From time immemorial, the issue of using a basement in an apartment building has been shrouded in neighborly disputes. This premises belongs to the category of common property of residents, who have the right to use it for their own economic needs, but not to the detriment of each other. It is worth noting that this is not the only restriction regarding the use of a basement in an apartment building. In this part of any high-rise building, engineering systems are located (sewage risers, heating mains and water supply).
In order not to seek advice from experts from housing and communal services, we will try to figure out on our own what the procedure for using a basement in an apartment building is.
Room for technical needs
It is possible to legally determine a place in the basement for each tenant. Since this part of the building is common property, apartment owners are interested in using it mainly for storing personal belongings and supplies. For many people, having a basement is an opportunity to stock up on bags of potatoes, preserves and jam for the winter. On the ground floor it is convenient to store car tires, skis, sleds, bicycles, strollers, rubber boats and many other things that have no place in the apartment and would not be desirable to clutter up the balcony.
Series 434
Houses of series 1-434 are a Belarusian modification of 1-447.
Layout characteristics
- Combined sanitary unit.
- Ceiling height 2.50 meters.
- There are four apartments on each floor.
- Some apartments additionally have balconies, built-in wardrobes, and storage rooms.
1-room
The total area of the one-room apartments is from 29-33 square meters, the living area is from 16 to 20 m2, the kitchen size is 5-6 m2.
Layout options by year:
2-room apartments
Two-room housing has a total area from 31 to 46 meters, a living area from 19 to 32 m2, and a kitchen area from 5-6 m2.
Layout options by year:
3-room apartments
Three-room housing has a total area from 54 to 57 meters, a living area from 37 to 42 m2, and a kitchen area from 5-6 m2.
Layout options by year:
Is it possible for residents to use the ground floor at all?
However, not every multi-apartment residential building allows residents to use the basement. Arranging individual warehouses on the underground floor is problematic if the building belongs to the old housing stock. The construction of such premises did not provide for the presence of special compartments reserved for the personal needs of apartment owners. The design features are that engineering communications in such apartment buildings are located on almost the entire area of the ground floor. The free part of the basement is not fenced off in any way, and therefore access is closed to homeowners. Only specialists from housing and communal services have the right to enter the compartment where utilities are located.
Law
In accordance with Article 36 Housing Code of the Russian Federation, all owners of housing are considered common owners of basement premises. They decide how to exploit its footage, being full owners. At the same time, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation has established a procedure for regulating the ownership of the ground floors of a house.
If previously the basement did not belong to common property, but was intended for individual use, then the priority of the right to it comes with the registration of rights to housing in the house.
That is, whoever first acquired square meters of property has the right to choose basement premises. Further, due to the advantage of earlier acquisition of real estate, residents occupy other plots.
In Art. 235 and Art. 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that apartment owners apply for use of:
- basements and other premises for the location of special equipment - attic rooms, extensions;
- interfloor areas, stairs;
- roofs, enclosing spaces;
- elevators, corridors.
The main thing is that the site does not have a special purpose.
Basements in new buildings
In the young housing stock, things are different. Here, as a rule, the need to provide residents with a separate room for personal needs is thought about during the construction of an apartment building. The procedure for using the basement in such a room is discussed by the homeowners, since they all have equal rights. At the same time, the right to operate engineering systems does not matter at all - communications in high-rise buildings remain in a closed part of the basement, therefore they are absolutely inaccessible and safe for residents.
You can find out about the arrangement of the underground premises in each house by seeking advice from the management company responsible for the operation of the building. Thus, the owners do not even have to go down to the basement to find out if they can arrange personal storage compartments for storing their own belongings. Depending on the layout of the basement, there are several solution options.
Basements of an apartment building: legal regime
The status of basements still worries owners of apartment buildings (MKD). It would seem that the issue of recognizing the right of common shared ownership of the “technical underground” (as basements are sometimes called) has already been resolved at the level of the Constitutional Court (Determination No. 489 O-O dated May 19, 2009).
