Search

Jurisdictions around the world are experiencing an increasing demand for formation of three-dimensional (3D) real property units, especially in the presence of vertical mixed-use developments. Since traditional real property formation is only in two dimensions (2D), jurisdictions are on different steps (levels) of transforming 2D real property legislation into 3D real property legislation. The objective of this article is to analyse and compare law and practice in jurisdictions that are on different steps of developing 3D real property legislation, but otherwise comparable in terms of societal development status. The predominant focus in academic literature is on formation of private 3D property rights. This paper has a somewhat different approach, focussing on formation and management of common property. The formation of common property is usually unavoidable in a vertical mixed-use development, e.g. due to a high degree of interdependence between layered and intertwined 3D property units. Legal aspects regarding common property formation and management have not been rigorously compared internationally. This article presents a comparative study including British Columbia (Canada), Denmark and Sweden. Each jurisdiction represents a unique step on the 3D transformation staircase where legal aspects regarding common property and management in each jurisdiction is analysed and presented. The results of the study can be beneficial for researchers and legislators as a tool to analyse 3D real property legislation. • First and second generations of condominium legislation. • Independent 3D property. • Management structure in a vertical mixed-use development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of condominium in Denmark is traditionally associated with owner apartments used for residential purposes (individually owned by the resident). The condominium law translated from Danish: "Law of owner apartments" was primarily intended to support the housing market and was mainly introduced to allow renters to become owners of a rental apartment in a high-rise building, i.e., making it possible forthem to enter the housing market without having to invest in an (often more expensive) traditional house on a real property. However, the law also applies on other nonresidential rooms in a building, thus the expression, many faces, is appropriate. The ownership right to a condominium unit includes a share in all components of the common property. This share also includes the responsibility to pay for common expenses regarding the common components. In traditional high-rise (single-use) buildings the common components of the condominium property include e.g., the outer walls, roof, cellar and a staircase or an elevator. Because of the nature of (single-use) buildings it is often fair to say that all condominium units have an equal benefit of the common components. Thus, it is regarded as being fair that all condominium units contribute to expenses to maintain and renew those common components. Therefore, the condominium law is partly designed to support this benefit-all principle, and the allocation of rights and responsibilities is done mainly by using a co-ownership share, where each condominium unit's share is calculated using the relative value and size of each condominium unit. The benefit-all principle does not consider the actual benefit of each condominium unit. However, the rise of mixed-use developments in Danish urban planning has made it necessary to further develop and customize the allocation of ownership rights in such mixed-use condominium schemes in order to specify the allocation of ownership rights and responsibilities of common components, mainly because it is not fair to accept that all units have the same benefit of the common components. Based on four case studies all representing mixed-use condominium developments we analyse various management structures used in Danish practice. In our conclusion we propose that condominiums are used broader than original intended for various non-residential purposes and in mixed-use developments. The effect of this, is more complicated condominium schemes that require a customized management structure and allocation of rights and restrictions of common components. • Legal structure of a condominium scheme. • Distinct generation of condominium legislation. • Complex condominium scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The use of three-dimensional (3D) property rights has for many years been a tool for providing secure and lasting rights for the use of land and its volume of space in complex situations involving land use in the urban society. The aim of this article is to investigate the reasons for introducing 3D property in a legal system. This is illustrated by using the Swedish system as an example. In general, without the possibility of forming 3D property units with direct ownership, other forms have to be used, such as indirect ownership or granted user rights. Benefits of ownership in comparison with different types of rights include a more secure way of guaranteeing the possession of real property and the possibility of mortgaging the property. There are lower transaction costs compared with user rights, arising from legally securing three-dimensionally delimited parts of real property. 3D property also enables an increase in the density of private ownership. 3D property is a useful way of solving problems related to the use of space by different parties with different needs. In the Swedish legislation the introduction of 3D property formation has increased the possibility of constructing and financing in particular large and more complex facilities. It has created more secure and clear ways of constructing infrastructure objects and separating them from other types of use within the space of the same traditional property. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• The condominium regimes in selected civil law jurisdictions are investigated. • The allotment of co-ownership shares in the selected condominium regimes is compared. • Use of different criteria for different functions of the co-ownership share is proposed. • A transparent and participatory approach is emphasized for the allotment of co-ownership shares. Condominium is a special and relatively new type of property right emerged in the last century to be a remedy for the management problems in multi-unit buildings. There are many types of condominium regimes, as described in EUI (2005) , UNECE (2005) and van der Merwe (2016). The common elements include: (a) Individual right to an apartment, (b) co-ownership (joint ownership) of the common property or the whole property, and (c) membership of an incorporated or unincorporated owners' association (van der Merwe, 2015, p. 5). The ownership shares in the common property are here referred to as co-ownership shares; yet, alternative terms include ownership fraction, condominium share, participation quota, share value, and unit entitlement. Generally, these shares will determine the proportional contribution to the common expenses and the share of common profits, as well as the voting power of each condominium unit owner in the administration of the condominium. The most common approaches to the determination of the co-ownership shares are based on equality, relative size or relative value of each condominium unit, or a combination of such (van der Merwe, 1994, p. 57–58). The literature presents detailed descriptions and comparative analysis related to condominium systems in different jurisdictions (e.g. van der Merwe, 2015; 2016; Paulsson, 2007; EUI, 2005; UNECE, 2005); however, the procedural aspects related to the allotment of co-ownership shares still need to be further investigated. This article aims to describe condominium systems in the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey, and compare legal provisions and procedures related to the allotment of co-ownership shares in these jurisdictions. The main purpose is to clarify the methodologies behind the determination of the co-ownership shares in national systems to bring new insights to countries, which are trying to revise their national provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]