Top unit attic/roof conversions

Yes it is possible.  But………….

The roof cavity would no doubt be common property unless stipulated otherwise. Not sure about what would actually involved exactly.  Exclusive use bylaw, strata lalwyers, engineers reports, council permissions, plans drawn up, increased levies due to increased area of unit, payment to OC for use of this area, purchase of this area from OC.  These things are just off the top of my head.  

Even to use this space as just a storage area I think would involve most of the above, let alone a living space.

I reckon this should be categorised as more of a dream than a plan.  There are so many potential pitfalls – not least the Owners Corp refusing to sell you the space, which as other posters point out, is theirs to do with as they please.  The thing to remember is that just because the attic is above your apartment, it doesn’t mean you have any greater claim on it than any other person in the building.

A much better plan would be to buy into a building that offers the potential for upgrading by buying a bigger unit when one becomes available (and maybe renovating that).  But, as ScotlandX points out, there’s no free lunch in strata – any ‘profit’ you make by extending into common property goes straight to the Owners Corp.

Rebecca wrote:

There was no mention of having to pay the OC the assessed value of the converted space – which in my eyes would be hard to ascertain even at the point of resale of the unit.

There are professional surveyors whose job it is to assess the value of Real Estate and they would give you and your Owners Corp a fair assessment of the before and after values. The principle is well established and a legal precedent was set (in the High Court, I think) after an owner with most of the voting power in the building sold himself the loft space for a tiny sum to create two whole new apartments.  This was judged to be a ‘fraud on the minority’ and the principle of ‘buying’ the common property for the difference between the cost of the work and the increase in value was established.

I don’t know if you noticed in that article but Real Estate agents said the attic conversions add about $150,000 to the value of the property and that’s what the renovator paid to build his, so the $15,000 ‘donation’ may have been about right.  If it was well off and the established rules hadn’t been followed, any disgruntled owner or a new EC could come along and take legal action to get more money from the renovator.

I think if you have your heart set on this, you might be better off looking at a block of units where someone has already done this and then having a really close look at the EC minutes leading up to the renovation and during it.  You might find a building where the other owners are already cool about it.  Or it could be that it caused them so much hassle that they said ‘never again’!

Just remember that the OC doesn’t have to sell you Common Property (the roof space) if they don’t want to.  That is a great imponderable but if you’re keen, anything is possible.

My story to tell was an extension into a back area or ‘void cavity’ in my apartment block of 8. However, it was a company title – and not strata, so strata laws didn’t apply. I owned and lived on the ground floor in a small one bedroom apartment. The unit next door was also one bedroom but had a common laundry situated behind it. All of the other units above were two bedroom. The builder in the 1950’s followed the brickwork for the walls of the rooms through all stories, but the back area behind my built in wardrobes was left as a ‘void cavity’ with the rough brick walls and a dirt floor. In essence there were three rooms already built with the brick wall layout present but never finished for living in. The telephone line for the apartment block passed through this area and part of the back wall was subterranean. The drawcard is that the apartment block is in a prime blue ribbon real estate waterfront beach area in Sydney’s northern beaches.

When this was brought to my attention via the apartment block plans from 1957 at our AGM, I of course wanted to extend into that area and an EGM was called to discuss. It was agreed in principle that if Council passed a DA the Body Corporate would sell me the area. A formula was devised of a valuation of a two bedroom minus the valuation of my existing one bedroom. I would then be given a discount of 50% of the difference of the valuation for using my initiative of developing an area that was of no use or access to anyone else. The 50% that I paid to the BC was to go to the very empty sinking fund to assist paying for building maintenance. It was a ‘win-win’ situation all around. This happened over 20 years ago, prior to the Sydney real estate boom. I would acquire the ‘void cavity’ for the payment of approximately $15,000. My share holding would increase on par with the others and I would be required to pay more in quarterly levies. A local solicitor experienced in corporations law drafted the necessary resolutions and agreements to increasing the shareholding etc. All other apartments were owner occupied by elderly residents on the old age pension who baulked at levy increases, so this extra bit of cash was more than welcome. The exception to unanimous approval negating to need to calling an EGM to pass the paperwork was the top storey unit – owned by an elderly country solicitor.

Council approved the plans which were sealed with the company seal. The plan included a window for the bedroom (the size of a small car windscreen) that fitted underneath those above it and matched the same size. The window was supported by a structural engineers report. Things went pear shaped when the country solicitor lobbied the other residents on his legal letterhead on the premise that a window would cause cracking and the building would ‘fall down’. Approval was withdrawn by the other owners and the project did not proceed.

The point I am making is that problems you may encounter are; 1.some owners can become jealous that another owner is getting something that they cannot get, 2. you may pay a lot in DA fees, reports, architect plants etc. and be left out of pocket for a project that does not proceed for some unanticipated reason 3. Relationships that were previously cordial with your neighbours can become strained, plus there is noise and inconvenience from building work if things did proceed. My solicitor was of the opinion that the ‘void cavity’ wasn’t common property as it could only be accessed through my wardrobes and I could remove the back of them and enter and leave as I pleased. Taking it to court to obtain a judgment for ‘specific performance’ would have been an expensive remedy for the Supreme Court. I did end up storing things in the void cavity such as my pushbike and uni books, but some years later sold up to become a member of the land of strata living.  Oh….and I did put the backs back on the wardrobes!!

The difference between strata and company title of course is that under company title the company, eg XYZ Pty Ltd, owns the building and you then hold shares in the company and that gives you a right of occupancy to a particular area (flat No 2 for example). There is no concept of ”common property” under corporations law as far as I am aware. I certainly wouldn’t be engaging architects, engineers and lawyers unless I had everyone well and truly onside first.