What is a realtor required to disclose regarding an undeveloped lot next to a home?

[RG and HV]

A neighbor bought a home next to a vacant lot. The vacant lot is owned by the state which plans to build a three story, 45 unit affordable housing apartment building on the lot. What disclosures were required to be made to a potential new buyer for the home in this situtaiton?

 

[Just Blue]

A neighbor bought a home next to a vacant lot. The vacant lot is owned by the state which plans to build a three story, 45 unit affordable housing apartment building on the lot. What disclosures were required to be made to a potential new buyer for the home in this situtaiton?

What state? Please ask the neighbor to please join, with own user name to ask their question(s). It is more effective if we deal with the actual legal party. Thanks ...

 

[RG and HV]

Thanks Just Blue. I live in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, at this time I do not know this neighbor. Is it not possible to answer this general question without his participation? Thanks again.

 

[stealth2]

Thanks Just Blue. I live in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, at this time I do not know this neighbor. Is it not possible to answer this general question without his participation? Thanks again.

Then..... how do you know what the realtor may/may not have disclosed? Just curious...

 

[Just Blue]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/massachusetts-home-sellers-what-if-anything-you-must-disclose-buyers.html

 

[quincy]

Neither a real estate agent nor a homeowner are required to disclose information on anything but the property being marketed but, if directly asked by a prospective buyer about proposed development in the neighborhood, neither can lie about any known plans for development.

A smart purchaser should conduct their own investigations into zoning restrictions and variances prior to purchase.

 

[RG and HV]

I don't know for a fact if they were or were not notified. But I tend to think not. The home next to the vacant lot was buillt in 1750. Seems unlikely that someone interested in such a property would find it acceptable that "the woods" next to their 250 year old home would soon be converted into a parking lot and apartment building. I would think they would have to be notified of this "defect".

 

[Just Blue]

I don't know for a fact if they were or were not notified. But I tend to think not. The home next to the vacant lot was buillt in 1750. Seems unlikely that someone interested in such a property would find it acceptable that "the woods" next to their 250 year old home would soon be converted into a parking lot and apartment building. I would think they would have to be notified of this "defect".

If one buy's a home next to a vacant lot one should expect that almost anything can be built there. Curious...What city/town is this in? I ask because some towns have building codes/requirements to protect the historical atmosphere of an area. That was the case in the historic section of Marblehead when I lived there.

 

[quincy]

I don't know for a fact if they were or were not notified. But I tend to think not. The home next to the vacant lot was buillt in 1750. Seems unlikely that someone interested in such a property would find it acceptable that "the woods" next to their 250 year old home would soon be converted into a parking lot and apartment building. I would think they would have to be notified of this "defect".

A city near where I live has several historic homes surrounded by newer commercial buildings and parking lots. Areas change over time. Farmland becomes shopping malls and city houses are razed to make way for apartment buildings and boutiques and restaurants.

 

[RG and HV]

Thanks again. This is in Medfield. The vacant lot is owned by the Medfield Housing Authority and they have planned on this project since the 1970s. We are now staring down the proposed 40B apartment building on this lot and evidently, have zero ability to stop it. 40B trumps local zoning and there seems nothing that a resident and taxpayer can do to stop it.

 

[quincy]

Thanks again. This is in Medfield. The vacant lot is owned by the Medfield Housing Authority and they have planned on this project since the 1970s. We are now staring down the proposed 40B apartment building on this lot and evidently, have zero ability to stop it. 40B trumps local zoning and there seems nothing that a resident and taxpayer can do to stop it.

There is often little that can be done to prevent a property owner from exercising their legal rights. Neighbors can protest development in their areas or changes to zoning ... but that is about it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Massachusetts apparently does not require a specific form of disclosure by a seller or even require a whole lot in the way of specific disclosures that must be provided, unlike some other states. MA evidently only specifically requires a lead paint disclosure and septic tank disclosure. Even in states with more robust disclosure requirements, those requirements typically focus only on the condition of the property being sold and generally are focused on those things that cannot be discovered by searches of the public record. Only a few states have rules that would require disclosures about a neighboring property, and again those tend to be things that cannot be discovered in a public record. The plans for the government to build an affordable housing unit are likely something that can be found in the public record. In short, it does not appear that there was a mandatory disclosure for this in MA, nor would a seller in most other states have to disclose it either.

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks again. This is in Medfield. The vacant lot is owned by the Medfield Housing Authority and they have planned on this project since the 1970s. We are now staring down the proposed 40B apartment building on this lot and evidently, have zero ability to stop it. 40B trumps local zoning and there seems nothing that a resident and taxpayer can do to stop it.

Have you seen a picture of the building? Many new, low income housing is rather attractive. Or is it that you object to the people that will be living in the housing?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

There is very little that a seller in Massachusetts is required to disclose. I believe the only required disclosures are lead paint and septic systems.

The seller can be held liable if they misrepresent a fact, but not for withholding a fact (beyond lead paint and septic)

 

[adjusterjack]

The vacant lot is owned by the Medfield Housing Authority and they have planned on this project since the 1970s.

Then there was enough public knowledge that the buyer could have found out about it with a little research.

40B trumps local zoning and there seems nothing that a resident and taxpayer can do to stop it.

That's may not be entirely true. Here's a 40B project in Medfield that was rejected in 2017 for a variety of reasons:

http://www.hometownweekly.net/medfield/medfield-meadows-40b-proposal-denied/

Or is it that you object to the people that will be living in the housing?

NIMBY - Good guess.