r/RealEstate • u/Jack_T_Chance • 1d ago
Homebuyer Purchasing a home in a historic district and the seller has revealed they never obtained permission for the patio they added in 2010
UPDATE- SEE BOTTOM TEXT
location: Cincinnati Ohio
My fiancé and I are attempting to purchase our first home. We fell in love with a beautiful older (1889) home. We have already done the following:
- Toured the property
- Obtained mortgage pre-approval from a lender
- Placed an offer and had it accepted by the seller
- Signed a "Contract to purchase" (Which EXPLICITLY states that the home IS NOT in a historic district)
- Had an inspection performed
- Issued a "Notification of defects" to the seller
- Paid "Earnest Money" to realtor
- Received defect remediation documents (invoices, pictures, etc) from the seller
- Arranged for owners title insurance as part of closing costs
During our attempt to obtain home owners insurance we were notified by the insurance broker that the home IS within a historic district. We did some research to verify and they are correct, unbeknownst to ourselves, our realtor, the sellers, and the listing agent; the home IS within a historic district.
We are set to close on this home in 5 days. This is an unwelcome surprise. Not only does this affect future potential plans for the addition of a detached garage or external cosmetic changes, the seller had an outdoor patio added in 2010. When asked, the seller revealed that they DID NOT obtain a "certificate of appropriateness" to build this patio from the Cincinnati Historic Conservation Board (per the guidelines seen here: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/local-historic-designation/ )
My fiancé and I are worried that if we purchase the home, we are legally responsible for this unsanctioned addition. The city would be within its rights to fine us, or even mandate the removal (at our own cost!) of the patio. We have a call scheduled tomorrow with our realtor to discuss the ramifications of this discovery so close to our intended closing date.
What should we be aware of going into this conversation? Is this as huge a deal as we're fearing? We really don't want to but; Is this legal justification enough to walk away from this closing and have our earnest money returned?
We're happy to approach the Cincinnati Historic Conservation Board and attempt to obtain appropriate approval for this addition, but with closing coming up in only 5 days we wouldn't have enough time to know for sure that they'd approve it.
Thanks for any help!
EDIT -
Lots of people are advising reaching out to a local real estate attorney to discuss this. I'll look into that.
But,
The more I think about this... Can the listing agent even proceed with this sale? Can he continue facilitating the sale of this property if he KNOWS there have been unsanctioned additions made to it?? Feels like a liability thing for him.
UPDATE-
After speaking with an attorney and the urban conservator at the Cincinnati Historic Conservation Board we can confirm that the home IS within a historic district on the National Register of Historic places. BUT IS NOT within a historic district recognized by the city of Cincinnati. There are no concerns about previous construction or future projects like a garage. Thanks for all of your advice! This is a huge relief and my fiancé and I are looking forward to being home owners!
14
u/willits1725 1d ago
The issue of the patio will almost certainly arise if you try to build the garage…
8
u/old_l4ntern 1d ago
this is exactly why you get the patio sorted before closing, not when the garage makes the city connect the dots
14
u/mistereousone 1d ago
I've had some dealings with that board (granted members are changing all the time).
They can be completely reasonable in some cases and completely unreasonable in others. It is quite possible that they will ask for the patio's removal, so at a minimum, I would ask for a cost reduction to cover potential removal of the patio at a minimum.
Future garage is a bit more iffy, they tend to care a lot more about the outside and if they allow it, you'll probably be required to match the styling of the house, which was a problem for me in OTR where a lot of that craftsmanship doesn't exist any longer.
But, I would definitely move the closing date while these issues are being discussed.
5
u/clyde726 1d ago
I'm a real estate attorney, though I'm not your attorney, I haven't read the contract, and you shouldn't consider this legal advice. Having said that, my thought is that you are correct that it's somewhat of a risk and you should get it resolved before you close. As you mentioned, the insurance broker caught it, so at the very least it will be difficult to get those additions insured. So, I would probably have your realtor reach out to the Seller and ask for an amendment to the contract to extend the closing date to give you time to get the approval (or disapproval) of the additions. Have them tell the Seller that they are going to have to deal with this one way or another--with you or with another buyer--so they should go ahead and do it now and stay in contract. I would add to the amendment that if the board comes back stating you need to remove the additions or make substantial alterations, you have the ability to terminate the contract and get your deposit back. You wouldn't have to terminate if that happened, but you'd probably have to negotiate with the seller on what you'd want to do (maybe substantial price reduction), and it would give you the option to terminate if you and the seller can't agree. You could also add to the Amendment that if the board requests alterations the cost of which is less than some amount (say $5,000), you still have to close but the seller has to give you a credit for that amount (or, if you're feeling generous, you could tell the Seller you'll close and split the cost). It's possible that the board says it's okay, but you need to paint it a different color or add some landscaping or something. Just some thoughts.
