Hypothetical question about property rights (structural related)

[GalileoG]

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!

 

[kylesito]

Actually, my opinion differs. I do not think it's the responsbility of the existing building's engineer to design for changes on adjacent property UNLESS those conditions were known or there was reasonable information available about the future uses. Certainly, a good design would include a few 'what-if' scenarios but those would need to be kept within reason of not overburdening a design with countless future possibilities.



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

 

[dik]

It might vary with jurisdiction.

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

 

[rb1957]

shouldn't this have been addressed during the building permit phase ?

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).

 

[JLNJ]

Normally required setbacks keep this from becoming an issue. If you have a zero setback property I bet you have some special laws to accommodate construction which is right on the property line.

 

[rb1957]

if planning permission was granted then doesn't that trump everything else ?

now, if no permit was given, then i think it's "game on"

 

[JStephen]

There was one of the Perry Mason books where he raised the issue of "Collateral Support", as I recall- in that case, the people were leveling off a hill such that their excavation potentially caused damage to a structure on adjacent property.

http://adjoininglandowners.uslegal.com/civil-practice-and-procedure-related-to-lateral-support/

 

[charliealphabravo]

Nevermind frost protection. Suppose the adjacent property owner excavates down to construct a basement and undermines the surface level footing of the adjoining building causing a collapse. Why would it be the responsibility of the original designer to anticipate the depth of excavation on the adjacent property?

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.

 

[woodman88]

For the Engineer I would say that it depends on what the Engineer was contracted to do. 1) To design a building placed here on the property per the current building code. Or 2) To decide where to place the building and design it per the current building, zoning, etc. codes.
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.

 

[hokie66]

I think the general rule is that the subsequent developer is responsible for protection of adjacent properties.

 

[PSlem]

27-1031(b)(1) provided that structures adjacent to an excavation site had to be underpinned or protected by other means by the "person causing the excavation" when the excavation was 10 ft. or more below curb level. In contrast, the adjacent property owner had to protect his own property when the excavation was less than 10 ft. below curb level.
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.

 

[Ron]

Agree with hokie66. An adjacent property owner can't cause detriment to your property in the course of development and construction. Look at property boundaries, cross-use agreements, easements and sharing of common land. One of those should give some legal direction for the case.

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.

 

[paddingtongreen]

Working in the city, existing is existing and the new builder must honor that. He had a chance to object when the original property was permitted.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[rb1957]

again, permit or no permit, that is the question.

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

 

[charliealphabravo]

hahaha, reminds me of a spot in Hitchhikers Guide where Arthur's house is being demolished to make way for a bypass...

"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

 

[rb1957]

exactly, what i was thinking too !

 

[hokie66]

rb1957,
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.

 

[Hoaokapohaku]

This sounds like a question for a lawyer rather than engineer. The answer will depend on the laws in the locality in question. Where I am, with very few exceptions, the structure 2' from the property line would be illegal and the owner of the adjacent lot could force the structure's owner to remove it.

 

[paddingtongreen]

The big exception is whether it was legal when it was built, either within the law or an exception granted by the authority.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[Teguci]

If I were the engineer designing the new foundation or excavation, I would adhere to a principle of "do no harm." I have had experiences where the adjacent property had to be supported. We've all heard of deep foundation contractors documenting local buildings so they don't get dinged for cracks that form in people's plastered living rooms. As for frost depth, many locations do not allow regrading that changes the flow of runoff or the property line elevations. I guess I could see a steep slope or retaining wall being placed adjacent to the property line, but that would not be something you can predict as the original designer.