Since when are basement apartments legal?!?!?!

sevenoneeighty

Okay, a little technical/ legal jargon here:

New York Laws for housing and tenements are complicated to say the least. There are many "grandfathered" exceptions to rules that must stay intact or living in the city would be impossible.

The New York State Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) deals with conversion of older buildings and must be used in conjunction with the Building code and the Zoning Resolution. The whole thing is a big mess when designing a building. Some buildings are still under the OLD NYC code for ratings and fireproofing also. Otherwise NO ONE would renovate anything in this city.

But to the original question about basement apartments...Yes, they are legal with certain provisions and rules.

This is an except from Chapter 6 of the MDL:This is dealing with conversions

http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/MDL/mdl06.html

NEW YORK STATE
MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW

"Chapter 713 of the Laws of 1929, as amended


ARTICLE 6
CONVERTED DWELLINGS
Sec. 177. Rooms in basements and cellars.

1. No room in any cellar shall be occupied for living purposes,
except as provided in subdivision six of section thirty-four
or in subdivision three of this section.

2. A room occupied for living purposes in a basement shall
comply with the requirements of sections one hundred seventy-
three and one hundred seventy-four except as provided in
subdivision four of this section.

3. Where more than sixty per centum of the height of a cellar
is below the level of the curb on which a dwelling faces,
but the floor of such cellar is approximately at the level
of the yard thereof and such yard is not less than thirty
feet in depth at every point, the department may permit the
use of such cellar for living purposes if it shall deem such
cellar adequately lighted and ventilated and habitable. When
permission is granted such a cellar shall be deemed a
basement.

4. The basement of a converted dwelling may be used for living
purposes without meeting the requirements of subdivisions
one and two of section one hundred seventy-three if such
dwelling meets the other applicable requirements of such
section and of this chapter, including the following:

a. Such a dwelling shall not exceed three stories,
including the basement, in height.

b. It shall be occupied by not more than one family on any
story, including the basement. For the purposes of this
subdivision a family shall not be deemed to include any
boarders, lodgers or roomers.

c. It shall have at least one court two feet or more in
width extending across the entire depth of the lot from
the street to the yard.

d. The department shall deem the basement to be adequately
lighted and ventilated, free of any dampness, sanitary
and habitable.

e. There shall be a separate water-closet compartment
within the basement apartment conforming to the
provisions of section two hundred.

f. Such dwelling shall not be required to comply with
section one hundred eighty-seven if a scuttle is
provided conforming to section one hundred eighty-
eight.

g. This subdivision is applicable only to buildings noted,
classified or recorded as such converted dwellings in
the department prior to January first, nineteen hundred
sixty-six.

5. Notwithstanding any provisions of this section or of
subdivision five of section three hundred, an apartment or
room in a cellar which was occupied for living purposes at
any time on or after October first, nineteen hundred fifty-
two may thereafter continue to be occupied for such purposes
until July first, nineteen hundred sixty-seven in accordance
with the conditions imposed by subdivision five of section
two hundred sixteen.'

Chapter 7 continues for tenements:

http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/MDL/mdl07.html

"Chapter 713 of the Laws of 1929, as amended

Sec. 216. Rooms in basements and cellars.

No room in the basement or cellar of any tenement shall be
occupied for living purposes unless there is a written permit
therefor as provided in subdivision five of section three hundred
and it either is part of an apartment which complies with the
conditions of subdivision six of section thirty-four or complies
with the following conditions:

1. a. There shall be appurtenant to every such room a
water-closet constructed and accessible in accordance
with the provisions of section seventy-six for
dwellings erected after April eighteenth, nineteen
hundred twenty-nine.

b. Every such room and all cellars and basements shall be
lighted and ventilated to the satisfaction of the
department.