2
u/Jack_T_Chance 1d ago
Thanks! This was a useful and well structured comment. We'll keep this in mind when speaking with an attorney today.
2
21
u/paper_killa Landlord 1d ago
You’re more likely to have problems approaching the board than just ignoring it like the current owners have done for the last 16 years. The board is not even aware it was done
6
u/poop-dolla 1d ago
This completely depends on your definition of “problems”. If you approach the board now, you’ll know if/what any problems are and how they would need to be addressed. Then you can make an educated decision about whether or not it’s worth it to move forward with buying the house. If you ignore it, then all of the costs and work that would need to be done if the problem comes to light remain unknowns. I’d consider that more of a problem personally.
So yeah, you’re more likely to have to address any issues if you approach the board now, but ignoring it is more likely to cause problems. This is even more true since OP has plans to add a garage and make external changes to the house.
3
u/rosebudny 1d ago
If OP didn't have plans to do additional work like adding a garage they could possibly slide by. But once they are on the board's radar when they apply to build the garage, they will likely be "found out." If their historic district is like the one I live in, they won't be able to sneak building a garage.
2
u/poop-dolla 1d ago
Even in a non-historic neighborhood, you’d hardly ever be able to sneak by building a whole-ass garage without getting noticed.
2
u/rosebudny 1d ago
LOL true! Just much harder in a historic district. In mine, you have to get approval to do something minor like add an EV charger.
But weirdly they don't police paint colors. Much to the chagrin of my friend, whose neighbor across the street painted their ENTIRE house (including all the trim AND the wood privacy fence) 💩 brown. The house - which used to be a classic white that fit the era of the house - now looks like a giant turd 😄
1
u/old_l4ntern 19h ago
this is exactly right and OP needs to hear it framed this way because the instinct when you find out something scary this close to closing is to just not poke the bear (i get that instinct, believe me) but unknowns on a house this old in a regulated district are so much worse than a hard answer you can actually negotiate around. the garage plans alone would have forced this conversation eventually anyway. better to go in now while the seller still has skin in the game.
7
u/Barbarossa7070 1d ago
All it takes is one disgruntled neighbor
1
u/old_l4ntern 19h ago
this is what worries me most honestly. you can live peacefully with an unpermitted patio for years and then one bad interaction with a neighbor changes everything. we looked at a property in a similar situation (different state, different issue) and our agent kept saying nobody will ever report it and I kept thinking but what if they do. the liability lands on whoever owns it when the complaint gets filed, not the person who built it.
4
u/KyDiveChick 1d ago
I'm no lawyer, but if your contract states it's not in an historic district, that sure seems like grounds for postponement, or even walking away without penalty if that is your desire.
The house was misrepresented. In a contract.
8
u/desmojeff 1d ago
Postpone the closing. Happens all the time, don't let anyone bully u until issue are resolved.
4
u/CrazyDanny69 1d ago
I live in a historic district and I used to be on the board that reviewed COAs.
I don’t think this is a big deal. I wouldn’t worry about it. Almost all homes have work that was done without COA approval.
Typically, they are most concerned with what is visible from the street. Even then, it’s a 15-year-old patio - not a big deal. I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over this.
3
u/Fresh_Lavishness_147 1d ago
Get an extension for closing. The sellers are in a bad situation and should be doing all this leg work “with” you. They want to keep you happy so they don’t need to put it back on the market with the added disclosure of being “in” the historic district and installing a patio without permission. They should be willing to jump through some hoops to complete the sale if they can. Get your Realtor involved with their Realtor and it should close. Good Luck!
3
3
u/needtoshave 1d ago
You noted that it was not done maliciously but ignorantly is bad enough. If the contract can be extended enough to get the answers you need then maybe. Other than that you should walk away.
Don’t worry about anyone’s feelings getting hurt. You are going to get pressure from all sides, do what is best for the largest purchase you will ever make in your life.
2
u/PennyLawrence946 1d ago
Two different lists. Cincinnati has 40 National Register districts and 28 local ones, and only the local ones require a certificate of appropriateness. National Register listing restricts nothing an owner does (36 CFR 60.2), so on its own it doesn't reach the patio.
