized residential premises, with its value included in the redemption price.

If the owner of the residential premises does not agree with the decision to repossess the residential premises or an agreement has not been reached with him on the redemption price of the residential premises or other conditions for its redemption, the state authority or local government body that made such a decision may file a claim in court for the repurchase of the residential premises .

Thus, Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation establishes 2 methods of compensation to the owner for demolished residential premises: the purchase of premises in connection with the seizure of a land plot for state or municipal needs and the provision to the owner, by agreement with him, of another residential premises with its value offset against the redemption price.

At the same time, the owner has the right to buy out the residential premises by law, while the provision of another residential premises in replacement of the seized one is possible only by agreement of the parties . This means that the parties can only agree on the provision of other housing. The relocation authority does not have the right to forcibly, including in court, provide the owner with another residential premises, and in the same way, the owner of the seized residential premises does not have the right to demand that he be provided with other housing.

The legislator included in Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation also contains provisions regulating the procedure for confiscating residential premises located in an apartment building from the owners if the house is declared unsafe.

Thus, according to Part 10 of this article, the recognition, in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation, of an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction is the basis for the body that made the decision to recognize such a house as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction to present a demand to the owners of the premises in the specified building for its demolition or reconstruction within a reasonable time. If these owners do not carry out the demolition or reconstruction of the specified house within the established period, the land plot on which the house is located is subject to seizure for municipal needs, and accordingly, each residential premises in the specified house is subject to seizure, with the exception of residential premises owned by right property to a municipal entity, in the manner prescribed by Part. 1-3, 5-9 tbsp. 32 of the Code.

If, in relation to the territory on which an apartment building is located, recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction, a decision is made to develop the built-up area in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on urban planning, the body that made the decision to recognize such a house as unsafe is obliged to submit owners of premises in the specified house require its demolition or reconstruction and set a period of at least 6 months for filing an application for a permit for the construction, demolition or reconstruction of the specified house. If such an application is not submitted in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation on urban planning activities by the owner or owners of the apartment building within the established period, the land plot on which the specified house is located and the residential premises in the specified house are subject to seizure for municipal needs in accordance with Part 10 of this article (Part 11 of Article 32 of the RF Housing Code).

Finally, the seizure of the land plot on which the apartment building is located, recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction, and residential premises in such a building before the expiration of the period specified in Part 11 of this article, in accordance with Part 12 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation is allowed only with the consent of the owner.

In practice, the owners of seized residential premises are provided with other residential premises, and not the value of the seized housing. Moreover, the issues of providing these other residential premises are resolved for the most part in court.

If the value of the residential premises transferred in exchange for the seized housing is lower than the price of the vacated property, then the difference must be paid to the owner. However, if the cost of the provided residential premises is higher than the redemption price of the seized housing, then it is unacceptable to oblige the owner to pay the difference.

This opinion is based on the explanations given by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 48pvO2 of April 2, 2003. Although these clarifications were given regarding the application of the norms of the old housing code of the RSFSR, they remain relevant today, especially since the new housing legislation also does not impose an obligation on the owner of the seized residential premises to pay the difference.

In this Resolution, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of lower courts, which considered that a citizen must pay the difference in the cost of residential premises if the apartment provided is more valuable, since such an obligation, according to the courts, follows from the norms of civil law governing the exchange agreement. In this case, according to the courts, it is necessary to take into account the norm of paragraph 2 of Art. 568 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that in the event that, in accordance with an exchange agreement, the goods exchanged are recognized as unequal, the party obligated to transfer the goods, the price of which is lower than the price of the goods provided in exchange, must pay the difference in prices immediately before or after fulfilling its obligation to transfer goods, unless a different payment procedure is provided for in the contract. However, these court conclusions are based on incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law.

The legal relations that arise are regulated both by the norms of civil legislation on the procedure for the implementation and protection of ownership of residential premises, and by special norms of housing legislation that provide for the procedure for providing residential premises to citizens who, for one reason or another, have lost their housing. It should also be borne in mind that the rights of owners of residential premises and members of their families, due to the special significance of the constitutional right of citizens to housing, are protected by the norms of not only civil, but also housing legislation.

Since the demolition of a house violates the legal rights of apartment owners and members of their families, these persons have the right to demand the restoration of their rights in full by providing equivalent housing without establishing any counter-obligations to bodies and organizations obliged to restore the housing rights of these citizens.

