Contact 
LEXIKON
On the boundary distance of underground garage ramps in the building permit process
Last year, our law firm represented the building applicant in a building permit procedure, which was decided in January 2025 by a ruling of the Styrian Provincial Administrative Court. This procedure concerned (among other things) the application of the distance regulations of the Styrian Building Act (Stmk. BauG) to a planned underground parking ramp.
Initial situation
The building applicant planned to construct a residential and commercial building with an underground car park on his property. The exit to the underground car park was designed as a covered underground car park ramp. The underground parking ramp was planned between the front of the planned main building and the property line of the complaining neighbor and was not to be connected to the main building. A corresponding distance was therefore planned between the main building and the underground parking ramp. The plans showed a distance of less than 2 m to the neighbor’s property line.
From a structural engineering perspective, the underground parking ramp was assessed as a protruding component of the underground parking level and, due to its predominantly closed, tube-like design, had building characteristics within the meaning of § 4 Z 29 Stmk. BauG (Styrian Building Act). The ramp thus had its own building front facing the neighboring property line. It was therefore necessary to examine whether and, if so, which distance regulations of the Stmk. BauG apply to the underground parking ramp.
Building distance – boundary distance
According to § 13 (1) Stmk. BauG, buildings must either be constructed directly adjacent to each other or must be separated by a sufficient distance. If two buildings are not constructed directly adjacent to each other, the distance between them must be at least equal to the sum of the number of floors on both sides, plus 4 (building distance). Section 13 (2) Stmk. BauG also stipulates that any building front that is not erected directly on a neighboring boundary must be at least as many meters away from it as the number of floors plus 2 (boundary distance).
Decision of the LVwG
In the present case, the primary issue to be examined was the boundary distance, as the building located on the neighboring property was in any case far enough away. In this context, it was necessary to clarify in advance whether or not the underground garage ramp constituted a floor that could be taken into account. Section 13(4) of the Stmk. BauG stipulates that floors in the respective building front are those that have a minimum room height of 2.10 m and whose outer wall surface is on average at least 1.50 m above the natural terrain. Since there was no unusual floor division within the meaning of § 13 (6) Stmk. BauG in the present case, the legal assessment could be limited to the provision of § 13 (4) Stmk. BauG.
Conclusion
The evidence presented in the proceedings showed that the floor-related exterior wall area of the underground parking ramp within the meaning of Section 13 (4) Stmk. BauG (Styrian Building Act) on the building front facing the neighbor’s property is on average approximately 1 m (and thus less than 1.5 m) above the natural terrain. According to the Stmk. BauG, there is therefore no chargeable floor in this building front. Based on this, the question was raised in the proceedings as to whether a boundary distance of 2 m or no boundary distance at all must be maintained from the underground parking ramp, which does not constitute a floor within the meaning of the Stmk. BauG. Unfortunately, the court did not have to answer this question, as the neighbor’s complaint was unsuccessful for other reasons. Based on the wording of the relevant provisions of the Stmk. BauG, however, we believe that in this particular case, in which a solitary underground parking ramp was to be assessed, no boundary distance needs to be maintained, especially since there is no floor that would require a distance to be maintained. The Styrian Provincial Administrative Court had already made a similar decision in the past, which supports this assumption (LVwG Steiermark 28.08.2018, LVwG 50.14-2263/2017). A different assessment would mean that every structure with building characteristics that protrudes even a few centimeters above the natural terrain would have to comply with a boundary distance. However, the proceedings we have conducted have shown that there are different views on this issue within the competent authorities and courts. It therefore remains to be seen what the highest court will rule.