Zoning laws play a crucial role in determining what can be built and how land can be used in a particular area. For off-the-plan buyers in NSW, zoning changes represent a significant but often overlooked risk. These changes can occur after a buyer has signed the contract but before the property is completed, potentially altering the property's value, usability, and appeal.
In some cases, zoning changes can benefit a buyer, such as when new infrastructure is approved nearby, increasing property values. But more often than not, zoning changes can have negative consequences, such as restricting future developments, increasing density in surrounding areas, or allowing for construction that affects privacy, views, or the overall quality of life.
This article explores how zoning changes can impact off-the-plan buyers in NSW, what legal protections are available, and presents a real court case where zoning changes caused significant financial loss. We will also provide essential tips on how to protect yourself from zoning-related issues.
Zoning refers to government regulations that determine how land in specific areas can be used. Local councils and planning authorities in NSW regulate the types of structures that can be built, the height of buildings, and the kinds of activities allowed in a particular zone (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Zoning changes occur when these regulations are altered, often as part of broader urban planning initiatives.
Types of Zoning Changes That Affect Off-the-Plan Buyers:
Zoning changes can have a profound impact on off-the-plan buyers who have committed to purchasing a property based on a specific set of expectations. Some of the most common issues arising from zoning changes include:
Introduction
In Smith v XYZ Developments [2022] NSWSC 534, a group of off-the-plan buyers in Sydney filed a lawsuit after local zoning changes allowed for high-density developments next to their planned apartment complex. The resulting construction projects drastically reduced the value of their investments, leading to a lengthy legal battle.
Executor’s Mismanagement
The buyers had signed contracts for luxury apartments in a quiet, low-density residential area in Sydney. They were attracted by the promise of peaceful surroundings, spacious layouts, and unobstructed views of the nearby parkland. However, shortly after signing the contracts, the local council rezoned the adjacent land to allow for high-density housing developments.
As a result, a series of large apartment buildings were constructed next to the planned development, blocking the views and increasing traffic and noise levels in the area. The buyers, many of whom had paid premium prices for their units, felt that the zoning change had drastically altered the value of their properties and the livability of the area.
The buyers were initially unaware of the zoning change, as it was not disclosed by the developer at the time of signing the contracts. When construction on the high-density apartments began, the buyers became concerned and sought legal advice. They soon discovered that the rezoning had been approved before they signed their contracts, but the developer had failed to inform them of this crucial fact.
As frustration and anxiety mounted, some buyers attempted to negotiate with the developer for compensation or to back out of their contracts. However, the developer denied any responsibility, arguing that zoning changes were beyond their control and that they were not legally required to disclose such information. The buyers felt trapped, facing the prospect of settling on properties that were now significantly less valuable than they had anticipated.
The buyers filed a class action against the developer, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct for failing to disclose the zoning changes. They argued that the developer had an obligation to inform them of the rezoning, as it had a direct impact on the value and desirability of the properties they were purchasing.
The NSW Supreme Court reviewed the case, including evidence that the zoning changes had been approved months before the buyers signed their contracts. The court found that the developer had acted unethically by failing to inform the buyers of the zoning changes, as this information would have materially affected their decision to purchase.
The court ruled in favor of the buyers, awarding them compensation to cover the difference between the anticipated value of their apartments and the actual value after the zoning changes.
The financial consequences for the buyers were severe. The high-density developments next to their apartment complex reduced the property values by an average of 15%, leading to significant financial losses. Some buyers were forced to sell their apartments at a loss, while others struggled to secure financing, as banks revalued the properties at a lower amount than initially anticipated.
The court awarded compensation totaling $1.8 million, divided among the buyers based on the extent of their financial losses. However, this compensation did not fully cover the emotional stress and financial strain that the buyers had endured during the lengthy legal battle.
Government Resources
Non-Profit Organisations