In the case of demolition of a house, there arises not a relationship under an exchange agreement based on freedom of contract (Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), but a relationship based on the obligation of the bodies and organizations carrying out the demolition of the house to provide the owners of the demolished housing with other equivalent residential premises. However, the law does not establish the obligation of the owner of apartments in a demolished building to compensate for the difference in the cost of the housing he rents and the housing provided to him.

Providing the owners of seized residential premises with other housing, rather than the redemption value of the seized property, is caused by the reluctance not only of the authorities confiscating housing to provide compensation in exactly this way, but also of the evictees themselves, who, taking into account the peculiarities of Russian real estate pricing and the fact that the cost of housing is calculated based on of square meters, they fear that with the money received as ransom they will not be able to buy housing equivalent to the one seized.

According to paragraph 7 of Art. 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the redemption value consists of several components.

1. Market value of the seized residential premises. This value is assessed by professional appraisers. As a general rule, the responsibility to assess the value of residential premises should rest with the relocation authority. If the owner does not agree with the results of the assessment, he has the right to make such an assessment independently and at his own expense. Disputes regarding the amount of compensation must be resolved in court. In this case, in order to comply with the law and the rights of the parties in civil proceedings, the court is obliged to order a forensic examination of the value of the seized residential premises. If there is no dispute between the parties regarding the value of the residential premises, assessed by the relocation authority in pre-trial proceedings, the court must accept this assessment. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that the assessment should be carried out no more than 6 months before going to court (clause 20 of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 6, 2001 No. 519 “On approval of assessment standards” (as amended on December 14, 2006 G.).

2. Losses that the owner incurs in connection with a change in place of residence. In particular, if the new place of residence is located further than the previous one from the place of work or study of the owner, the cost of travel to the place of work or study increases for him.

3. Losses associated with payment for the use of other residential premises before acquiring ownership of other housing. For example, the owner of the seized residential premises will be forced to rent an apartment.

4. Losses associated with relocation. For example, payment for transport services, services for loading and unloading things, purchasing furniture instead of built-in furniture according to an individual project.

5. Expenses borne by the owner of the seized residential premises in connection with the search for another residential premises for living, including for the acquisition of its ownership. These expenses may include payment for real estate services, payment for placing advertisements in newspapers, etc.

6. Losses associated with registration of ownership of another residential premises. For example, the amounts required to pay for state registration of such a contract for the sale of residential premises.

7. Losses incurred by the owner of the seized residential premises as a result of the early termination of his obligations to third parties. For example, the owner rented out residential premises and, by virtue of the contract, agreed to pay the tenant moving expenses in the event of early termination of the contract.

8. Lost profits. Lost profits in civil law mean lost income that a person would have received under normal conditions of civil transactions if his right had not been violated (Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In relation to the loss of residential premises, lost profits can be understood as the amounts that the owner would have received in the form of payment in the event of renting out this premises, if the rental agreement had not been terminated as a result of its withdrawal. Or, for example, the cost of a major overhaul of a house that has not been carried out, since if it had been done, the apartment would have cost more.

Prozorova Ksenia Petrovna

The consultation was given in November 2015 as part of the “Professional Lawyer 2015” competition

What difficulties may arise?

The new owner of the apartment will only be able to find out the approximate time frame for the implementation of the resettlement program. No city administration can guarantee that relocation or repurchase will take place on time; force majeure is possible, which increases the waiting period.

You should weigh the pros and cons before making such a purchase. Often the specific area where apartments will be provided becomes known later. This deprives a potential buyer of the opportunity to objectively assess the benefits of such a purchase in advance.

Owners of maternity capital will not be able to invest public funds in dilapidated housing, since the law states that the house must be suitable for living.

Important! Difficulties also arise if it is necessary to obtain additional funds for such a purchase - banks are very reluctant to lend for transactions with emergency housing. And if a loan is nevertheless provided, it is complete with expensive insurance of square meters.

Registration of the contract

The obvious and main advantage of purchasing an apartment in an old building that is being prepared for demolition is the opportunity to get for it in the future, when resettling, housing that is more profitable in various respects. Building standards have changed significantly in recent decades, and it is possible that instead of a two-room “Khrushchev” apartment of 45 square meters, you will get a more comfortable “kopeck piece” in a new building with an area of ​​70 m².

In accordance with the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the seizure of housing due to the emergency condition of the house, the interest of the state or city municipality in a building or land plot, is accompanied by the provision of compensation for living space, without infringing on the rights and interests of the owner or tenant. Moreover, this can be either square meters or monetary compensation in the amount of the market value of the seized apartment. All expenses for finding an alternative, completing the transaction, and moving are borne by the state.

