How to Find Out the Status of a Premises: Residential or Non-Residential

Transfer of residential premises to non-residential premises and transfer of non-residential premises to residential premises

documents of title for the transferred premises (originals or notarized copies), this can be a privatization agreement, sale and purchase agreement, exchange agreement, certificate of inheritance, as well as a certificate of registration of ownership;

The transfer of residential premises to non-residential premises is possible if it is technically possible to equip access to the transferred premises without using premises that provide access to residential premises, i.e. if it is possible to equip a separate entrance to the room, without using a common front door.

About the use of apartments to house a dental clinic

Despite the fact that the apartment market has been established for quite some time, there is still no universal definition of apartments in the legislation, and their status has not been regulated. Despite the legal status of non-residential premises, in most cases apartments are used for residential purposes, which creates a problem.

The legal regime of specific premises is to a certain extent regulated by decisions of the general meeting of premises owners, taking into account possible restrictions that may be established by the developer. In turn, such restrictions are determined by the technical parameters of specific premises.

Conflicting interests of different groups of owners leads to a conflict of interests, and the lack of legislative regulation leads to contradictory judicial practice. Accordingly, when considering the issue of locating a dental clinic, as in the case of conducting other business in apartments, it is necessary to take into account the likelihood of confrontation from neighbors who use their apartments for living.

Legal status of the apartments

In current legislation, the definition of apartments can only be found in relation to the hotel business. In accordance with the current decree of the State Standard of Russia dated September 26, 2001 N 82 *1 apartment is a room in an accommodation facility, consisting of several rooms, one of which has kitchen equipment.

Despite the classification of apartments actually under construction as non-residential premises, in the legal literature there are justifications for their classification as residential *2. In some cases, courts sometimes consider hotel rooms as a type of residential premises *3.

There is a legal position according to which apartments, with a certain degree of convention, are considered as a type of non-residential premises intended and used for the residence of citizens, public relations regarding which have not yet been regulated by housing legislation. In particular, Podrabinok E.M. notes that apartments can be allocated as a special category of non-residential premises using certain elements of the legal regime for residential premises *4.

The legal significance of distinguishing premises into residential and non-residential lies in the possible mode of use and in determining the applicable legislation. Relations regarding the use of residential premises are subject to the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, but not to apartments.

Legally, non-residential buildings with apartments are neither apartment buildings, nor residential buildings, nor residential buildings of blocked development. Accordingly, buildings initially erected as capital construction projects for non-residential purposes are subject to the norms of urban planning legislation and legislation on technical regulation provided for the corresponding non-residential objects, but the norms of housing legislation, legislation on urban planning activity and legislation on technical regulation provided for objects do not apply residential purposes *5.

Regulation of technical requirements for apartments

In 2014, the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation developed the Code of Rules SP 00.13330.2014 “Multifunctional buildings and complexes. Design Rules" regulating issues related to the design of multifunctional buildings *6.

Currently, this Code of Rules is the only document regulating some of the issues of the special legal status of multifunctional buildings, which may also contain apartments of various types.

Currently, the set of rules is not included in the List of national standards and sets of rules, as a result of which, on a mandatory basis, compliance with the requirements of the Federal Law of December 30, 2009 N 384-FZ “Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures” *7 is ensured.

Status of apartments from the perspective of urban planning requirements

Article 35 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regulates the types and composition of territorial zones: as a result of urban planning zoning, residential, public, business... and other types of territorial zones can be determined.

Residential zones may include zones with individual residential buildings, zones with low-rise residential buildings, zones with mid-rise residential buildings, zones with multi-storey residential buildings, and zones with other types of residential buildings.

In residential areas, it is allowed to place built-in healthcare facilities, facilities related to the residence of citizens and that do not have a negative impact on the environment. Thus, the construction of buildings with apartments in residential areas does not meet the requirements of the legislation on urban planning, since such buildings are not recognized as residential buildings and do not fall under the concept of social facilities.

The composition of public and business zones may include zones for business, public and commercial purposes, public and business zones, etc. Public and business zones are intended to accommodate facilities, including healthcare. The list of capital construction projects permitted for placement in public and business zones may include residential buildings, hotels, underground or multi-story garages.