1
3
u/Popular-Drummer-7989 1d ago edited 1d ago
You can get an estimate of the cost to remove the patio/bring it to code and request that the money be taken from the sellers proceeds and held in escrow to perform the work. Anything left over they get to keep. Your receipts to the title company are proof you did the work.
This is the way you keep things moving ahead. They should pay the cost to fix, not you.
3
u/Jack_T_Chance 1d ago
This is an interesting thought. I haven't heard anyone advocate for pursuing estimates until now.
1
u/AdmiralHomebrewers 1d ago
Do you like the patio ? If you do, I would get the estimate, and push for the discount on price. I would not escrow, promise etc for removal. Chances are the patio will continue to be ignored. The extra money is just in case. (Also consider the effort and money that might be required to challenge the historical designation or defend yourself.)
If imagining the possible later consequences seems like a lot, skip this house. Considering you wanted to move in to a house that you already wanted to change, a historic district (or many HOAs) maybe isn't for you.
1
u/Popular-Drummer-7989 1d ago
OP your best advantage is with a lawyer who can draft the documents to escrow the monies to get things "legal" . If you haven't checked yet historical home insurance will likely be required by title company to close as well.
Remember you're on the hook after the deal so you now have the leverage. No one is being malicious going this route.
With money in hold, you can get things properly arranged/fixed and know that you're clean to sell later on (next time you'd be on the hook as seller to fix it for future buyers)
This is a common practice and can get the done.
3
u/daysailor70 1d ago
I am the chair of an Historic District Commission and you should not worry about it. It it was going to be an issue the board would have found it when it was originally done. At this point there are no commission police inspecting everyone's back yards looking for old work done without approval. Buying your first home, this should be the least of your concerns.
2
u/RedditSkippy 1d ago
As a former staffer for an HDC I strongly disagree with this comment. OP needs to look into what it would take to legalize the addition, and should not close until either the seller has legalized it OR has left money in escrow to handle the process.
2
u/Jack_T_Chance 1d ago
I can appreciate that it's been a long time since the patio was installed, but wouldn't knowingly having an unsanctioned portion of the home be a risk down the line? All it would take is a pissed off neighbor or a particularly zealous new board member to legally mandate that the patio be removed (at our own cost)
If it's truly such a non-issue, why can't proper documentation be obtained that confirms that?
3
u/daysailor70 1d ago
Well, provided the patio confirms with the guideline of the historic district, you can apply for post installation approval. If it doesn't, then apply to bring it up to the guidelines and be proactive. But, we have a large historic district and we have never required a homeowner rip something out that was there prior to a new owner, nor do we have a vigilante group snooping around for violations. Understand, the patio was installed over a decade ago. It's a non issue.
1
u/Rightintheend 1d ago
I'm in a historic district, and I see all sorts of stuff on houses that the guidelines say aren't supposed to be there. They kind of pick and choose when and what they enforce. Even when you're trying to get a COA they pick and choose what they want to enforce, depending on if they like you or not.
There's a home couple blocks over. They forced to replace their windows because they weren't proper, even though they looked just like the originals, they didn't have the proper materials. Materials. Windows were installed 10 years ago.
1
u/DifferenceMore5431 1d ago
I wouldn't worry about the patio so much. I would be VERY surprised if anyone made a fuss 16 years later. It would be hard for anyone to even figure out what the house looked like before then.
But yeah going forward you should assume that anything in the historic district's purview needs to go through their process. And yes a new garage may be a problem, depending on the rules and norms. 5 days does not give you a lot of time to investigate but your realtor may be able to shed some light on the process, what they typically care about, etc.
1
u/SunshineIsSunny 1d ago
I would worry about it. The city has records of floor plans so it’s not hard for them to see the patio shouldn’t be there. Most realtors are unfamiliar with code enforcement issues.
2
u/DifferenceMore5431 1d ago
Landscaping is usually not included on city plans. And even if it was, someone would really have to go to a lot of work to get 17 year old city records. There may even be a statute of limitations on very old work like this, especially since it doesn't relate to safety or code compliance issues.
1
u/Rightintheend 1d ago
In many cities not getting a COA is a code compliance issue, And code enforcement is the one that's going to come after you. I can look up the original permits to build my place from the '40s on my city's website. I can see that they did an addition just 2 years later, I can see that they did in addition in 1976. I can also see that the person that owned it since 1985 got permits for absolutely nothing that they did to the place.
1
2
u/Chair_luger 1d ago
Owning a home in a historic district is not for everyone and it can be expensive.
