Buying a house with a boundary issue

[dontlookgottalook]

We are going through a house purchase, and I've just found out via a friend that our vendors have extended their garden onto a bit of 'spare land' at the back of the house that sits between a group of houses. They've built a large shed on it.
It turns out this bit of land is owned by someone, although they are no longer able to access it.
Should I mention this to the solicitor? I'm not sure what to do. I'm worried this could hold things up if I do.

I haven’t rtft but you absolutely must get this resolved prior to exchange - it will only come back to bite you on sale

Unless you are happy to let the extra piece of land go if needs be (and also swallow cost/effort to remove the shed if required) then definitely get this resolved before completing. If you want to sell, the same issue is going to come up again. At this point you have no idea of the costs involved - the actual owner of the land offer you first refusal, however they could also offer it any other house(s) whose garden adjoins and see who would offer the best price.

No no you ask your solicitor to tell your vendor to resolve it! You can’t resolve it, you don’t own the house and haven’t built a shed on someone else’s land.

The vendor of the property needs to sort this before selling to you. Don't make it your problem, or pay for a garden that's smaller than you can see and then pay again for that land by buying it from the third person.

The current vendor of the house needs to fence off their owned land properly. Or, they buy the extra land (don't pay extra for this) and they pay the legal costs for the title Deed to be updated to include both the current property and the new area.

Or, if the vendor won't sort it, you reduce your offer as their garden is smaller than advertised.

@Zerobeero I think the solicitor will understand the steps that need to be taken to resolve this. I mean that I will inform the solicitor.

Thanks all for the advice, it's really helpful! I will speak with DP about it all.

Also, if the land doesn't form part of the curtilage of the house you are buying, it may need PP to be incorporated into the garden of that property (depending on its authorised use). The shed would also have required planning permission as permitted development rights only relate to land within the boundary of that property.

It was at the back of his house and he has since moved
Why didn't he include it in his house sale? . You seem to be relying on a garbled version of what might have happened /will happen by people who have a vested interest in selling you their house...

@ReadersD1gest I am not replying on the garbled message of the vendors, I am replying on the information of a trusted neighbour/friend who has bought the bit of land that this man owns from him that backs onto her garden. I have no idea why he didn't sell it with his house as this information is new to me.

relying

PDO rights relate to an entire area, not a particular boundary of a property.

If you are buying with a mortgage, your solicitor (or you) are duty bound to inform the mortgagors of the issue. Financial institutions are well aware of the long term and expensive to resolve pitfalls of situations such as this. Same applies to any application you make to insure the property.

I would expect your vendors to have sale after sale fall through until this issue is properly resolved.

Signed: the survivor of a long, stressful, litigious, expensive and soul destroying, unexpected boundary dispute.

Err no they don't - relate specifically to the curtilage of a property. Not an extra bit of land at the back.

If the the next door but one neighbours already bought some land off him, they’ll be able to say how much it cost and how long it took?
I’d be more concerned about the bomb shelter, which weren’t built to be easily removed, if that was ever wanted.

Permitted development rights apply within an area unless revoked by an Article 4 direction it applies to land not the curtilage of a residential property. There’s nothing to prevent a landowner putting a shed on their bare land, irrespective of whether it is within the curtilage of a residential property.

For example equestrian use - it’s pretty common to put stables or field shelters on skids so they fall within a PDO and not require PP.

@FUSoftPlay wrong. There are different types of pd - check the General Permitted Development Order. Field shelters may be counted as temporary structures if on skids and therefore sometimes don't need PP. Stables for equestrian use will need PP as no pd rights exist. Some agricultural buildings can sometimes be pd but equestrian uses are not agricultural.

I've been working in planning for over 30 years.

I’d be surprised if curtilage is defined as the land registry boundary vs the physical boundary. There’s nothing to stop OP/the owner taking a transfer of that slither of land to regularise the title to match the physical boundaries. I don’t see how the transfer setting out ownership changes the PDO rules for use of that slither of land. Surely “the curtilage” taken by its natural meaning, is the physical boundaries of the property.

Hello!

I am of course in a similar situation and doing research on MN to see how others have handled a similar situation.

Your past tale sounds scary. Any chance you would share?

Hello,

can I ask what you opted to do in the end?

I hope either way it worked out.

@postingpartum we bought the house anyway but still have the issue. It really does depend on the particular situation of the house. I’m no expert but you are welcome to explain your situation or dm me if that is preferable.