Thus, the existing legislation on urban planning also formally prevents the construction of buildings with apartments in public and business areas.

Since the current practice of design and construction in these zones is based on the requirements for non-residential buildings, if buildings with apartments are recognized as mixed-use buildings, the specified urban planning requirements will also be violated *8.

Extension of the legal regime of residential premises to apartments

In case No. A40-44489/18 about compulsion to sign an act on the results of partial implementation of an investment project under an investment contract, the court indicated that the concepts of “apartment” and “aparthotel” were not present in the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation at the conclusion of the Contract and are not present at present.

The court noted that the Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not mention apartments among residential premises (Article 16 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) and does not classify hotels and other accommodation facilities as housing stock. Accordingly, the legal regime of residential premises does not apply to apartments.

Based on paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, apartments do not belong to the housing stock and are not residential premises. The current housing legislation does not provide for such a thing as apartments, and therefore this type of real estate belongs to non-residential premises *9.

Similar conclusions are typical for legal doctrine. In particular, Zhirov A. points out that legally apartments are a non-residential property, despite the fact that during construction the developer can comply with all sanitary and technical standards *10.

At the same time, a different legal position is noted in tax disputes. Thus, Tatyana Bekreneva notes that when the taxpayer receives a tax deduction in the amount spent on the purchase of housing in accordance with paragraphs. 2 p. 1 art. 220 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, tax authorities are of the opinion that apartments are residential premises *11. In particular, currently in Moscow, for the purpose of providing a property tax benefit for individuals, the criterion of inclusion of the corresponding building in a special register of apartments is used *12.

In our opinion, the fact that for tax purposes apartments can be equated to residential premises does not in any way change their status and does not entail the emergence of additional rights for the owners.

Use of apartments for accommodation

Housing legislation does not establish a direct ban on citizens living in non-residential premises. The ban is in some way enshrined in Part 2 of Art. 23 of the Federal Law “On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population,” which establishes that the provision of non-residential premises to citizens for permanent or temporary residence is not permitted *13.

At the same time, SanPiN 2.1.2.2645-10 “Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for living conditions in residential buildings and premises”, as well as SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1076-01, SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1278 and SanPiN 2.1.2.2645 do not contain a clear ban on citizens living in non-residential premises owned by them.

Currently, citizens are not able to register at their place of residence in apartment *14. Despite the official position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it is possible to allow the possibility of registering citizens at the place of residence in apartments, based on the position of the Constitutional Court on the admissibility of registering citizens at the place of residence in residential buildings owned by them, which are suitable for permanent residence and are located on garden plots of land belonging to to agricultural lands *15. Since the court used the criterion of suitability of housing for habitation as a criterion, regardless of the land plot of what category of land it is located, adherence to this criterion indicates the admissibility of registration in court *16.

At the same time, for apartment residents, local judicial practice is not so optimistic. So, in case 02a-0089/2018 Topkaev R.A. An administrative claim against the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Presnensky district of Moscow to declare illegal the refusal to register at the place of residence (stay) and the obligation to carry out registration was rejected *17. In rejecting the claim, the court indicated that the developer’s compliance with all sanitary and technical standards applicable to residential premises during the construction of the disputed apartments does not change their status. Legally, apartments are a non-residential property, which is confirmed by the cadastral passport and explication, which indicate that the above premises are non-residential premises of a hotel type. While leaving the decision in force, the appellate court indicated that the apartments cannot be considered as residential premises intended for the permanent residence of citizens and their satisfaction of household needs, the legal status of which is determined by clause 3 of Article 16 of the RF Housing Code.

Thus, although the owner of the apartments can use them for his own residence, such residence is currently not the basis for his registration at the place of residence, despite the existing prerequisites.

Consequences of not having a clearly defined status

An analysis of judicial practice indicates the prevalence of situations when apartments located in the same building are used by two groups of owners for different purposes. Since the interests of these groups are different, a conflict arises, leading in some cases to legal confrontation. Most often, the situation becomes aggravated in cases where apartments of different types of use are located on the same floor.

Formally, the use of apartments for business is legal, since it corresponds to their legal status as “non-residential premises”. The use of apartments for the residence of owners is also permissible due to the free purpose of the premises and the absence of a prohibition.

