By law, a developing owner must compensate the neighboring owner under RPAPL § 881, so each developing owner must agree to a provision of the temporary license agreement that compensates the neighboring owner for any claim arising from the work. In addition, the agreement should include insurance requirements for the developing owner. As a general rule, the developing owner should designate the neighbouring owner as the beneficiary under the insurance policy for the project, and the developing owner should ask the contractor to designate the neighbouring owner as the beneficiary under its own policies. The license, whether by agreement or court order, should address issues such as: An “access agreement” is increasingly not just an agreement on access to neighboring property, as was once its sole intention. How developers can avoid costs and delays The best way for a developer to enter into access agreements is to talk to owners of land adjacent to a project as soon as possible, ideally in the early stages of the design process. The sooner a neighbor is treated, the less influence he will have. If a neighbor seems really picky at this point, it may be worth the effort and extra cost of redesigning the foundations and avoid supporting the neighbor`s property. It is also advisable to ask an experienced lawyer to formulate access agreements to protect both developers and neighbor rights. In the case of work that takes place next to a neighbouring property, the condition of the building must be recorded in accordance with the applicable Building Code. It is recommended to take the additional step of preparing a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the building that describes in detail the structure and any existing problems in order to avoid unjustified cases of damage. However, there is another option, the developer does not have to meet the requirements of the neighbor. If the Developer is unwilling to pay the Neighbor because it is requesting an unreasonable royalty or appears to intentionally block the progress of construction, the Developer may initiate special legal proceedings to obtain a license to enter the adjacent property under Section 881 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) (see this article in the New York Law Journal for more information). However, this usually involves hiring lawyers to represent the developer and waiting for the court`s decision.

Many developers choose to negotiate and pay license fees to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. [1] Access to the adjacent property is generally not required for the construction of a sidewalk shed – which is required for twenty feet on both sides of a construction project – because the walkway in front of the property adjacent to the property line is the property of the city (unless the adjacent property is set back from the property line, in which case access to the adjacent property and therefore to the permit, etc. is required). Depending on the circumstances, the developer may have a greater potential financial commitment to protect a neighbour`s property. If the developer shares a party wall with the neighboring owner, the developer will not be able to complete the desired construction without violating the neighbor`s property rights. Depending on the circumstances, an owner who needs to access a construction project from a neighbor`s property may take different approaches: negotiated term licensing agreements represent the best chance to resolve a temporary access dispute for development owners and neighboring owners in a mutually satisfactory manner, and can avoid the bad blood that often results from litigation. If you need help with your fixed-term license agreement or any other aspect of your next construction project, contact one of our experienced construction experts. Most development projects in New York are located near one or more neighboring properties. When this happens, the building code requires the protection of the neighboring property. This may mean that the developer needs access inside the building or through its airspace.

For example, a developer may need to install harmless devices to monitor vibrations or cracks in the building next door. or the developer may need to install sheds or scaffolding that are ubiquitous in construction in New York City. Sometimes a developer also digs deeper than the neighbor`s foundation, which could require access under the neighboring building to install a permanent basement for the support. Licence or access agreements typically have two components: a porch survey that records what the building, basement, roof and other areas look like before work begins on an adjacent property; and general agreement. Berger preferred to negotiate the pact in two parts. Once the agreement is finalized in advance, she settles the details: “I like to spend more time on the essence of the general agreement. Simply put, it`s often best to negotiate a deal with the neighbor. In the Washington metropolitan area, D.C. there seems to be little a developer can do to force a neighboring homeowner to cooperate, other than financial incentives to do so.

It is conceivable that a developer could sue the neighbouring owner for access on the basis of the theory that the developer needs an “easement out of necessity” to the neighbour`s property. According to the judge, a developer can succeed in forcing access to the neighbor`s property. Development owners should accept a reasonable fee to be paid to the adjacent owner in exchange for entering into the fixed-term licence agreement. The willingness to pay a royalty greatly increases the chances of the developing owner convincing a reluctant neighboring owner to accept a negotiated license agreement. In addition, the courts have the option of ordering a licence fee under Article 881 of the RPAPL, so that the parties can equally well agree on an amount of royalty amicably, as opposed to an arbitrary court decision. License fees must be based on the duration of the license, with provisions for an increase in fees in the event that the work exceeds the negotiated term. The provision of the increased licence fee keeps the parties out of court in the event of unforeseen complications and delays in the project. In this context, New York courts have recently shown a willingness to allow adjacent landowners to file an RPAPL lawsuit in the opposite direction and impose a license agreement on the developing landowner “if the parties cannot enter into a license agreement and there is clear credible evidence that [the developer] has occurred or is about to enter or harm [the adjacent owner]. Property.

As such, the New York model encourages both groups of neighbors to negotiate themselves and reach an out-of-court settlement before spending substantial amounts of legal fees to debate the issue in court. Unfortunately, the need to access an adjacent property does not automatically give builders and developers the right to do so. Owners have the right to quietly enjoy their own premises. These two different interests often lead to conflicts between developing and neighboring owners, with the developing owner needing access to the neighboring property to facilitate repairs to his own property, and the neighboring owner refusing to allow it. When these disputes arise, the parties are usually given two options: (i) the parties may negotiate a temporary license agreement amicably, or (ii) the developing owner may apply for a court-granted license for temporary access to adjacent property in accordance with the Real Estate Actions and Procedures Act (“RPAPL”) § 881. A successful claim under Section 881 of the RPAPL may allow a developing owner to access a nearby property to make repairs. In this situation, however, a legal dispute usually does not benefit anyone. For the reasons given here, a well-negotiated fixed-term licence agreement is almost always preferable to a judicial authorisation procedure. If you are the party that needs access, you need to understand that obtaining the license is a process that requires time and preparation. You don`t want your contractor to sit on the sidewalk waiting to start work while you negotiate with the neighbor, or have to go to court with a section 881 application.

Details of access, protection and insurance must also be agreed with your contractor and architect. The courts appear to have these “non-access” objections related to Section 881 of the RPAPL, although this procedure is supposed to be related to access to the neighbor`s property. While each construction project is unique with its own neighbors and circumstances, the key is for the developer to respond to available options in a timely manner to avoid having no choice but to pay an exorbitant sum to access and protect a neighboring property. A duly negotiated fixed-term licence agreement should provide the developing owner with the necessary access to the adjacent land, while providing sufficient protection for existing structures and the use of the neighbouring owner`s premises. .