However, practice has shown that not all apartment buildings require basements to be included in the common property. This article will discuss how to determine the purpose of the basement and its legal regime. Premises of apartment buildings and possible legal regimes According to paragraph 1 of Art. 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, owners of apartments in apartment buildings, by right of common shared ownership, own common premises, load-bearing structures of the house, mechanical, electrical, sanitary and other equipment outside or inside the apartment that serves more than one apartment. Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation gives a more complete picture of what belongs to the common areas of the house.
According to this norm, the owners of premises in apartment buildings own, by right of common shared ownership, premises that are not parts of apartments and are intended to serve more than one room in a given building: inter-apartment landings, stairs, elevators, elevator and other shafts, corridors, technical floors, attics, basements in which there are engineering communications, other equipment serving more than one room in a given house (technical basements).
It follows from these norms that a premises belonging to common property cannot be part of an apartment or other premises that is individually owned, and a part of the premises that is not separate from the premises belonging to the sole owner cannot be in common ownership. In turn, the premises as an object of law may be subject to the following legal regime:
– common property in an apartment building, and then the participants in the common property are all the owners of the premises in the house with the size of each share being proportional to the area of the premises belonging to each owner; – independent property that is in sole or common ownership, but on grounds not related to the intended purpose of the property as auxiliary and serving other premises. Explanations of the Constitutional Court As stated in the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 19, 2009 No. 489 O-O, premises that are not parts of apartments belong to the common property of the owners of premises in apartment buildings (including), if equipment intended to serve the needs is located inside them premises owners. Such premises do not have an independent purpose; they, like the equipment located in them, are intended to serve several or all rooms of the house.
At the same time, the judges noted that, in addition to non-residential premises belonging to common property, an apartment building may have other non-residential premises intended for independent use.
Such premises are immovable things - independent objects of civil rights. Their legal regime differs from the legal regime of premises established by Art. 290 Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 36 Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Looking ahead, we note that in Soviet-built houses (and older) it is not so easy to distinguish non-residential premises, endowed with an exclusively service function, from non-residential premises for independent purposes. Resolving this issue requires taking into account factual circumstances and is within the competence of arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly drawn attention to this (see rulings dated February 24, 2011 No. 137 О-О, dated December 16, 2010 No. 1587 О-О, dated June 17, 2010 No. 814 О-О, dated April 22, 2010 No. 472 О-О etc.).
Arbitration practice, which has been developing for almost two years since the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued Determination No. 489 O-O, to the surprise of the owners of premises in apartment buildings and their representatives, has shown that basement premises, historically intended for shoe workshops, pharmacies and other organizations and institutions, at first glance, no different from the same basement premises, not occupied by similar objects, for the most part do not belong to the common property of the houses. In new buildings, on the contrary, the legal regime for basements is more transparent and is most often determined by arbitrators as common shared property. Position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court The basement of a house is not technical by definition. The HOA, which represents the interests of some of the owners of premises in apartment buildings on the issue of recognizing the basement as common property, suffered its first major failure at the end of 2009.
By Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 15, 2009 No. 12537/09 , all judicial acts previously adopted in favor of the partnership were canceled, and the case on recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the disputed basement, formed on the area of former apartments and used for decades as an independent object real estate (to accommodate various institutions) was sent for new consideration. The reasons for making this decision were the following circumstances. Key moment:
The right of common shared ownership automatically arises only for technical basements, and not for any basement premises of the house. By virtue of the direct instructions of Art. 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the right of common shared ownership of homeowners arises not for any basement part of a residential building, but only for technical basements. The qualification of a basement as a technical room is determined, for example, by the need for constant open access to the equipment located in it.