In such a situation, the answer to the question of which of the disputing rights is greater will depend, first of all, on the technical features of the building, due to the various requirements presented to them. Commercial use of apartments implies a larger number of people per unit area and, accordingly, a greater need for ventilation and cooling. In this case, higher demands are placed on the capacity of elevators and access systems.

When designing and constructing a building with apartments that are initially intended for residential use, the developer can proceed from lower standards for residential premises, which will allow savings on construction *18. If a dental clinic (as well as an office) is to be located in a building whose engineering systems are not designed for such use, then such actions will, without a doubt, violate the interests of the residents.

There is an opinion that a conflict of interest for an owner who does not have the opportunity to use the apartment as an office space due to the “weakness” of engineering systems lies in the fact that such an owner is largely deprived of what he had the right to count on when purchasing non-residential premises *19 . It is impossible to agree with this assumption, since when purchasing the premises, the bona fide owner was obliged to make sure that the building’s engineering systems were sufficient for the intended needs. In addition, even if we assume the possibility of violating the rights to commercial use, the violator would be the developer, the operating organization, but not the neighbor using the apartment for living.

If the owner of an apartment intended for residential use purchased it in the hope of commercial use without proper inspection of the technical conditions, the prohibition on commercial use will be subject to the safety of other owners. In this case, the illegal interest is not subject to protection, and the lawful use is limited to residence or other use with a small number of people.

A conflict of protected interests is possible between groups of owners in a building whose design and engineering systems allow for both office and residential accommodation.

Since both methods of use in this case are legal, the answer to the question about the more legal method of use will depend on the existence of an agreement with the developer providing for possible restrictions, as well as on the establishment of restrictions by deciding on the use of common property by the owners of the majority of the premises.

Regulation of common property issues

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 64 unified the legal regime of residential and non-residential premises in terms of the regime of common property. The regulation of relations between owners of premises in an apartment building arising in connection with common property is provided for in Articles 289, 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the relations between the owners of premises in any real estate that were created in the manner of shared construction are directly regulated by Articles 1 and 16 of Federal Law No. 214 “On Participation in Shared Construction”.

Relations between the owners of premises located in a non-residential building arising regarding the common property in such a building are not directly regulated by law. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the norms of legislation regulating similar relations are subject to application to these relations, in particular Articles 249, 289, 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of the above, the owner of a separate premises in a building in all cases has a share in the right of common ownership of the common property of the building (clause 1 of Resolution 64).

By decision of the owners of the premises, adopted in the manner prescribed by Articles 44 - 48 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a regime for the use of the common property of the building, in particular individual common premises, may be established.

The following features of the regime can be established: the procedure for carrying out repair work in common areas, the participation of premises owners in the costs of maintaining common property, the use of funds received from leasing the common property of the building (clause 6 of Resolution 64).

In case No. A40-42421/12-40-392, the ASGM satisfied the requirements of Infinity Group LLC (Retail) to LLC Capital City Management Company for non-obstruction of use and the obligation to ensure unhindered access to non-residential premises (issue passes).

The court concluded that since the plaintiff provides legal and auditing services, which is impossible without the opportunity to meet clients in person, the restrictions on obtaining passes violate his right of ownership *20.

The argument that the restriction on the issuance of permanent passes was established by the general meeting of owners was rejected by the court, since the owner of the premises did not participate in the agreement on determining the procedure for using the common property.

It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the decision in case A40-42421/12-40-392 and similar cases were made before the introduction of Chapter 9.1 into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on decisions of meetings, in accordance with Art. 181.1. whose decision gives rise to the legal consequences that the decision of the meeting is aimed at for all persons who had the right to participate in this meeting.

If the general meeting of owners makes a decision limiting the right of certain groups of owners *21 to arbitrarily use the apartments, then such a restriction will transfer to the new owner upon sale, which also follows from the open list of the article. If the seller is silent about the existing restrictions, the buyer will be able to demand termination. Accordingly, a bona fide seller is interested in indicating the existing restrictions in the purchase and sale agreement.