In parallel, purchasing an apartment in a building for demolition gives you the right to get on the waiting list to improve your living conditions. Although often residential buildings that are about to be demolished are not outright “ruins.” If we take into account that the initial cost of old apartments in dilapidated buildings is in any case lower (up to 25%), then their purchase takes on the features of a profitable financial investment.

However, such a decision does not always promise 100% success. You cannot be sure that resettlement will take place, even if its dates have already been announced. Many factors can change urban development plans, from protracted litigation in case of dissatisfaction of the owners of seized apartments with the proposed replacement options, to a financial crisis in the country or an individual development company.

Until an agreement on the seizure of real estate is concluded between the authorities and the residents of the house designated for demolition (and it is not a fact that this event will happen at all), you will have to spend money on maintaining a more or less livable condition of the dilapidated apartment. Even if you do not live in it personally, but, say, rent it out (the rent in such “apartments” a priori cannot be high).

In addition, you need to be aware that the state is trying to “save” in the process of providing housing when demolishing a house. For example, the rule stating the equivalence of new housing and seized housing in relation to the number of rooms can be observed; the provided apartment will have sufficient total area, but the residential one will not. And the law in these circumstances will not be violated, although in fact the owner of the new home will lose square meters of usable space due to a spacious loggia or unnecessary storage room.

This also applies to the calculation of the cash equivalent (intentional underestimation of the purchase price of housing). Thus, it is a mistake to believe that buying an apartment in a building for demolition will certainly bring profit. There are risks of being “stuck” in a dilapidated house for a long time, and when receiving compensation, you will not receive what you expected (wrong area, square footage, layout, etc.).

If you want to “play the lottery,” let’s find out on what basis municipal authorities decide to demolish old houses and resettle their residents.

Transfer of funds

Payment can be made at the time of signing the contract or the act of acceptance of housing. The parties themselves agree on how the money will be transferred; both cash and non-cash payments can be used.

The safest way to ensure that the owner receives the agreed amount is by bank transfer.

In Russia, the sale of dilapidated housing can be beneficial both to the owner who does not want to wait for resettlement, and to the buyer hoping to make a profit.

If you have decided to buy an inexpensive old house in the village, then we can please you - the law allows such transactions, and their algorithms differ from generally accepted schemes in only a few nuances. All purchase and sale processes can begin after the property is recognized as unsafe.

Compensation for residents upon demolition of a house

So, the official decision to liquidate the residential property has been made, and the main question comes to the fore: what kind of apartment will they be given when the house is demolished? Several options for the development of the situation are possible, depending on whether you are the owner of the apartment (the housing is privatized) or live in it under a social tenancy agreement.

Having a privatized apartment in a building for demolition, you have the right to count on the provision of equivalent comfortable housing, with the same number of rooms, no less in size. Ideally, in the same area (in practice, this does not always work out).

If the option proposed by the municipality suits you, the apartment becomes your property under a purchase and sale or exchange agreement. When an agreement cannot be reached, the owner is entitled to monetary compensation in the amount of the market value of the “old” housing. It should include all expenses for moving, searching for a new home, its legal registration, and even lost profits (for example, in case of early termination of obligations to third parties). The payment is made in cashless form, on a targeted basis, the money can be spent on purchasing an apartment of the optimal format. In some cases, it is possible to agree with the city administration on the payment of the redemption value of the lost living space in cash.

Compensation to shared co-owners of apartments in buildings subject to demolition occurs in a similar manner. The share of each of them is not allocated separately by dividing real estate. Co-owners receive common housing, equal in living conditions and cost to the previous one. Or, by agreement with the municipal authority, the cash equivalent, which can subsequently be divided in proportion to the size of the shares of the co-owners.

It is more difficult to resolve the issue when an apartment in a building for demolition is purchased with a mortgage. The creditor bank must be involved, since any manipulations with the collateral real estate are carried out only with its consent. But no bank has the right to dictate terms to the government, and the demolition of the house, if planned legally, will be carried out. Finding a new apartment that simultaneously meets the requirements of the owner-borrower, bank, and insurance company is very, very difficult; it will take a lot of time. Additionally, it is necessary to renegotiate the mortgage agreement and draw up a new payment schedule. Usually, in order to avoid such red tape, before issuing a loan for the purchase of an apartment, banks check whether it is located in a building that is in disrepair and subject to resettlement (or with the prospect of such events).