The mere presence of utilities and equipment in the basement or its corresponding part does not provide sufficient grounds to consider this property a technical basement and, as a consequence, the common shared property of the homeowners. In addition, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court took into account that the disputed basement was formed from former apartments (due to which the question immediately arose about the possibility of access to communications located in the specified premises, and the need for it) and was used as an independent property even before the creation of the HOA and the emergence of ownership rights to apartments and rooms among the residents of the house. Signs of a “technical underground” Here we will talk about decisions that are positive for owners of premises in apartment buildings, based on the position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court presented above. Thus, in the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-30206/2010, the judges took the side of the registration authority, which refused to register the legal entity's ownership of the basement in which there was an electrical panel room, which was part of the common property of the house. Despite the fact that the organization acted as a shareholder during the construction of the house, including financing the construction of the basement, the court indicated that all participants in shared ownership must apply for state registration of the right to the common property of the house, in particular to the disputed basement.
Resolution No. A53-6270/2009 of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of North Kazakhstan Region dated December 20, 2010 satisfied the claims of the HOA for the basement, the construction of which was financed by the entrepreneur during the construction of the house and which was registered as the property of the entrepreneur upon completion of construction. The judges noted the fact that the disputed premises were not intended to house offices and were not put into operation as such.
The examination established the presence in the basement of sanitary equipment serving the apartment building, the use of which is impossible without constant access to the disputed premises. According to the project documentation, the disputed premises were recognized as a technical basement that did not have an independent purpose. Key moment:
A basement is considered technical: – designed as a technical basement, not having an independent purpose and not intended for independent use; – equipped with engineering systems and their control units, the maintenance of which requires constant open access of technical specialists; – not isolated from engineering systems and their control units.
Another example of recognition of the right of common shared ownership of a basement premises, which was leased without the consent of the owners of the residential premises of the house, is Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus Region dated August 10, 2010 No. A32-4632/2008.
The court, having examined the case materials, including the basement plan of the residential building, found that it contains the main pipelines of the heating system, hot and cold water supply systems, risers, pipeline inlets supplying the heating system of the house, shut-off valves and taps, pipelines of the sewerage system, and came to the conclusion: such a basement was not originally intended for independent use. It must be classified as common property of the homeowners.
Well, the latest court decision recognizing the basement as common shared property, to which I would like to draw your attention, is Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Ukraine dated March 15, 2011 No. F09-1144/11 C6. The judges were presented with an expert opinion, according to which the disputed basement of a residential building had:
–input with metering devices for the cold water supply system of all premises on the first floor and basement; –input with metering devices for the hot water supply system and heating system, designed to provide hot water and heat to the premises of the first floor and basement; – an installed supply and exhaust ventilation system, which ensures an organized flow of air (and its removal) into the premises of the first floor and basement; – a freight elevator and an elevator hall to it for moving goods between the first floor and the basement. Based on the information received, the judges came to the conclusion that such a basement could not be used independently. Its design and actual purpose is servicing, since it houses all control nodes for utility networks of the first and basement floors of the building, located in the basement, where unhindered access must be ensured. The basement room itself performs a service role and has an inextricable connection with the building as a whole, since it is not isolated from it.
The absence in the basement of a looped system of energy supply, heating, water supply and separate utility metering devices, according to the judges, predetermines its auxiliary purpose.
From the content of the above judicial acts, we can conclude that each dispute regarding the recognition of the right of common shared ownership of basement premises for the owners of premises in apartment buildings has its own nuances and its own reasons for its resolution in the interests of the homeowners. The general feature of all the cases discussed above is, firstly, that the disputed basements were not designed or formed subsequently as separate (including from communications and control centers) objects, and secondly, that in all the disputed basements In addition to utility networks, their control units were also located. Let us note that the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court in Resolution No. 12537/09 did not make any fundamental conclusions in this direction. They appeared later, in another of his resolutions (dated 03/02/2010 No. 13391/09). The basement is an independent piece of real estate. In Resolution No. 13391/09, using the example of the basement of a pre-revolutionary house, the characteristics of such a room as an independent object are formulated. So, when determining the status of the basement in similar apartment buildings, it is necessary to take into account that, according to clause 1 of Appendix 3 to the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 3020 1 , such state property objects as residential and non-residential funds were initially classified as municipal property, property of Moscow and St. Petersburg. From the moment citizens began to exercise the right to privatize housing, provided for by the Law of the RSFSR dated July 4, 1991 No. 1541 1, a residential building in which at least one apartment (room) was privatized lost the status of an object located exclusively in municipal ownership.
