The flat fits, but it is rented. For the planned personal move-in someone gives a simple rule: “After the purchase you can terminate because of personal need (Eigenbedarf).” Before making a decision that statement needs to be specified. In Germany the existing contract, a prior conversion and the local protection framework can decisively influence the planned use. The personal wish to move in is not yet a secured date.
This article considers the private purchase of a rented condominium in Germany. The following constellations serve as editorial orientation; they are not an eviction guide and not a calculation for a specific address.
The starting point: You do not buy an automatically vacancy-free flat
§ 566 Absatz 1 BGB provides, under its conditions, for the transferee’s entry into the landlord’s rights and obligations. [MIETE] The change of ownership therefore does not simply terminate the existing tenancy. For your purchase decision you need the actual tenancy agreement, relevant addenda and the professionally assessed usage situation.
Obtain only the documents needed for the concrete examination. Private details about the residents do not replace a documented contractual situation nor a permissible basis for termination. A casual remark about a “probably soon” move-out will not be recorded as already secured availability.
Constellation one: The flat was already condominium property before the tenancy began
For the temporal basic constellation of § 577a Absatz 1 it is important whether condominium ownership was only established after handover to the tenant and subsequently sold. [SPERRE] Therefore tenancy commencement and the legal establishment of condominium ownership must be kept separate. The age of the building alone does not answer this question.
If the flat had already been established as such beforehand, this does not automatically entail the immediate permissibility of any personal-need termination. In that case a specific temporal requirement of this conversion rule is initially missing. Further statutory and contractual restrictions remain to be examined. A false-positive result “no conversion ban, so you can certainly move in” would be equally problematic for housing planning.
Constellation two: First tenancy, then conversion and sale
If the sequence described applies, § 577a Absatz 1 names a three-year ban for the legitimate interests designated there. Paragraph 2 permits, in areas determined by state ordinance, a period of up to ten years. [SPERRE]
For the specific property the relevant events and the ordinance applicable at the location in question are therefore examined. This article does not claim a current ten-year period for every federal state and not the same period for all municipalities. Nor is the start and any time already elapsed universally derived from your preferred purchase date.
Constellation three: The acquisition is carried out by multiple persons
The examination does not end with a missing classic conversion sequence. § 577a Absatz 1a contains corresponding restrictions for certain disposals or encumbrances in favour of a partnership or several purchasers as well as expressly designated exceptions. [SPERRE]
Anyone buying together should therefore include the actual purchaser constellation in the examination. A private declaration that the process is being treated “like a normal single purchase” does not replace the legal classification. Conversely, not every acquisition by two persons is automatically subject to the same ban.
After a blocking period further requirements remain
§ 573 BGB requires a legitimate interest for an ordinary landlord termination; the provision names, among other things, needed living space for the landlord, his family or his household. [BEDARF] That is not a blanket permission to invoke a merely precautionary claimed need.
Moreover § 574 BGB can, under its conditions, allow a hardship objection with a demand for continuation. [HAERTE] A possible blocking period, a ground for termination and the further processing are therefore different stages. The article therefore does not set individual termination periods nor the outcome of a balancing exercise.
The hypothetical purchase comparison: What timetable can you bear?
Tarek needs a flat for his own household within the foreseeable future. In offer A the tenancy history is unclear. Offer B is more expensive, but the actual usage situation is different. He therefore does not compare the two offers solely by purchase price.
Our recommendation: For offer A the concrete examination of tenancy commencement, conversion, acquisition and local regulation is carried out first. In parallel Tarek includes his still-needed own accommodation in the payment plan. If he cannot bear an as-yet unspecified personal use, this open point will not be obscured by an optimistic date.
The professionally assessed availability thus becomes the essential purchase basis. A rented flat can be a suitable offer. For the later personal move-in, however, the documented legal and factual situation counts, not just the hope of a quick handover of keys.