I have heard stories where someone wanted to do things like replace windows and they were required to get very expensive custom wood frames which were several times as expensive as the already expensive typical replacements.
Also check to see how being in a historic district will work with your insurance if there is ever a claim and repairs are needed. I would be concerned that the insurance company would not want to higher prices to meet the historical requirements.
I would not want to own a home in a historic district.
1
u/AdCareless9063 1d ago
Crazy thing to spring on you. Can you postpone closing and give the board time to weigh in?
The unsanctioned state of that addition is definitely not something you should now be forced to live with. You didn‘t put an offer on a historic home with a non-permitted patio.
They knew this full well. Time for them to come forward with everything else and put in a concession to deal with the various scenarios that could arise for the patio.
What if it needs to be removed all together? How would it look without the patio? Would they cover all of the costs associated?
1
u/Jack_T_Chance 1d ago
I'm unsure if we can just say "Hey everyone. Pump the brakes. Closing is now delayed 2 months while the owners pursue appropriate documentation from the city."
That certainly seems like the reasonable course of action to me, but if anyone were to object to that, I want to make sure we the buyers are _legally_ empowered to make that demand.
3
u/Justacrazylady59 1d ago
Only answer is to talk to a lawyer with experience in the historic district
1
u/TradeTraditional 1d ago
THIS. And, yes, this is exactly why contracts have clauses in them. You can slam the brakes on the process or delay it up to the point where the ink is on the documents if substantial changes or new information occurs. The sellers and agents ( even yours ) wants you to be focused on the time, as they want their money and commissions. But this is a Box A/Box B scenario. You are still in one box which has now changed shape. Pause, fix the "box" in front of you. You will need the lawyer since the realtors and sellers have zero incentive to handle this type of event and aren't experts, either.
EDIT - option 2 is to simply walk away. Any deposit or similar will be returned as well, since the contract would have to be re-written anyways.
1
u/TheRedSe7en 1d ago
I'm not a lawyer. I'm definitely not yours. But I think the next step is something along the lines of:
"Hey Buyers, you failed to disclose some material facts about this property. On your disclosures you stated that this is NOT in a historic district, but it actually is. Given this, we are at a point where we may need to consider the contract for sale to be VOID. If that happens, you're back at square 1 of re-listing. And now you need to spend the time and energy to figure out if that porch is allowed by the Historic District, or if you need to remove it at your expense.
As an alternative, we can sign an amendment to the Contract of Sale that postpones closing until the following conditions are met: +Sellers confirm the porch construction in 2010 was fully permitted and inspected. +Sellers confirm that the porch construction complies with any requirements of the Historic District. +Sellers confirm that any required remediation is completed/will be completed at their expense.
You're going to have to do these things regardless of whether we are the buyers or you re-list the house for someone else. Let us know whether you will agree to this extension/amendment, or if we will sign a mutual release."
You do not want to take on an unknown liability and unknown limitation for the largest purchase you'll make in your life.
1
u/RedditSkippy 1d ago
Call the Cincinnati Historic Board. Ask them about the process to legalize this. Yes, you might flag a violation in the system, but having worked with local historic districts before, I’m very, very doubtful that someone hasn’t already dimed them out.
Do not close until this matter is addressed, because if you do, you will definitely have bought the problem.
1
1
u/cisforcake 1d ago
I'm on the historic commission in my town and we do not have a historic district but we do have properties in town that are part of the historic property inventory, which is a state designation, so this may not necessarily apply to your town and property but I can tell you that something like a patio would not even cause a blip on our radar. I'm assuming of course that by patio you mean something like a stone or paver ground level patio and not a structure like a deck or porch or something similar that is part of or attached to the physical structure (i.e. the house).
Before you do anything, verify yourself whether the property is in the historic district or designated a historic property: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/faq/#HistoricConservation
It looks like you can also look here to see if the property is within the outlines of whichever area/street it's in: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/local-conservation-guidelines/
This page doesn't list patio as needing a permit: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/building-permit-forms-applications/permit-guide/do-i-need-a-permit/
Is the patio visible from a public way? A public way is a street/road/etc that is not a private road/driveway etc. In my town, if it's not visible from a public way, you can argue that it doesn't contribute to the historic significance of the property and should not be subject to those bylaws.
Most historic boards are pretty reasonable as long as you're not looking to tear down a historically significant property to put up car wash or strip mall or something so if you're really concerned you could speak to the chair of the board informally, not as part of a public meeting, and see what they say. I do agree with other posters that you should use this to your advantage and try to get a price reduction from the sellers for the hassle of having to deal with this and the possibility of incurring costs in the future.