Therefore, the legal regime of basement premises, whether or not they belong to the common shared ownership of several owners of premises in such residential buildings, should be determined precisely on the date of privatization of the first apartment in the house. The right of common shared ownership of common property in such a house (in particular, the basement) arose only once - the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court points out: at the time of privatization of the first premises in the house. Subsequently adopted federal legislative acts (including Law of the Russian Federation of December 24, 1992 No. 4218 1 “On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy”, Temporary Regulations on Condominiums, Article 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) only confirm that homeowners already have a right common shared ownership of the common property of the house and clarify it, but do not generate the said right anew.
According to the arbitrators' findings, if as of the date of privatization of the first apartment the basement premises of a residential building were intended (accounted for, formed) for independent use for purposes not related to the maintenance of the residential building, and were not actually used as common property by the homeowners, then the right to common share There was no homeowner ownership of these premises. The remaining basement premises, not allocated for independent use, became the common shared property of the homeowners as the common property of the house. Key point: An independent real estate object is a basement designed or formed at the time of privatization of the first apartment in the house as an object intended for independent use.
This criterion, according to the arbitrators, does not contradict the statement that the premises in which utilities are located are a priori the common property of the homeowners. To determine the legal regime of such (separate) basement premises, the presence of engineering communications in them did not and does not matter, since they are located in each basement and do not in themselves give rise to the right of common shared ownership of homeowners for premises already allocated for independent use, do not related to the maintenance of a residential building. We were able to find several interesting examples of the application of Resolution No. 13391/09 in the practice of federal arbitration courts. Thus, by Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western Territory dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-48167/2009, the Homeowners' Association rejected a claim against KUGI for recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement, which, according to a certificate from the design and inventory bureau, has been recorded in the accounting documentation since 1977 as a shoemaker's premises workshop (former apartment). In 2003, this facility was reconstructed (its area was reduced due to the allocation of a water metering unit to a separate premises), as a result of which a secondary property was registered, in which there were no technical premises (ventilation chambers, water meters, switchboards, elevators, etc.). d.). In a similar way, the fate of secondary real estate objects (basements) was resolved in the resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-36543/2009, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated December 9, 2010 No. KG-A40/14250 10. For information: Owners of basement premises allocated as independent objects and used for shops, cafes, pharmacies, etc., are obliged, on an equal basis with other owners of the premises of the house, to bear the costs of maintaining the common property, regardless of whether they use such property. After all, these premises are also a constructive part of the apartment building (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Northern Territory of March 21, 2011 No. A56-7732/2010).
Regarding the placement of utilities in basements - independent real estate objects - there are also several interesting cases. In particular, the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-West District dated January 18, 2010 No. A56-9227/2008 states that the presence of cold and hot water supply and heating systems in the basement cannot serve as a sufficient basis for classifying this room as auxiliary, especially if there is a need for The constant use and maintenance of equipment located in the room for the needs of other rooms of the house has not been proven. Similar conclusions were made by the judges of the FAS UO in Resolution No. F09-3319/10 C6 dated May 12, 2010 regarding the fact that transit communications were located in the basement (central heating pipeline with heating devices, cold water supply pipeline, risers with shut-off equipment).
