1920 building - No C of O needed?
We just had an offer accepted on a condo in a 1920 building (8 units) that was completely gut renovated. The seller’s agent says that because the building is so old, they don’t need a C of O. That’s nice but if the bank requires one in order to close, then the seller won’t get…
We just had an offer accepted on a condo in a 1920 building (8 units) that was completely gut renovated.
The seller’s agent says that because the building is so old, they don’t need a C of O. That’s nice but if the bank requires one in order to close, then the seller won’t get paid.
I read up online a bit and the DOB website says…
“Buildings built prior to 1938 that have had no changes made to its occupancy nor egress since then do not have a CO number.” http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/bis/faq.shtml
From what I can tell and understand, no additions were made and it is still a residential building, but the insides have all been replaced.
Further online research reveals that banks sometimes accept a “letter of no objection” in cases where there is no C of O. http://www.aspagroup.com/tips.asp
I’m checking with the mortgage broker and our lawyer but wanted to see what others out there know about this.
Do we need the C of O to close? Or is this a normal situation? Any other info?
We purchased our 1903 house w/o a C of O and there were no issues. I’ve been told that it depends on the mortgage provider — ones in and around NYC are used to this, ones outside are less familiar with no C of O and may require one. I believe an LNO should suffice, but an experienced lawyer (not the sellers’ lawyer) in Brooklyn would be most helpful.
4:18 here again-
yes, by all means, look it up. But I think you can do it online now – no need to go in person to see if one exists.
With the block and lot number, you can get a lot of info from the dept. of finance’s site.
If you are not hiring an experianced real estate lawyer you might as well have your car body repairshop pulling wisdom teeth.
This is a serious issue and the c of o defines the legal use of the property. The DOB goes by legal use of a parcel, the dept of finance goes by observed use. They are often different.
We were also told that the building had no C of O – but the mortgage bank discovered there was one. I went to Joralemon Street (Brooklyn building), looked it up and found that at some point in the 40’s someone had used part of the space as a doctor’s office – so the C of O was established. Don’t trust what anyone “tells” you – go to the records office and look it up yourself.
When I bought a coop in a four-unit that was built originally in the 1890’s as a four-unit rental, that was one of my attorney’s questions that never got answered: does the building have a c of o?
It was not an issue with my mortgage bank at closing, nor with the mortgage banks for subsequent sales in the building. My research indicated that it was grandfathered in as OK to have no c of o because it was built before a certain date, and was always a four-unit (rental, then coop) residential building.
I think the city looks at condos and coops that same for this; don’t know if banks look more closely at condos. Your lawyer should know.
The first commenter is incorrect. DOB looks at use as: residential, commercial, industrial.
Regardless of whether the building was rental or condo, it does not need a CofO as long as it has always been residential. Interior renovations do not constitute change of use or occupancy, so no CofO should be needed.
No idea what the answer is, but you shouldn’t trust a word the seller’s agent says. They’re just repeating what the seller is telling them.
If the building was built as a condo before 1938 then there is no c of o. If the building was converted to a condo after that year there should be a c of o and the c of o should reflect the changes and use of the building.
And yes abnks and others will often accept a letter of no objection from the dept of buildings hen there is no c of o issued.