Otherwise, the declared procedure for providing housing during the demolition of a house to citizens who are social tenants of the seized real estate. In this case, comfortable housing is provided, without taking into account the cost, equivalent to the previous one in terms of total footage, within the boundaries of the corresponding locality. With the written consent of the evicted person, the provided residential premises may be located in another area of ​​the subject of the Russian Federation appearing in the case.

Persons in need of improved housing conditions and those on the waiting list are provided with housing during demolition in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Each registered family member is allocated at least 18 m²; children of different sexes over 14 years of age and unmarried persons are legally entitled to separate rooms. If the previous housing was isolated, relocation to an alternative communal living space is unacceptable. Those who lived in communal apartments before resettlement will most likely also be offered options with “sharing”.

There is an opinion that it is better to privatize the apartment before demolishing the house. Let's try to find out if this is really so.

Buying an apartment in a building “to be demolished”: can you count on free relocation in 2021?

With the advent of the federal state program “Housing” in 2002 and a number of related bills, the process of resettlement of unsuitable real estate has accelerated significantly. Simultaneously with the targeted housing renovation project, the demand for real estate in dilapidated and unsafe buildings has increased. Buyers began to willingly purchase apartments “for demolition” in order to eventually receive the keys to a comfortable apartment at a price below the market average.

However, in 2021, amendments were made to the Federal Law on the Resettlement of Dilapidated Housing Federal Law No. 185, designed, according to legislators, to speed up the resettlement of those citizens who really need new living space. Due to new legislation, housing “to be demolished” will soon cease to be a profitable investment for many owners. What is changing in the program for the resettlement of emergency and dilapidated housing and is there a chance to get an apartment for free after 2021?

Which apartments are recognized as emergency or dilapidated housing?

According to the current rules, an apartment building can be considered unsafe if most of the property has worn out and become unusable:

• for stone buildings - 70% wear;
• for wooden buildings - 65% with a probability of building collapse due to defects in supporting structures.

For a house to be considered dilapidated, the housing must have one or more characteristics:

• Significant deformation or damage to the foundation;
• Lack of windows for the required amount of natural light;
• Lack of electricity, hot and cold water, central heating (each apartment in the building is heated by the residents independently);
• High content of toxins identified as a result of toxicological examination.

Also subject to resettlement are houses located in environmentally unfavorable areas or in areas with special conditions prohibiting development. For example, if the house is located in an area with an increased likelihood of landslides, flooding, avalanches, etc. Even one of the listed shortcomings gives the owners the right to file an application to recognize the housing as unsafe and demand resettlement.

At the request of the owners, a commission is formed that assesses the technical and sanitary-hygienic condition of the building. Members of the commission make a decision on recognizing the status of emergency housing or draw up a reasoned refusal of the application.

It is important to understand that only houses with emergency status are definitely resettled. If the assessment commission determines the condition of the house as “dilapidated housing,” the building can be reconstructed or included in the capital repair program.

What kind of housing can you count on under the state program “Housing”

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 675 of September 17, 2001 “On the federal target program “Housing” for 2002-2010” marked the beginning of the mass resettlement of dilapidated and dilapidated houses.

The goal of the program is to provide Russian citizens with safe, comfortable housing. Therefore, legislative norms initially established a number of restrictions that made it difficult to intentionally purchase dilapidated housing as an “investment in a future new building.” Such restrictions, for example, include a ban on the purchase of emergency apartments using maternal (family) capital. In addition, credit institutions are not always willing to approve a mortgage loan for the purchase of emergency residential meters or include expensive insurance in the contract.

Since the beginning of the state program, the resettlement of owners of emergency housing has been subject to the following rules:

1. The order of occupancy of an apartment building depends on the year the emergency status was recognized and on the degree of threat of collapse.
2. The apartment owner is offered three or more suitable housing options to choose from. The personal wishes of citizens regarding their place of residence are not taken into account.
3. Refusals to be provided with premises on a suitable territory are not grounds for refusing to move into an apartment you don’t like (Part 3, Article 16 of Law No. 185-FZ of July 21, 2007). If none of the apartments are satisfactory, the owner of the emergency property, by court decision, can be relocated or receive compensation.
4. The allocated apartments are purchased either on the secondary housing market or in new buildings at the final stages of construction. The housing provided must meet the following requirements:

• Located within the administrative boundaries of the settlement.
• Suitable for living, meets all sanitary, epidemiological, hygienic and other requirements;
• Connected to communications (electricity, water supply, sewerage, heating), equipped with minimal plumbing equipment, a kitchen stove.

