Court Orders Residents to Demolish Balconies Built Without Consent
Translated & summarized from Globes by baba
Five Haifa apartment owners have been ordered by the District Court to demolish balconies they built without proper permits or neighbor consent. The court rejected their appeal, citing property law requiring 75% owner approval for such expansions. The owners failed to provide consent documentation, while neighbors showed opposition. They have 90 days to secure the required majority or face demolition.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Haifa District Court ordered five residents to demolish balconies built without permits or neighbor consent.
- The court cited property law requiring 75% of building owners' approval for balcony construction.
- The residents failed to provide written consent, while neighbors presented opposition.
- The court rejected the argument that previous unauthorized constructions justified their own.
- The owners were given 90 days to obtain the necessary majority consent or face demolition.
The Haifa District Court ruled this month that five apartment owners in a Haifa building must demolish balconies they constructed and restore the building's walls to their original state. The ruling came after their neighbors filed a lawsuit against them.
The case involved a 32-unit apartment building in Haifa where five owners illegally created openings in the external walls to access newly built balconies. Construction began without the necessary building permits and without obtaining the consent of other residents. Although an order to halt work was issued due to neighbor objections, the local planning committee later approved their request for balcony installation. Subsequently, neighbors filed a lawsuit with the Registrar of Real Estate, demanding the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The apartment owners completed the balconies while the legal proceedings were ongoing.
In their appeal, the owners argued that other residents had previously built balconies and that their own constructions should be recognized as similar expansions permitted by law, citing a violation of the principle of equality. They also claimed that six new balconies were recently built on the building's facade, yet only they faced a demolition lawsuit.
The appellate judges, Israela Kra-Giron, Adi Chen-Barak, and Yoav Friedman, rejected the appeal. They cited property law requiring the consent of 75% of all apartment owners for balcony construction, which in this case meant 24 out of 32 residents. The owners failed to present any written consent, while the opposing neighbors provided documentation showing opposition from 12 residents.
The court dismissed the argument that previous balcony constructions by others implied consent, stating that the "similar expansion" defense requires proof, not just assertion. The owners did not prove which apartments had similar balconies or that those were built legally with the required consent. The court emphasized that illegal construction by others cannot justify new illegal construction, as the "similar expansion" defense applies only to lawful constructions.
The court ordered the demolition of the balconies and restoration of the walls, imposing 15,000 shekels in costs on the appellants. They were granted a 90-day stay of execution to attempt to obtain the necessary majority consent.