The housing crisis continues to be a hot-button issue across British Columbia, with new legislation aimed at increasing housing density facing unexpected hurdles. Recently, property owners have begun to realize how statutory building schemes (SBS) from decades past impact their ability to replace single-family homes with multi-unit dwellings.
These covenants are private agreements created to limit the type of developments allowed on certain properties. Under British Columbia's Land Title Act, such covenants were historically implemented to control density and maintain community standards.
Property buyers hoping to capitalize on new provincial regulations allowing for higher density housing are now caught up with these antiquated restrictions. For example, homeowners in Burnaby are discovering they cannot demolish their single-family homes to construct multiplexes due to covenants enacted way back in the 1970s.
One couple, the Pons, is currently petitioning the B.C. Supreme Court to remove the SBS tied to their Burnaby home. They argue the covenant is outdated and hinders the development of much-needed housing within changing neighborhoods.
"The statutory building scheme restricts the utilization of the property, which is inconsistent with the legislative and zoning changes we've seen recently," the Pons’ petition outlines. The couple believes the court should recognize the evolution of community needs and housing requirements.
The dilemma doesn't rest solely on their shoulders; it's also about balancing the rights of other locals who may wish to uphold these historical structures. One neighbor, William Chan, expressed his conflict, saying he is torn between supporting his neighbors’ efforts and preserving the character of their community.
The Ministry of Housing acknowledges the challenge of these pre-existing covenants and stresses the need for homeowners to seek legal advice. They highlight the potential for legislative remedies but have yet to confirm any specific plans focused on addressing these outdated agreements.
Legal professionals note the lengthy and costly process required to settle these issues through the courts. Ron Usher, a retired property lawyer, emphasized the need for universal laws to address deeply-rooted concerns with restrictive covenants, asserting, "There are many obsolete titles affecting countless properties across B.C."
With roughly two million land titles registered, the actual number of impacted properties is expected to be substantial. Usher notes there must be systemic changes to streamline the process of addressing these outdated restrictions.
The provincial government's recent attempts to address the housing shortage aimed to ease restrictions and facilitate the development of more affordable housing options. Yet, as advocates point out, the lingering effects of previous laws still hold sway over potential solutions.
At the crux of these property disputes lies the relationship between community history, personal rights, and the urgent need for housing reform. Developers and property owners are now left to navigate the often convoluted legal factors entangled with these antiquated covenants.
Many are left wondering if new housing policies will live up to their promises if they continue to grapple with these legal hurdles. Genuine concerns about maintaining community character and progressing toward increased density are at odds, creating friction as stakeholders seek resolutions.
BC’s housing crisis demands immediate attention, yet as homeowners fight for their rights through legal channels, many question whether solutions will emerge quickly enough. The interplay of past agreements and present legislation will undoubtedly shape the future of housing development and urban planning.
Whatever happens down the road, it’s clear the government will need to evaluate the fitness of existing property covenants for the realities of modern-day housing demands.