Resettlement from emergency housing stock is carried out at the expense of the federal and regional budgets, that is, residents of unsuitable houses for habitation acquire new property free of charge and entirely at public expense.

The timing of the state program was postponed several times from 2014 to a later date. Currently, the state resettlement program according to the original rules has been extended until September 31, 2018. After this date, residents of emergency buildings will face significant changes.

Reorganization of the resettlement program: what will change after September 2018

The new resettlement rules apply to real estate declared unsuitable for habitation after October 1 of the current year. The main condition that comes into force is the principle of relocation with additional payment. Owners of emergency housing lose the opportunity to move into a new apartment for free: after resettlement, citizens will be required to make up the difference between the lost and provided real estate through monthly payments to the state budget until the new apartment is completely purchased. For property owners whose houses are recognized as unsafe before the beginning of October, relocation conditions will apply free of charge.

According to future changes, it is planned to allocate apartments first to residents who have no other place to live. Owners of apartments in a dilapidated building who own other residential real estate are the last to receive the right to resettlement. If it is reliably established that the owner of the dilapidated housing permanently resides in another place, instead of new residential property, he will be paid compensation for the lost housing.

An advantage of the new rules is the right to choose the location and area in which the new property will be located. At the same time, deterioration of living conditions during resettlement from dilapidated housing is not allowed. The allocated premises must correspond in size to emergency housing, while meeting standard state standards for living space - 18 m² per person. The same rule applies to the presence of communications in new housing - heating, gasification, water supply.

For those citizens who cannot or do not want to pay extra for moving to a new apartment, a social rental program has been developed on favorable terms while retaining the right to choose their area and place of residence.

Low-income and large families, pensioners and disabled people receive social housing on a non-profit lease basis with subsequent purchase. Beneficiaries will only need to pay utility bills on time. Tenants without preferential status are required to pay monthly rent in the amount of up to 70% of the apartment's market rent.

Additions to the government program make it much more difficult to obtain new residential property. However, legislators expect that the new housing standards will help, first of all, to provide housing for people who really need a comfortable and safe apartment.

How will the apartment building be settled?

Despite all the restrictions, citizens still have a chance to buy an apartment in a dilapidated building with the right to receive free housing. To do this, before concluding a transaction, you need to check whether the house is included in the resettlement program and the date of inclusion in the list.

1. The first way to clarify the status of a residential building is to familiarize yourself with the targeted program approved by the regional administration for the implementation of the state program “Housing” in the subject of the federation. This document must contain the following information:

• The total area of ​​the emergency housing stock and the list of specific houses subject to demolition or reconstruction.
• Timing for the relocation of citizens from each individual house included in the list.
• Amounts of funds allocated for the implementation of the program, indicating sources of financing and justification for the amount of financing.
• Listing of all possible methods of resettlement of citizens, incl. the planned cost of the premises provided and the possible amount of compensation for the seizure of housing from the owner.

The program is published in the public domain, so you can find out the status of the selected apartment building on the website of the local executive authorities.

1. The Internet portal “Housing and Communal Services Reform” in the “Resettlement of Citizens” section contains a list of regions of the Russian Federation. Here you can view general data on the emergency housing stock in a specific subject of the federation, information on the timing of resettlement at a specific address.

The “Major Repairs” page contains information about dilapidated housing that is planned not to be resettled, but to be reconstructed. Additionally, on the website of the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation, you can check whether the selected house is on the list of the resettlement program, as well as familiarize yourself in detail with the conditions of the federal program or ask a clarifying question through the feedback form.

1. The owner of the apartment is obliged to warn the buyer that the property being sold is located in a dilapidated or dilapidated building. In this case, the owner must have a proposal to sign an agreement on the seizure of housing, a notification to the assessment commission, or a court decision on the resettlement of an apartment building.

At the same time, a clause is included in the purchase and sale agreement stating that the buyer is warned about the status of the house and the upcoming resettlement. Otherwise, the buyer will be able to claim that he was misled and the transaction may be declared invalid in court. In addition, signing a purchase and sale agreement is not permitted if there is an official decision affecting resettlement:

• A court ruling was made on the forced eviction of the owner of the premises.
• The seller managed to sign a waiver of new housing or compensation for the apartment.
• The owner has already entered into an agreement with the municipality on exchange for a new apartment or payment of compensation in the amount of the purchase price.

Before starting the search for suitable housing “for demolition”, the buyer should carefully assess all the risks of buying a distressed apartment. Despite the noticeable results of the state resettlement program, transactions with unsuitable real estate do not guarantee obtaining a new apartment at a reduced cost.