Buildings which you own, or contemplate buying, may be situated on third-party land. What are the risks associated with such a situation for the building owner or prospective buyer?
On an introductory note, it is worth mentioning that any present-day situation in which a structure is found on third-party land has arisen during, and is a holdover from, the time in which the “Old” Civil Code (Act No. 40/1964 Coll.) was still in force, i.e., before 31 December 2013. The principle whereby a building is “merely” part of the land plot on which it stands (i.e., that it is not a separate thing in legal terms) or, as it were, becomes part of the land (and thus the property of the owner of the land plot) from the moment in which was erected – even if built on third-party land – was introduced (or, more properly, re-introduced) into Czech law only on 1 January 2024, when the new Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.) came into force. To put it simply: under current law, one cannot bring about a situation in which a building ends up on the land plot of someone else, with the exception of buildings constructed under a leasehold – in Czech, the right to build (právo stavby).
It is self-evident that a mismatch of ownership of a piece of land and of a building erected on that land may lead to disputes between the two owners – typically in cases in which the land owner wants to make use of their land plot and turn to the building owner with the demand that they remove their structure from the land. How to resolve such a conflict?
As I mentioned, such situations are far from infrequent for legal practitioners. That this has historically been a common phenomenon can also be seen from the fact that the pertinent case law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court on the issue is extensive and, what is more important, settled. The claim of land owners for the demolition of a building will be assessed by the courts primarily based upon whether the building owned by a third party was placed on the land legitimately (i.e., based on a valid legal title), followed by an examination of the quality of such title.
As for buildings which were erected on someone else’s land with no right to do so from the very beginning, and with no subsequent remedy being provided, the situation is straightforward. In such a case, the land owner may claim under the law that the building be removed (Sec. 135c of the 1964 Civil Code), as is borne out by judicial decision-making practice.
Matters get more complex in cases in which the building owner held the necessary (private-law) authorization to place the building on someone else’s land (note that such approval is distinct from the public-law building permit, issued by the building office), but this title subsequently expired. In such a case, one will have to primarily examine whether the most recent valid title authorized the building owner to erect (place) the building on the other person’s land plot merely temporarily or permanently (or, as it were, whether the building owner had good grounds to believe that their legal title would be of permanent character).
As to a title of permanent character (e.g., unified ownership of land and building, or the existence of an easement allowing for the placement of a building on third-party land), the courts have ruled that, following the expiry of such title (i.e., in the case of unified original ownership, upon a subsequent split, by way of transfer of the land plot or of the building to someone else), the land owner cannot in fact seek the removal of the building, though they do have a claim vis-a-vis the building owner to be awarded the unjust enrichment which the building owner attained by using the land plot without proper title.
If the building owner’s right to place their building on the other person’s land was merely temporary (e.g. based on a lease agreement, even if made for an unlimited period of time, or based on simple consent by the land owner), however, the courts held that upon the expiry of such right, the building owner unjustifiably infringes with the land owner’s ownership rights. I.e., in such a case, the land owner may demand that the building owner remove the building from their land, and may take the building owner to court to achieve this outcome.
However, the situation is not always this simple, especially if the building existed on third-party land for a very long time. In such a case, it may be complicated to determine, based on historic records, what legal relationship existed between the land owner and the building owner during the construction or subsequent use of the building. Thus, if you find yourself in this situation (whether as the owner of built-up land or as the owner of a building), or if you have been contemplating the acquisition of land underneath third-party structures (or of a building on third-party land), we highly recommend that you consult your course of action with an attorney or a law firm – ideally someone who has sufficient experience with this kind of scenario.
Source:
Act No. 89/2012 Coll.
Act No. 40/1964 Coll.