It should be noted that in practice there are cases when basements, visually identified as independent objects, are in fact not properly formed as such and therefore are subject to transfer to the common shared ownership of homeowners. A similar situation was examined by the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court in Resolution No. 44 G-99/2010 dated November 24, 2010. As can be seen from the case materials, the basement of a residential building, as well as, in fact, all the premises of this facility, were accepted into municipal ownership in the 1990s (according to the above-mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation No. 3020 1 ). However, at that time the basement was technical; its independent use was not determined. The disputed premises were reconstructed and put into operation as non-residential only in 2004, so the homeowners had every chance to register it as common shared ownership. This trial did not reach a logical conclusion only because the case materials did not provide documentary evidence of when the first apartment in this residential building was privatized and what the status of the disputed basement was at that time (according to indirect evidence - “technical underground”) , however, a precedent has been created, which is very important. The basement is an independent property for service purposes. The use of basements in apartment buildings is so diverse that it is sometimes very difficult to determine its legal regime, in particular in the case when the object is separate and has an independent purpose - servicing the residential premises of the house and nearby buildings (for example, heat supply ). Such premises, according to the judges of the FAS UO (Resolution No. F09-982/10 C6 dated 03/02/2010) , cannot be in common shared ownership. The controversial basement has been used to service several houses since the house was built. It initially had an independent purpose, was an object of technical accounting and registration and did not belong to the common areas of one residential building. In connection with these circumstances, the HOA was denied a claim for recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement premises, where the central heating point was located, the equipment of which was connected to the heat consumption systems of several nearby buildings.
As stated at the beginning of the article, the basement, depending on its characteristics, purpose, etc., can be either the common or the sole property of the owners of the premises in the apartment building. When determining the status of the basement of a house, it is necessary to take into account many factors: features of its design, dates and nuances of reconstruction and the formation of secondary real estate objects, the presence of communications, control units, etc. Obviously, in the process of establishing the listed facts, owners of premises in apartment buildings will need the help of experts and inventory services. But that's not all. If grounds for filing a claim in court for recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement are found, the owners of premises in the apartment building should take a responsible approach to preparing for the trial. It is necessary to hold a general meeting of owners and obtain their consent to file a corresponding claim in court, as well as authorize the partnership (management organization, other person) to represent the interests of the owners when considering the claim in court.
VAT – 2022
The best speaker on tax topics, , will prepare you for filing your return on January 14 . There are 10 out of 40 places left for the online workshop . The flow is limited, as there will be live communication with the teacher live. Hurry up to get into the group. Sign up>>>
The right to an individual place in the basement
Even if the underground floor does not imply the allocation of space for the household needs of residents, there is still a chance to arrange space for the owners of the building. You can allocate an area for storing personal belongings by equipping the ground floor yourself. Despite the presence of communications, the use of the basement in an apartment building is the prerogative of the residents. The underground floor is common property and belongs to the apartment owners, who have the right to dispose of the compartment at their own discretion. If, at a general meeting, residents of an apartment building express a desire to store jars of cucumbers in the basement or arrange storage for bicycles or car tires in it, nothing and no one can stop them.
What can apartment owners expect?
Citizens have the right to occupy the territory in the basement within the boundaries corresponding to their shares. The situation is somewhat different with the legal regime of the basements of an apartment building, which is considered a new building. In facilities being built today, the developer thinks in advance about how to equip them and use them with maximum benefit.
Any problems of apartment owners in a high-rise building, if they relate to major repairs and relocation of citizens from dilapidated housing, will be solved by the Housing and Communal Services Reform Assistance Fund. The housing and communal services hotline (8-800-700-89-89) is available around the clock, calls from anywhere in Russia are free.
Getting permission
The territory of the ground floor is indeed considered the property of the residents of the apartment building. Who determines the rules for using the basement? It is not worth starting construction without coordinating further actions with the management company, since redevelopment of the underground compartment requires obtaining permission to carry out the corresponding redevelopment. To obtain official approval from the management company, you must submit an application signed by all initiators of organizing the storage facility. At the same time, each of the applicants must understand that all costs for construction work and further maintenance of the constructed utility block will fall entirely on their shoulders.
What documents are needed
In addition, a whole package of documents must be attached to the application. It must be collected and provided to the management company in order to obtain permission to develop and redevelop a non-residential basement. The list of required documents includes:
- Technical passport of the residential premises.
- Redevelopment project.
- Documents confirming ownership – title documents.
- Consent in writing to carry out redevelopment from other owners.