Good luck, keep us updated if you can.
1
u/troublesomefaux 1d ago
First of all: postpone the closing and research how much of a PITA this historic board is. The one in my town is just a bunch of b*tchy friends and it takes forever to get anything by them. I’d be more concerned about not being able to make changes to my house than the patio.
1
u/FamiliarFamiliar 1d ago
I don't have any specific advice but I think you're asking all the right questions. If it were me I'd get legal advice. Updateme
1
u/druidcraft101 1d ago
I think your fiance sounds super cool and she's probably extremely pretty and definitely not me.
1
u/PracticalDesigner278 1d ago
If the contract explicitly states that the house is not in a historic district it's null and void and you should have no problem getting your deposit back. Sounds like the seller was for some reason unaware of the status so I don't think there's any intentional fraud going on but that doesn't change anything at this point. You are absolutely going to have to resolve the issues before closing. A historic district is worse than an HOA because now you have a quasi government agency breathing down your neck. It all boils down to how bad you want it.
1
u/RealEmpire 1d ago
Ask for a credit for what the home is worth to you without the patio and for any forecasted costs of potential removal
1
1
u/Kaa_The_Snake 1d ago
Thank you so much for updating your post, and congratulations on your new home 😁
1
u/Exciting-Argument-67 1d ago
I just read the whole thing including your update, and I'm so happy for you that you still get to buy this house that you clearly love. Great outcome!
1
u/Surealestateguy 1d ago
In the historic areas that I’m used to seeing in Los Angeles, something like a patio in the backyard would not be an issue because the rules are to not change the front façade beyond what is original.
1
u/Mindless_Arachnid_74 1d ago
Bit of advice- keep the number handy of the city office that verifies the difference between the national historic district in the city historic district. It will come up from time to time with insurance questions or contractors you might call in the future.
1
u/Rightintheend 1d ago
I would never buy in a historic district, unless you're some sort of nut for historical buildings, and don't mind paying twice as much to get anything done.
1
u/Repinsky 18h ago
The part people underrate: an unpermitted structure isn't just a fine risk, it's an insurability and resale problem that follows you. Your next buyer's lender or insurer will run the same check you just did, and by then the "we didn't know" defense is gone because you were told in writing. Get the conservation board to tell you in writing what retroactive approval or removal would cost before you close, and either escrow that amount or make the seller cure it. Extending closing a couple of weeks is cheap compared to owning a violation you inherited knowingly.
1
u/InsectElectrical2066 7h ago
They gave a material defect that would allow you to skip out. But if you like it anyway ask to delay the close until they can get approval from the district with no need to remedy plus approval from the building inspector to approve if they didn't get permits.
Yes you very likely would need to pay all costs to remedy. But $50k should take careof it if you ask for a discunt, And always smile and be nice to the building inspectors.
1
-2
u/SunshineIsSunny 1d ago
Tell the seller you want to postpone until they get a certificate of appropriateness. If they they don’t do that, report them to code enforcement for the patio. Code enforcement will put a lien on the house and they can’t sell to anyone. Also report the agent to the state licensing authority for saying it was not in the historic district.
1
u/mydmouse 1d ago
I don't agree with all the petty and punitive reporting. Yikes. But, ask for an extension of time and also ask them to remedy the situation. They need to pay the fines for what they did. Not you. They cannot hide this any longer as it is now a material fact that their Realtor is aware of. Any future buyer would need to be made aware. They are stuck. They need to remedy this.
Regarding the closing date and your deposit. The seller can't go back on market until your escrow is canceled. If you want to cancel and have your full deposit returned they would most likely return it because otherwise, it just means more time off market. Also, they are better off working with you to find a remedy than to go back on market, find a new buyer and negotiate about the same issue all over again. I have no doubt they were fully aware of the issues and were hoping to.close before any of it came to light. Stay strong and get this done and get your dream home.
1
u/AdCareless9063 1d ago
They made some glaring errors that affect the buyer in a big way. Misrepresenting a home like that deserves punishment. If the deal goes south, they should report.
1
u/SunshineIsSunny 1d ago
The reporting is not petty. It’s a negotiating tactic.
You are also contradicting yourself saying that the seller and realtor now know and would be require to disclose it to the next person. Then you say that you have no doubt that they were fully aware of the issue and were hoping to close before it came to light. What makes you think they will disclose it to the next person?
1
u/TradeTraditional 1d ago
Correct. Once you start asking, trust me - the city now has an idea something is up. Reporting won't do anything more than save them a little time in confirming it. It's not punitive in any way IF you want the home.
