The owner of a capital construction facility has leased a land plot. The tenant of the adjacent land plot conducted the area landmarking and, while in process of cadastral work, revealed intersection of the contour of our principal’s building with the borders of the adjacent land plot, i.d. the building overlays on the adjacent land plot. The tenant of the adjacent land plot has submitted to our client the requirement to demolish the part of the building or to pay for "compensation". The owner of the building, refusing to pay the tenant an unreasonable amount of "compensation", turned to the CG for advice.
As a result of the analysis, the information for the State cadastral registration of the land plot was introduced with a minimal accuracy before the appearance of the high-precision method for determining the coordinates. This led to the problem of inconsistency between the actual location of the boundaries of the land plot and the contour of the buildings and the information of the USRIP. That is, the error of keeping records led to the fact that although the building of our principal actually did not reside on the land plot of the adjacent tenant, according to ROSREESTR, the overlay was still reflected in the USRIP.
The CG experts prepared the project documentation for making the adjustments to the area landmarking project of the quarter, where the disputed land plot is located. Thanks to the project documentation we were able to substantiate the CPD (the City Property Department) with the actual location of the boundaries of the land plots and the need to approve the adjustment.
As a result of the work performed our principal was able to obtain an extract from the USRIP specifying the boundaries of the land plot, beyond which the boundaries of the building of the capital construction facility did not extend. Finally, there was no more need to pay "compensation" to the adjacent tenant.
For the tenant of the land plot it was extremely risky to leave the situation in "sleep mode": demolishing the fence during the withdrawal of the land plot could lead to discontent of the residents, especially those whose plots adjoined the fence. Such a withdrawal would have been a serious blow to the reputation of the developer.