It should also be remembered that without proper registration of permitting documentation, redevelopment cannot be started. Today, for residents of apartment buildings, a fine of 2-2.5 thousand rubles has been established. for carrying out illegal reconstruction of non-residential premises.
Things are a little simpler with those houses where the basement is equipped for storage. In this case, it is important to enlist the support of the owners and allocate a personal share of the underground floor.
Series 528
This series 1-528 was designed specifically for the northern climate zone; such houses can be seen in almost every district of St. Petersburg. Transitional model between Stalin and Khrushchev. There are several modifications with a bay window and simple balconies.
Characteristics
- Floors – 2–5
- External walls - brick or large-format brick blocks
- Ceiling height - 270–280 cm
Scheme
An example of the layout can be seen in the drawing below.
Advantages and disadvantages
| pros | Minuses |
| High quality window frames | Small kitchens and hallways |
| Good sound insulation | Adjacent living rooms |
| Availability of elevator and garbage chute | |
| High quality parquet |
Owners meeting
Regardless of the ultimate goal (obtaining a separate share in an existing basement or arranging an underground room and equipping individual storage compartments in it), the first point in your action plan should be to hold a general meeting of homeowners. All owners of privatized apartments must be invited to this event, and as for tenants under a social tenancy agreement, the owner must be notified. For example, in Moscow it is the Housing Department. The organization will send its representatives to the meeting. Each owner of an apartment building must be notified about planning general collections. In accordance with the law, information about the event should be provided no later than 10 days before the specified date. It is advisable to notify potential meeting participants in writing.
In addition to the exact date, time and location of the meeting, indicate the issues that will be considered. This may be necessary if the meeting is held in absentia and decisions have to be made by a majority vote. Otherwise, those wishing to challenge the voting results will have every chance of winning in court.
The agenda of a public meeting of residents must necessarily include questions about the creation of equipped storage compartments on the ground floor of the building and the redevelopment of the basement. If an underground utility block is provided for in the design of an apartment building, we are talking about dividing shares between the owners. The need to determine the composition of the counting commission to count the voting results is also indicated.
Series 464
The 5-story panel Khrushchev building is especially recognizable by the double-leaf window openings on the interfloor areas. The house of series 464 consists of solid reinforced concrete floors and partitions. The outer walls have a thickness of 21-35 centimeters.
Layout characteristics
- Five-story, rarely three or four-story buildings.
- The first floors are residential.
- The ceilings are 2.50 meters high.
- The layout of all apartments includes a balcony and a storage room.
Khrushchev building layout plans
The total area of the one-room apartments is from 30-31 square meters, the living area is 18 m2, the kitchen size is 5 m2. Dimensions of one and a half from 38 m2. Two-room housing has a total area from 30 to 46 meters, a living area from 17 to 35 m2, and a kitchen area from 5-6 m2.
In terms of planning qualities, two-room apartments do not differ significantly from each other. There are book-type apartments, in which the rooms are arranged sequentially, tram-type apartments with adjacent and corner rooms, butterfly or vest apartments with a kitchen room in the middle.
Dimensions of three rubles are 55-58 square meters, living area is 39-40 m2, kitchen is 5-6 m2. All apartment layouts include a combined bathroom.
Advantages and disadvantages
Positive and negative features of Khrushchev.
External walls have low thermal insulation.
Impossibility of redevelopment and major repairs.
The larger the living space, the more votes
After a successful meeting, rules for using the basement in an apartment building are established. Whatever conditions and demands the participants put forward, to make a decision, not only the number of owners is taken into account, but also the size of their possessions, i.e. living space. By the way, the meeting can be considered valid only if it was attended by the owners of the housing stock, who have a majority of the votes (more than 50%). So, for example, the owner of a three-room apartment has more votes than the owner of a one-room apartment. Otherwise, if 50% of the votes are not obtained, the meeting cannot be considered valid. Afterwards, absentee voting is carried out, about which participants will again have to be notified directly. The information sheet indicates the same issues being considered, as well as the exact time and address of the point of delivery of completed forms.