Establishing restrictions due to the characteristics of the building

Analysis of judicial practice confirms the prevalence of disputes between owners of apartments used for permanent residence and owners of apartments used as office premises *22. One of the grounds for prohibiting the use of premises for commercial purposes is their structural unsuitability.

Thus, in case 11-14206/2013, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow satisfied the demand of the owner-citizen using the apartment for living, prohibiting the tenant from using the premises for office *23.

The high-rise parts of the tower, starting from the 19th floor, were designed as hotel-type residential apartments, as a result of which different parts of the building were built with different requirements (administrative and residential buildings).

Supply ventilation flow: 66.5 m3/h - offices (public and administrative buildings), 22.6 m3/h - apartments (residential buildings).

Specific cooling power 0.088 kW/m² - offices 0.064 kW/m² - apartments.

To ensure cargo and passenger flows on each floor, there are from 9 to 12 elevators in the office centers of the mixed-use complex and only 3 elevators in the apartment area.

For the apartment area, the calculation of fire safety evacuation requirements provides for a maximum allowable 19 people per 1 floor (5 apartments) and a larger number will lead to the impossibility of evacuation in the event of an emergency.

In resolving the dispute, the court was guided by Art. 6 of the Law of Moscow dated March 11, 1998 No. 6 “Fundamentals of housing policy of the city of Moscow”, Order of the Ministry of Sports and Tourism of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2011 No. 35 “On approval of the Procedure for classifying objects of the tourism industry.”

The court came to the conclusion that although the defendant’s premises are non-residential, they are of the “hotel” type, intended for residential accommodation, and not for organizing offices, and the defendant violates the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff in the field of fire safety *24.

Thus, possible restrictions can be set by the developer and result from the design features of the building. Of course, a conscientious seller will have to notify the buyer of the existence of such restrictions, and failure to comply with this requirement may be one of the grounds for termination of the contract.

At the same time, the question of the possibility of limiting the use of apartments by the developer during sale by including them in the contract is of interest if there are no technical restrictions for commercial use.

In this case, consent to the ban on commercial use follows from the will of all owners and is expressed in their acceptance of the terms of the contract when concluding it. At the same time, acceptance of the terms of the contract as a whole is not equivalent to an expression of will on a specific issue.

If all the owners purchased premises sold by the developer as intended for residential use for this purpose, then the commercial use of one of the premises may be contrary to their interests, which requires the issue to be decided by the general meeting. In the absence of such a decision, given the low activity of residents of apartment buildings, assuming similar activity of apartment owners, the issue of the admissibility of such use can be resolved by invalidating the restrictive provision of the contract in court. In turn, a claim for a ban on commercial use may be based on the provisions of Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Identified risks

These gaps in the regulation of the legal status of apartments create risks of their use for running a business providing services to the population, including the provision of dental services. Despite the formal absence of restrictions on the use of apartments for dentistry, in a number of cases conflicts of interest arose.

An analysis of scientific works and judicial practice on the issue under study shows that the general rules of law regarding the regulation of the regime of joint ownership apply to relations regarding the use of apartments. In this case, technical regulations are of great importance.

Possible restrictions can also be set by the developer by indicating the intended purpose of the apartments when selling. Freedom of use may be limited by decisions made by the general meeting of owners, or by the management organization.

An analysis of judicial practice in the Moscow region shows a small number of disputes regarding the issue of intended use. Moreover, all cases in which decisions were made in favor of residential use are related to the Moscow City complex, the special regime of use of which is due to the presence in one building of two types of functional zones (commercial and conditionally residential), built taking into account different requirements ( in particular, fire safety, ventilation, provision of elevators).

The identified risks are conditionally divided into objective ones, the presence of which excludes the possibility of using apartments to house dentistry due to an imperative ban, and subjective ones, depending on external circumstances.

Objective risks are of a technical nature and consist in the fact that the engineering systems of buildings with apartments may not be designed for their actual use as non-residential premises.

Other risks depend not only on the specific situation, but also on law enforcement practice, which may change in the future depending on state legal policy and must be assessed when making a decision with this reservation. Grouping risks according to the principle of their source, first of all, it is necessary to highlight possible restrictions on use in connection with the establishment of a ban by the developer or management organization.

