A serious silly question , property line
 

This may seem silly and maybe it is but how far up in elevation does a property line go ? An example might be a tree within the property line but over hanging it .

My son is planning to have a garage/apartment built next to his home . The recent survey shows the property line not where they thought it was . This new info will change the footprint of the project.

For conversation purposes I am suggesting to him to shrink the footprint by 4 ' . Come up 10 ' with garage walls . Then expand the apartment footprint by the 4 ' that was lost for the garage . Kind of a Swiss chalet look . So is structure 10 ' in the air that is on the line or just over the line an issue ?

To be clear we are NOT trying to do anything illegal . Everything is being shared with the city and code enforcement . A licensed GC is involved . Just wondering if maybe there is some gray area with elevation vs property line .

Depends on what local laws are

Construction and maintenance are going to be an issue no matter what the law says. Out here we can build ON the property line, but I held my garage back 5 feet so I can paint and clean gutters without involving my neighbor.

Local building codes will have to be the guide here. All places I lived, property line went straight vertical, you tree example would mean someone could shear a 100' tree flat against the property line, kind of like it hitting an invisible wall.

A lot of places have setbacks from the property line that vary in size, but going vertical from there I don't know - I'd expect they'd still have to maintain the setback regardless of how tall.

^^^^ This. Tree roots too....

No part of the structure can be over the property line. Not even awnings. The foundation line has nothing to do with it. This is true for setbacks. That's all I know as a CA contractor.

It would make no sense to allow a person to build a property that extends over another's property line (or the setback requirement if there is one) ...even if that portion is above the ground level. It would essentially deprive the adjacent landowner of the full use of his property, should he decide to build.

In my most recent project, the rules were 5ft inside the property line. That is pretty typical. In Dahlonega, that is the rule for accessory buildings as well (more for some other types which this may fall into since it has an apartment.):

"Accessory buildings and use shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from any lot line.'

The neighbor has air rights above his/her property on up into a certain point in space is my understanding.
You can't add 100ft steel beam cantilevers and build halfway across their back yard. You'll want to keep that egress for maintenance anyways when a fence goes up.

Snow and water run-off are the responsibility of the originator. No aiming all the gutters at their foundation which will crack. Is there a drop space pit planned? Lots of rain in parts of GA.

You can usually trim trees at the property line, unless they will significantly impact the entire health of the tree. I have some big old ones that the tree service won't touch. Communication and agreement goes a long way and saves legal fees in the long run.

And it's kind of a un-karma move to build anything close and high up, especially if a main house structure is on the other side. One somehow got a permit to build on 70-80% of the lot footprint which can't be legal. Same with building out to the curb and blocking their view. I've got neighbors with the minimum 4-5ft code setback on either sides and both have windows looking into each other's walls. How about baby poo mustard yellow while they are at it? Ugh. Who would want to live there?

A private outdoor porch and enjoyment space is golden. Separate the house from the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Maybe plant the right tree between if there is space to block sight line. Eberybahdy happy.

Plans can be moved around at this stage. Work with what you got and what is possible.
The end result will make all the difference.

This sounds to have all the makings of a future AITAH reddit thread.

AITAH for building the second floor of a structure wider than the ground floor and crowding / encroaching on my neighbors property even though it's allowed by building code?

Get with your local building department and zoning department. You can’t build over the property line/set back or cantilever over the property line/set back. In some cases, not even your soffit, can overhang the setback/property line. Also, you want to leave enough room for maintenance, etc. to the structure.

There's no way your son's structure will be allowed to overhang the adjacent parcel just because some portion of it is elevated.

_

A friend went through this with his neighbour's soffits/eves.
It got pretty heated were my friend was about to pull out his Sawzall.
The town made him remove it.

This.

In almost every cases, the property owner has all the rights vertically up to where the point only the FAA call it air space, and then they have control. So anything overhanging the neighbors property will not be allowed.

Airplanes can fly over your property at any time, above the minimum altitudes set by the FAA.

What is a "silly serious question?"

Looking up what AITAH is that sounds pretty much like a insult.

Sure, treat it as a tree.

Of course, that means the other property owner can trim it back to the property line however/whenever they like.... but hey, who isn't up for unplanned redecoration? :)

Could he buy a slice of the neighbor’s property so that he could use his original plans?

This is part of the conversation solution as well .

I knew this was a long shot that's why I asked . The neighbors house is 50 ' away so it's not a house on house situation . I appreciate the feedback you guys provided . My son will work with the GC to come up with the best solution possible .

Thanks guys 👍

Be careful in places that are hungry for taxes and existing are capped to small yearly increments.
Research accordingly...get it in writing.
Even an hour consultation w/a good RE attorney or two might be worth it.

The value spent on a new addition should be worth it. ie resale or rental income in the meantime. The 1% rule.
https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/gross-rent-multiplier
Visual appeal is premier.

Anything additional should be based only on any added value theoretically, but they may re-assess the entire property whenever the footprint of structures is added onto (ie decks morphing into enclosed extensions over time), or new structures created, or the lot size increases.
YMMV locally.

Despite a City law which excepted family transfer of property, plus a previous letter of exemption from the city to Dad, my father's little ancient rental which I received got uncapped and taxes literally doubled. Which equals ten grand plus plus per year. Or a hundred thousand dollar plus per decade. That's a lot of hamburgers.
My money at the end of it.
Their valuation was exceptionally out of normal with neighborhood valuation including the one next door. Fraud.
I had to go before a City review board, State tax tribunal, finally a premier attorney and independent appraiser, the works, which cost seven grand(cheap), before the City finally agreed to normalize back to the higher scale of Fair Market Value.
Over half my affordable rents still go straight to the City...aka other people.

The housing market is 'up' right now but the commercial market is crashing hard and conversions will probably happen.

The best time to build is at low points.

AITAH is not unlike a lot of threads in OT.

It lives on reddit and people post personal stories of situations they've found themselves in and ask for community opinion on were they the AH or not.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

One of the more entertaining things on the interwebs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIthe*******/. Edit: Pelican language filter caught that. replace with a55hole but us S's intead of 5's