How is reconstruction carried out?
Any redevelopment or reconstruction in multi-storey buildings begins with obtaining permits. And the ground floor is no exception - especially if a new entrance is planned to be installed in it.
- Such permission is issued by architectural and construction supervision authorities. In addition, you will have to draw up, again with the consent of the owners, a cadastral passport for the plot that will be occupied by the entrance group.
- It is also impossible to determine the place for it by eye - you need to know exactly where the underground communications lie.
Construction of a new entrance will require permission
- Requirements that must be taken into account when developing a reconstruction project:
- Providing opportunities for the unhindered movement of people with limited mobility . That is, pits and other structures should not create obstacles for a disabled person in a wheelchair.
- You cannot deepen the floor level of the basement by excavating soil , as this can reduce the stability and load-bearing capacity of the foundation.
- Accordingly, it is prohibited to carry out any other work that could affect the reliability of the base of the building - including the completion of its protruding parts.
Basement self-capture: what to do?
There are also situations when new owners, trying to find a section of the basement storage that belongs to them, find out that there are no free spaces for them, since the basement has long been divided between the previous owners. In fact, this phenomenon is called illegal squatting and nothing else. Exhortations such as “the basement was equipped with our money, and therefore rightfully belongs only to us” have no legal force. According to the rules for using the basement in an apartment building, no matter what the composition of the owners, the technical floor in any case belongs to the category of common property, so each resident must have their own share. In this case, you must contact the management company and declare squatting. Next, the issue of allocating a share is decided at a general meeting.
Attaching a basement to an apartment
Once there was such a drinking spree. In order of nonsense: we live on the first floor, below us is a basement (very high), which is used by the residents of the entrance to store all sorts of odds and ends. Our closet is located directly under the apartment + a couple more closets that are not occupied by anyone (at least 20 meters). One day, drunken guests offered to occupy these closets, hollow out the ceiling, make a ladder and equip a sauna with billiards, blackjack and related attributes or a cinema under the apartment. What do you think, dear friends, is it really possible to bring to life the idea of adding a basement to an apartment (not necessarily for a sauna)? Seriously though, it’s possible, but it’s just not worth the trouble, IMHO. Basements and attics are the common property of residents. It can be rented with the consent of 2/3 of the owners of the entire house, by decision of the general meeting. After that, everything that is required: the project has been agreed upon, not just for a piece “under the apartment,” but as a reconstruction of the entire house (the basement refers to the technical documentation for the house, not the apartment). With all the charms, like Glavarkhitektura. Entrance from a private apartment is not allowed (cutting the ceiling will not be allowed).
How can tenants make money from their basement?
According to the rules for using the basement in an apartment building, homeowners have the right to equip the underground floor not only for personal use, but also based on general interests. Thus, a furnished basement can be rented out, for example, as a warehouse or store, and the income received can be divided among residents or used for landscaping the yard or home renovation. This is a fairly common way of earning money for partnerships consisting of housing owners.
At the same time, we must not forget that the use of a basement in an apartment building is permitted only for technical needs. It is prohibited by law to equip hotels or apartments for rent on the ground floors.
Definition of owners
Basements are often the subject of disputes over who owns them. Most often, such issues are resolved in court during a detailed consideration of the case. 36 Art. The Housing Code of the Russian Federation implies the provision of ownership rights to the residents of the house, subject to the privatization of their housing.
Under such conditions, it is the residents who decide how to use the basement spaces in an expression of shared decision making. The emergence of individual circumstances presupposes the emergence of controversial issues (for example, the use of a basement by an individual, according to documents drawn up in the 90s, when the house had not yet been privatized).
To recognize common owners as owners of the basement, certain conditions must be met:
- at the time of privatization, the basement should not be someone’s property by law;
- technical floor, other rooms do not have a special purpose;
- The basement is separated by a sufficient distance from residential apartments.
If the above conditions are met, the basement is considered the property of the residents of the house and without their permission, no manipulations (renting, exchange) can be carried out with this premises.