Since the issue of providing access to the building has been transferred to the management organization, the likelihood of such restrictions due to the actions (inaction) of the management organization hypothetically exists.

If we proceed from the situation where restrictions on use during the sale are not specified in the contract, given that in the existing arbitration practice the issue of not causing obstacles was decided in favor of the owner using the apartments for commercial activities, this risk should not be assessed as excessively high. At the same time, to reduce it, it can be recommended to contact the developer and management company in writing with a request about the presence (absence) of possible prohibitions.

The next risk is possible claims from the owners of the apartments who use them for living. The initial use of the term apartments in the legislation regulating the hotel business, as well as the actual primary use for residential purposes, led to the fact that apartments are often classified as premises intended for temporary residence. This conclusion is a misconception not based on law and practice.

At the same time, the use of apartments for living is also permissible. This means that when determining the use of common property (in the absence of restrictions established during the sale), there is a conflict of interests of different groups of owners, which can lead to a claim.

The current practice of the Moscow region shows that all cases of satisfaction of such claims are due to the presence of the initially established zoning of the building. If we assume that there are no technical restrictions, the risk of the court satisfying such a requirement seems low rather than high.

In our opinion, the most likely risk is that the general meeting of owners will make a decision limiting the use of the apartments. This risk is due to the importance of the issue, as indicated by the inclusion of Chapter 9.1 in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates issues of decisions of meetings.

In a conventionally average building, the area of ​​apartments used for living may exceed the area used for business. This means that if a conflict of interest escalates, the likelihood of a decision being made in favor of the “tenants” will be higher, since such a decision requires a simple majority of votes, determined in proportion to the area.

The decision of the meeting, with which the law associates civil legal consequences, gives rise to the legal consequences to which the decision of the meeting is aimed, for all persons who had the right to participate in this meeting, as well as for other persons, if this is established by law or follows from the essence of the relationship (Article 181.1. Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Accordingly, if restrictions on the use of apartments for commercial purposes are adopted by the general meeting, such a decision will formally be binding.

The considered arbitration practice does not confirm the possibility of establishing such a restriction for an owner who did not participate in the agreement on determining the procedure for using common property, however, it must be taken into account that this practice was formed before Chapter 9.1 was included in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

When assessing this risk, it is also necessary to take into account that the result of the general meeting will depend on whether the premises were sold by the developer for free use, or exclusively for residential purposes, as well as the fact that with a significant number of owners, in most cases it turns out to be difficult to collect the quorum required to make a decision.

conclusions

Taking into account the above, we can conclude that in the absence of technical restrictions and compliance with the capabilities of the apartments (ventilation requirements, increased energy consumption of autoclaves, insulation of radiation from X-ray devices, etc.), the use of apartments for dentistry is possible.

The main risk is associated with the possible restriction of the mode of use of the common property of the building by a possible decision of the meeting of owners of premises in the building.

This risk cannot be fully considered due to the lack of such judicial practice in relation to apartments, since the existing judicial practice on disputes between owners of residential premises in apartment buildings has its own specifics and is specially regulated by housing law.

The likelihood of refusal to satisfy a claim to challenge the result of such a meeting should be assessed as possible, since participants in meetings have the right to establish rules that are of interest to the majority of participants.

At the same time, since the adoption of such a decision would limit the basic rights of owners of commercial apartments that they counted on when purchasing apartments, when deciding to challenge the results of such a meeting, the court would have to take into account the balance of interests of the parties, without allowing excessive infringement of the rights of one of them. sides Accordingly, the possibility of declaring such a decision invalid is also probable.

The full text of the written consultation on the risks of using apartments for business, using the example of locating a dental clinic, is posted on the website of the project “Corporations and Shareholders” https://corprf.ru/ob-ispolzovanii-apartamentov-dlya-razmeshheniya-stomatologicheskoj-kliniki/

Transfer of residential premises to non-residential premises

The transfer of residential stock to non-residential stock and non-residential stock to residential stock is carried out upon receipt of permission from the relevant local government authorities. To obtain permission to transfer housing to non-residential housing (and vice versa), it is necessary to prepare documents in accordance with Art. 23 Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

The transfer of non-residential stock to residential stock is possible subject to compliance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The premises must be recognized as residential, i.e. comply with all generally accepted requirements and standards. This is the only way to convert non-residential premises into residential ones. The rules for transferring non-residential premises to residential premises are regulated by the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

What premises cannot be used as housing stock?

