Attefallshus som bostadsrätt

Sammanfattning: The Swedish Government has recently initiated additional permit-free buildings with the aim to simplify the Planning and Building act, reduce the housing shortage and increase a property owner’s proprietorship. According to the amendment it is possible to construct a complementary home with the size of 25 square meters in close proximity to an existing house. This building is known as an Attefall house. It can be constructed without a building permit and can transgress regulations in local plans. The legislative process of the Attefall house law has been criticized because of the short procedure and lack of consistent impact assessments. Authorities questioned the possibility that an Attefall house re-forms to a tenant-ownership. This statement was never considered by the government and is the foundation for this paper. In this paper it is shown that 83 Attefall houses in the conurbations have been re-formed to tenant-ownership. Therefore, it was fundamental to elucidate some of the property legal and economic consequences created by re-formations of Attefall houses. All the municipal land surveying offices were asked questions in three fictitious scenarios of how participatory shares in joint facilities are influenced by the occurrence of re-formations. For the reason, there was no unambiguous consensus regarding its influence and how the participatory shares should be modified. However, the majority thought that the participatory share should increase by the value of a permanent house or a multi-family house according to the "tonkilometermetoden". Furthermore, it is shown from interviews with local government workers that the impact of re-forming Attefall houses on the preparation of local plans and the infrastructure is absent. Only areas with smaller infrastructure dimensions could be adversely affected. Thereafter, this paper investigates whether a real property that has been subject to a re-formation of an Attefall house should be taxed as a private home or an apartment building. The conclusion is that a real property should be charged as a private home since it is built with two separated buildings - one two-family dwelling and one Attefall house. In conclusion, it is discussed how convenient it is to use the term complementary home to a re-formed Attefall house since a tenant-ownership can only consist of an independent accommodation.