Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
(OP)
Let us assume that a building was constructed with strip footings at a depth adequate for frost protection with a property line 2' from the face of the wall, the adjacent property was green at time of construction. Assuming that the adjacent property was then developed, but grade on the other side of the property was significantly reduced so that the existing strip footings do not have adequate frost protection anymore. Who would be responsible for a remedy?
What if the foundation wall was designed taking into account the beneficial effect of back-fill on both sides of the wall including back-fill beyond the property line, but the side beyond the property line has later removed most this back-fill that is within their property. The wall may not have been designed for this condition. Who would be responsible for a remedy then?
It almost seems intuitive that the designer of the existing building should take into account possible changes in grade in the adjacent property. But where do we draw the line? What kind of change on the green site would be so drastic that the onus is then on the green site owner to ensure that the structural/boundary conditions of the foundations of the adjacent existing structure does not change. Where do we draw the line if there is one?
Always wondered about this. Thanks!
What if the foundation wall was designed taking into account the beneficial effect of back-fill on both sides of the wall including back-fill beyond the property line, but the side beyond the property line has later removed most this back-fill that is within their property. The wall may not have been designed for this condition. Who would be responsible for a remedy then?
It almost seems intuitive that the designer of the existing building should take into account possible changes in grade in the adjacent property. But where do we draw the line? What kind of change on the green site would be so drastic that the onus is then on the green site owner to ensure that the structural/boundary conditions of the foundations of the adjacent existing structure does not change. Where do we draw the line if there is one?
Always wondered about this. Thanks!






RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
If the new building exposed the footings to frost, then it would be incombent for the new construction to remedy the matter... same with snow accumulation in the event the building is taller.
Dik
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
if it wasn't isn't it too late now ? "neigbour, you had your opportunity and didn't use it ... tough"
and if the house suffers frost damage, i'd bet that the insurance company would say the same (to avoid paying out).
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
now, if no permit was given, then i think it's "game on"
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
http://adjoininglandowners.uslegal.com/civil-pract...
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
I suppose these questions come up all the time when excavating foundations for tall buildings in heavy urban areas like New York. I have always wondered at the photographs of holes in the ground and the walls and piles all around to retain the existing foundations.
...like this one. I think it is the Shangri-La in Toronto.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
If 1) than the Owner is responsible. 2) Than the Engineer is responsible.
But as others has stated, it is really up to the AHJ's and lawyers as to which property owner is responsible. And you should not be asking this on an engineering forum.
Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
I got the code no. from web as I'm not at work. I could see a shallow footing on property line would restrict use of adjacent property if it limited reasonable excavation. I always thought 10' a bit much, though.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
I'm involved in one right now that the exterior face of one owner's building was being removed because it was actually the property of another owner who was demolishing his building (buildings were contiguous for over 75 years). Had a bit of a legal fight, but the demolishing property owner had to provide a restorative wall to the adjacent owner, even though that wall would be on the demolishing owner's property...in short, the demolishing owner had to protect the adjacent owner.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
if a permit has been granted i think (and i could Easily be wrong !) that that trumps by-laws, etc. there's a chance that an appeal might stop work, ie nobody paid attention to the plan's details and didn't noitice the impact to the neighbour. it does sound as though the impact is severe enough to allow this, but the suits will be flying ! ... existing neighbour vs new build, new build vs permit authority (if the original permit is over-turned), ... I don't know if the planning department reviewing the proposal should comment about the impact to the neighbour, or if they're limited to commenting "your plan violates boundary distance by-laws, you'll need a special permit".
no permit makes it much easier to challenge in court
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
"But the plans were on display . . ."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Chapter_1
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
Planning permission and/or permitting is not the law, but only an interpretation of the law. If you undermine an adjacent property's footings and that property suffers damage as a result, a permit will be no protection for you under the law.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)