The total number of votes “for changing the legal status of the premises” at the meeting must be more than half. The law allows the presence of non-residential premises in the housing stock, but subject to certain conditions.
This rule was established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 17, 1995 No. 713. However, if a citizen arbitrarily occupied non-residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership for the purpose of living, no one has the right to evict him from there, however, in this case administrative liability may be imposed for lack of registration . To date, the law does not provide for the status of residential premises in a non-residential building.

Transfer of residential premises to non-residential stock in St. Petersburg

• KGA (KGIOP),

Fire Technical Inspectorate (OGPN),

• SES, Dortechnologii, JSC Cable Networks, JSC Telecom, JSC Telephone Electric Networks, Federal State Unitary Enterprise Vodokanal,
• Committee for Improvement and Road Maintenance (KBDH), State Traffic Safety Inspectorate,
• Department of Landscape Management (USPH), Department of Underground Structures (OPS),
• Interdepartmental Commission/District Administration.

Previously, we are ready to advise you free of charge using a photograph of the façade of a residential building and the technical passport of the apartment on the possibility of transferring your premises or apartment to non-residential stock in St. Petersburg and calculate (preliminarily) the costs of design, obtaining permits and other documentation, state fees, deadlines and costs works

We recommend reading: If the dacha plot is not privatized

How to convert non-residential premises into residential ones

It should be understood that performing the translation process independently in difficult situations (the room has some peculiarities, reconstruction is needed, etc.) will require a lot of time and effort. For example, it took Valentina Petrovna Leonova from the Ryazan region a year to transfer the premises.

1. The next condition for transfer is that the non-residential premises should not be pledged. If the premises were purchased on credit, then at the time of transfer the owner must fully repay the debt.
2. Everything in the building must be in good condition .
3. The premises must comply with technical standards .
4. In addition to the building itself, the surrounding area must also be safe .
5. Nothing should block the entrance to the building for residents and emergency services.

Transfer to non-residential stock, as well as to residential stock

Renting or selling this form of property will bring much more profit than an ordinary apartment with residential status. However, such a transfer of premises can take a lot of time, studying many laws, collecting many documents, and much more. Trust experienced specialists with a qualified approach to the matter in the field of construction documentation and design in accordance with the housing code of the Russian Federation.

provides comprehensive services for real estate registration and construction documentation, including assistance in transferring to non-residential property and vice versa. These procedures are required by different property owners. Both individuals and legal organizations may need to arrange a transfer of residential or non-residential stock. Call us at +7 (4832) 64-91-91 and we will certainly take care of your legal troubles.

Transfer of residential premises to non-residential

When working with our company, the transfer of an apartment to a non-residential fund begins with consultation and signing of an agreement. Then a notarized power of attorney is issued, according to which our employees will be able to act on your behalf. Our specialists will be involved in drawing up and coordinating the project, collecting documents, obtaining all kinds of conclusions and certificates.

• Order of the Municipal Housing Committee or the Department of Housing Policy and Housing.
• A document confirming that the right to housing has been registered in the Unified State Register.
• Extract from the protocol of the Interdepartmental Commission on the transfer of premises to non-residential use.
• Order on permission to change the purpose of the premises.

How to Find Out the Status of a Premises: Residential or Non-Residential

1. Based on the type of building in which they are located, residential premises are divided into dormitories, apartments and dachas, suitable for living throughout the year.
2. According to the method of use, they are divided into permanent and intended for residence for a relatively short period, i.e. temporary.
3. By type, residential premises can be either simple apartments, rooms, or separate houses, etc.
4. Based on the grounds on which people use real estate, housing can be provided under a social tenancy agreement, under a commercial tenancy, in housing and housing-construction cooperatives, by right of ownership, as an official one, etc.

• suitable for long-term living;
• is isolated;
• in all respects it fits the definition of real estate;
• legally recognized as residential.

Non-residential premises in an apartment building - is this possible? (read more…)