2. If such room is in a tenement erected after April twelfth,
nineteen hundred one:

a. Such room shall be at least nine feet high in every
part from floor to ceiling.

b. Every part of the ceiling of such room shall be at
least four feet six inches above the curb level of the
street in front of such part when such room or the
apartment containing it is located in the front part of
the dwelling, and at least two feet above such curb
level in front of the dwelling when such room or the
apartment containing it is located in the rear of the
dwelling and the yard is less than sixty feet in depth
and does not extend to a street along its entire width.

c. The level of any yard or court upon which such a room
or apartment opens shall conform to the requirements of
subdivision eight of section twenty-six.

d. Every such room shall have a window opening upon a
street, yard or court, and shall be an integral part of
an apartment containing a room with a window opening
directly upon a street or yard or upon an outer court
at least eighteen feet in width and not more than
thirty feet in depth or upon a larger outer court whose
depth does not exceed its width by more than one-half...."

remybklyn

Thanks to sevenone80 for posting those laws and links. As for the guest, I totally agree. Does anyone remember the big demonstrations back in, I think '97 when the laws were up for renewal. Pataki and Bruno were pretty determined to not renew the laws, and the papers smelled blood, reporting on people who, for lack of a better term, had socialite status and were paying miniscule amounts for huge apts. in manhattan. So I agree with Guest, who said that people who abuse the grandfather clause are hurting the people those laws were meant to protect. I could very easily "inherit" the rent of my dad's rent contolled (not rent stabilized) apartment when he passes, but I won't. Seems greedy to do so.

anonymous

Subject: Rent stabilized apartments

Just a quick reality check on the rent stabilized apartment situation. A tenant can indeed be evicted, for many reasons. Two already mentioned include the landlord needing the apartment or a family member needing the apartment. Here are some more: violation of the lease agreement by creating a safety hazard. violation of the lease agreement by illegal activity. Selling drugs from the apartment. Using the apartment as a place of business. Harassment of other tenants to the point of legal action.
I know we are all used to hearing of the liberal housing courts but things have changed. People are expected to act responsibly if they are expecting to keep the apartment. It might take a year in court but that tenant would ultimately lose to the landlord.

anonymous

armchair_warrior wrote: i lived in a illegal basement with my parents for 5 years, you know what it beats living on the streets. Thats what my parents could afford.

I known people that been thrown out of illegal basements cause some jackass "concerned" about people living in basements.

all the self righteousness don't help the guy who can't afford to live in a legal place.

most of my life i hate the so called activist who thinks they know whats better for working class people. they haven't gone one day hungry in their lives sans the dieting.

Today's "renter/tenant activists" are the modern-day heirs to the 19th century's "reformers," who made the lives of landlords and tenants alike worse in their time by butting their priveleged but economically ignorant heads into other people's business. Since they were the power elite, what they said went, no matter the actual effects -- it made them feel good about themselves when the help tucked them into their warm beds at night, and that's all that mattered.

The fact is, an unknowably huge percentage of Brooklyn houses have illegal basement apartments, and if those were eliminated 1) there would be an instantly massive homeless problem and 2) rents would skyrocket. But the activists will pat themsevles on the back -- better to die in the dirty icy gutter than face the injustice of sleeping in a bedroom without windows. At least, that's one of the thoughts they'll project into the heads of the newly homeless.

There's about as much moral reason to enforce laws against basement apartments as there is to enforcing Georgia's sodomy laws.

em26

remybklyn wrote: I could very easily "inherit" the rent of my dad's rent contolled (not rent stabilized) apartment when he passes, but I won't. Seems greedy to do so.

Dude , your killin' me with that #-o

remybklyn

armchair_warrior wrote: i lived in a illegal basement with my parents for 5 years, you know what it beats living on the streets. Thats what my parents could afford.

I known people that been thrown out of illegal basements cause some jackass "concerned" about people living in basements.

all the self righteousness don't help the guy who can't afford to live in a legal place.

most of my life i hate the so called activist who thinks they know whats better for working class people. they haven't gone one day hungry in their lives sans the dieting.

That's such a dumb blanket statement...activists thinking they know better than the working class. Ummm, a great deal of activists are FROM the working class. My father worked for 28 years as an aircraft mechanic at Eastern Airlines, and then went on strike for 4 years. He sold books on the 7th Avenue to feed us and make rent , and all the while, my mother still found time to counsel tenants on a plethora of issues. Seems they fit the criteria for being both working class and having difficulty feeding their family. Sorry if not everyone involved in activism fits into your negative stereotype.