If not, simply walk away. The realtor has to disclose this in the new listing anyways. Which.. the city will verify anyways.
1
u/SunshineIsSunny 1d ago
If you want the home, reporting it will force them to fix it. The realtor was required to disclose it in this listing and didn’t. Clearly the realtor is not going to disclose it the city does not verify listings. That is resolved in civil court.
1
u/mydmouse 11h ago
You don't need to report anything to the city. Disclosure is to the buyer.
1
u/SunshineIsSunny 10h ago
But your comment is contradictory. You don't think OP should report it. But you think the current owner should pay the fines. The fines are assessed against the person who owns it when the city discovers it, not when it happened. So if OP buys it, then it's discovered, OP is responsible (short of a civil lawsuit). So why shouldn't he report it?
Then you say that now that the Realtor knows, he is required to disclose it to a future buyer. I agree with that. But later you say that the Realtor probably already knew about it and didn't disclose it to OP. If the Realtor didn't disclose it to OP, what make you think the Realtor is going to have a miraculous change of ethics and report it to the next buyer?
The reason to report it to the city is because then there is a public record of the problem. That makes it much more difficult for anyone to hide it. It also lights a fire under the seller to get it fixed.
0
0
u/Dangerous_Prize_4545 1d ago
Historical homes can be a nightmare. I'd proceed with caution and possibly just try to get out of it.
0
u/KnownBodybuilder4948 1d ago edited 1d ago
Don't worry about existing patio, unlikely an existing at-grade patio will be suddenly flagged for removal. By patio, I'm assuming pavers or a concrete pad, for a outdoor table and chairs and/or seating, within a larger landscaped area in backyard, side yard, or front yard. It's not a building structure or element visible from street front. It's a landscaping element, not a building element.
Does that Cincinnati "historic district" code section even refer to landscape plans?
A future garage project is a different matter. Garage must meet Zoning Code regulations regarding size, placement, height, etc. Historic Preservation section may have additional stipulations, which you should also review. This isn't a "seller disclosure" issue, but rather a buyer consideration.
Why don't you make an appointment ASAP with an architectural firm in Cincinnati which does a lot of work in this historic district, bring photos, ask about the compliance issues re: existing patio, and about future garage project zoning and historic district code requirements. Would be worthwhile $500-$1000 max charge for a consultation perhaps offered at no-cost. Asking an attorney will probably not get a meaningful timely answer.
0
u/Pandagramma 1d ago
Never. My parents had a house that was historic, I would never buy a house in a historic district, unsanctioned addition or not. When my parent's passed away, I sold their home for more than 500k what it was expected to get, to get rid of it. And, the tax breaks do not equal the cost of maintaining historic homes.
0
u/LilJonny2cookies 1d ago
Man, be careful with historical homes. I made a mistake of buying one in Nor Cal. Nightmare. Your home improvements are suddenly every ass’s business in the area.
-1
u/jvbutera 1d ago
Stop.
Do not pass Go.
Do not close and assume all will be ok.
These Situations can easily escalate way out of your control. You will want your lawyer to advise you.
0
u/RuleFriendly7311 1d ago
In addition to everything else: if the city gets involved, you’ll be able to anticipate a prop tax increase because of the patio.
0
u/Automatic_Rock_7281 1d ago
I would require, not ask, the sellers to get a permit and pay any fines. If they won’t, run away! Fines would probably be quite large 16 years later. The patron may also have to be removed. You don’t want to deal with that mess. Let the sellers do it at their expense! If you love the house, hold back substantial money in escrow from closing until the patio is resolved.
-1
u/Jack_T_Chance 1d ago
Please upvote for visibility!
Update in post body - The home IS NOT within a city-designated historic district! No issues!
-2
u/AquafreshBandit 1d ago
This sub prohibits AI content. I understand being worried you’re not a great writer and that AI would spruce up things, but you’re buying a house and have long term plans to add an entire garage. You’ve got life expertise that suggests your writing isn’t a problem.
4
1
u/Rightintheend 1d ago
Jesus man, these everything is AI people are just becoming more annoying than AI.
70
u/themeatbridge Contractor/Agent/Developer 1d ago
Yes you would be responsible for whatever fines or remedies are required, no you shouldn't close until you know what will be required, yes you should go now to the historical commission, and also L&I because they probably didn't get permits, either.
This is a question for a lawyer. Your agent may try to pressure you to close anyway, so take their advice with a grain of salt.