Another land title Q, Houses listed on Unit Titles?

[OnTheMove]

Ok another similar to cross lease.

What is the deal here. Coming across a lot of Houses with land and clear delineated fenced areas, with 2 Homes on 1 title which is designated as Unit?

What are a persons rights in that situation?

I think RE agents are either flappn lazy or flappn dodgy, surely not both? It use to be culturally said bankers and lawyers, I think RE Agents top the list now days as most unliked professionals.

[artemis]

Does this site help? There are legal and practical issues around unit titled properties, and how these apply need to be looked at in each case. Not REAs job to educate about the Unit Titles Act.

https://www.unittitles.govt.nz

[OnTheMove]

I agree. But REAs should not be selling a property as a house if its a unit. Thats just fraud imo.

Otherwise we may as well start calling high rise apartments houses, they are all housing people.

Its just another method of subdivision similar to cross lease which is biting the council in the butt imo.

The average buyer is NOT going to look at the title prior to purchase to find out they are buying a fully detached (by normal housing legal retirements to neighboring property) house located on a Unit block.

[John the builder]

O t M

if owners are not interested in the title they are buying they should not be buying at all!

That why most agreements have a lawyers approval as these are the guardians for the purchaser not the agent.

A house can be on a unit title in the same way a unit can be free hold it is simply a matter of description. It is silly to compare unit title and cross lease, they are chalk and cheese. At least the latter has the unit title act supporting it cross lease has nothing.

[OnTheMove]

O t M

A house can be on a unit title in the same way a unit can be free hold it is simply a matter of description. It is silly to compare unit title and cross lease, they are chalk and cheese. At least the latter has the unit title act supporting it cross lease has nothing.

I dont disagree, aside from both have common ground.

Only thing that concerns me is the Unit Houses, dont specify a section size. so thats where I was a bit concerned with the possibility of common ground being exploited like with Cross Lease.

If its a Unit Title, do you actually own any of the land? I cant see it in title records.

I agree this is what lawyers are for but its good to have a basic understanding to know what is suitable for each persons acceptance.

Was this perhaps done because the council wouldnt allow a subdivision bur would allow the section to have a Unit title?

[John the builder]

Unit title is a legitimate subdivision process.

You own the space that is within the unit title which could involve the land it is on. The survey plan defines this. Usually the space above and below is reserved for common property so that the rights to airspace and ground (and therefore future development rights) are joint ownership of all the units under common property

If you say that there are two houses on one unit title. That seems strange if they are not delineated on title then you couldn't buy them? whoever has title own both? What does the unit survey plan show?

You are not buying the house per se but the unit title and what is contained within it.
That is also true for free hold purchase You dont but property you buy land rights.

Everything outside the unit boundary is either another unit or common property of perhaps the neighbor if boundary is on a site boundary. You may or may not own the space above and below the unit title depending on how the plans were drawn.
The unit title could contain a household unit. house or dwelling whatever you want to call it.

The difference with cross lease is that you interests are not defined and you agree under lease to share the site. The lease agreement describes the arrangement.

[OnTheMove]

Yes very true re cross lease as I have found out. So unit should only have minimal common space, but if actually delineated houses, possibly none?

I will have to look up the survey. And have another read. It just seems odd there wouldnt be a designated land space associated so when selling they can say, unit 1/2 has 350sqm like a free hold. Or is it possible it does the REA just hasnt added that information?

Ive found a much easier way to find freeholds than using trademe, what a crap search engine it is, as UX designer Ive said this for years and they have done nothing to improve the user experience. If only Ebay had gotten into NZ before this Trademe thing like it is everywhere else around the world. Seems more cluttered but the search engine is more powerful.

[Wayne]

It's called a Unit Title and the key is what is in the title - it will specify what is yours and what is common.

[John the builder]

It just seems odd there wouldnt be a designated land space associated so when selling they can say, unit 1/2 has 350sqm like a free hold. Or is it possible it does the REA just hasnt added that information

it isnt "odd" it is impossible you must be reading this wrong otherwise they can only be selling a licence to occupy??

[OnTheMove]

it isnt "odd" it is impossible you must be reading this wrong otherwise they can only be selling a licence to occupy??

Sorry John, like I said, Im yet to see what is designated. Its simply the REA has no idea, so I have to do my own digging hopefully without cost.

What was the driving factor in the day to do it this way over a standard freehold subdivision? Costs/Fees?

[artemis]

.... What was the driving factor in the day to do it this way over a standard freehold subdivision? Costs/Fees?

Giving title to air space. Think multi storey buildings with different owners. Before unit titles there was company share.

[John the builder]

What was the driving factor in the day to do it this way over a standard freehold subdivision? Costs/Fees?

Others might correct me but my understanding was that a surveyor wasnt required. The boundaries were not defined and the 'lot' remained the same. Council didnt insist on separation of services? Costs were the driver and the outcome was initially good but the issues come later when an owner wants to extend or develop his"area" and he finds out it isnt his.

[Wayne]

Others might correct me but my understanding was that a surveyor wasnt required. The boundaries were not defined and the 'lot' remained the same. Council didnt insist on separation of services? Costs were the driver and the outcome was initially good but the issues come later when an owner wants to extend or develop his"area" and he finds out it isnt his.

Are you talking cross-lease?
The reason for cross-lease was to get another dwelling on a section that couldn't be subdivided but was big enough for 2 dwellings within the % coverage rules.
It was a clever (at the time) way around the council rules.

[eri]

i know of a cross-lease that was built in the 60s as a 5 floor motel? with about 60 units, 20 car parks

at some stage it seems the motel closed, the title changed? to 999 year cross-lease and the units sold as individual apartments

the bc is now apparently exploring the idea of changing to a more modern title structure

the cost expected to be $10,000 - 20,000?

[OnTheMove]

Others might correct me but my understanding was that a surveyor wasnt required. The boundaries were not defined and the 'lot' remained the same. Council didnt insist on separation of services? Costs were the driver and the outcome was initially good but the issues come later when an owner wants to extend or develop his"area" and he finds out it isnt his.

Thats was my "Guess" but wasnt in it back then so wasnt sure. Sort of like Minor Dwellings now I suppose, a way around the rules. Are we constantly finding loop holes due to Council restrictions? If so thats crap.