Storage Room Turned Into a “Garden Apartment” Without Permits Ruled Illegal

In Herzliya, a dispute arose after the owner of a ground-floor storage room converted it into a “garden apartment,” complete with kitchen, bathroom, and private yard fittings, without permits or the consent of fellow residents. The neighbors argued that the transformation violated the condominium bylaw, burdened the building’s infrastructure, and harmed their property rights. The Land Registry Supervisor agreed, ruling that while a unit labeled “storage” is not automatically restricted to that use, the physical conversion into a dwelling without authorization constitutes a clear proprietary infringement. The owner was ordered to cease residential use and remove unauthorized alterations.

Edited by Adv. Avihou ben Zacher, with the assistance of intern Ofir Madmoni

Background – What Is a Condominium Bylaw?

A condominium bylaw is a legal document that regulates the rights and obligations of the apartment owners in a building, the use of the common property, and the manner in which decisions are made. When no customized, agreed bylaw is registered for the building, the “Standard Bylaw” set out in the addendum to the Real Estate Law applies. Among other things, this bylaw provides that an owner may not make a change to their apartment that harms other apartments or the common property unless all owners consent. If the owners wish to deviate from the provisions of the Standard Bylaw, they must adopt an agreed bylaw, which must be signed and duly registered.

In this brief, we review a decision of the Land Registry Supervisor in a dispute concerning violation of a condominium bylaw and the unauthorized use of a storage room for residential purposes.

Case Facts

In a residential building in the city of Herzliya, comprising eight apartments and one storage room on the ground floor, severe disagreements broke out among the residents. The owner of the storage unit began using it as a dwelling, including installing a kitchen and toilet and connecting it to water, electricity, and sewer infrastructure, while damaging the existing infrastructure. Beyond that, he tiled the parking space adjacent to the unit, placed a table, chairs, and other equipment there, installed an awning, connected a sewer downpipe, laid synthetic grass, and put up a bamboo fence. All of this, according to the residents, amounted to taking control of parts of the shared yard without legal authorization and despite the storage room being defined in the land registry (Tabu) as a storage unit only. In practice, he turned the storage room into a kind of “garden apartment.”

The apartment owners argued that this was a prohibited use carried out contrary to the provisions of the agreed bylaw and without obtaining their consent, as required under section 2 of the Standard Bylaw. In their view, the changes made to the room harmed the value of their apartments, overloaded the building’s infrastructure, and added a de facto dwelling unit to the building. In addition, the changes, as well as the use of the storage unit for residence, were being carried out without a building permit as required by law.

In response, the storage room owner contended that there was no infringement of the other owners’ property rights; that all use was made within his own property and in a reasonable manner; and that he had submitted an application for a “variance” (nonconforming use) under planning and building laws. He added that the dispute stemmed from personal motives of the residents, who sought to drive him out of the building, and that he paid municipal tax (arnona) in accordance with residential use.

He further argued that the Land Registry Supervisor lacked jurisdiction to hear claims concerning nonconforming use of a storage unit, asserting that such authority rests solely with the competent planning authorities.

Decision

The Land Registry Supervisor accepted the residents’ position and held that the conversion of the storage unit into a dwelling was carried out contrary to the Standard Bylaw and constituted an infringement of the proprietary rights of the other apartment owners, even absent an explicit restriction in the agreed bylaw. Although the storage unit is defined as a “dira” (unit) under the Real Estate Law and there is no explicit restriction in the agreed bylaw, the physical changes made and the de facto addition of a dwelling unit impose an extra load on the building’s infrastructure. Moreover, the conversion for residential use was undertaken without the consent of all owners in the building and without a suitable permit from the planning authorities. Accordingly, an order was issued prohibiting the owner from using the storage unit for residence.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction – Proprietary, Not Planning

The defendant, the storage unit owner, argued that the matter was purely a planning issue and thus outside the Supervisor’s jurisdiction. The Supervisor held that the dispute directly implicated the provisions of the bylaw, infringed the proprietary rights of the other owners, and involved unlawful use of common property; therefore, it fell squarely within his jurisdiction. Even if there is a planning violation, the core concern here is the infringement of property rights, not the planning variance per se. The Land Registry Supervisor indeed lacks authority to adjudicate planning matters. However, where the issue concerns property law alone, the matter is within his jurisdiction.

Designation as “Storage Room” – Not a Restriction in Itself

The Supervisor clarified that the mere fact the unit is designated as a machsan (storage room) in the bylaw and in the registration order does not, in itself, restrict its use to storage. Any restriction on use must appear as a clear, explicit provision in the bylaw. An implied or general interpretation is insufficient to curtail a property right.

What Does Control the Outcome? The Actual Changes

What tipped the scales was the real-world impact of the conversion: connections to utilities, installation of a toilet and kitchen, separate water consumption — all of these turned the storage room into an actual apartment. Such an addition, without permits and without the owners’ consent, constitutes a serious infringement of their rights, of the common property, and of the value of the apartments. This is a clear proprietary violation justifying an order forbidding residential use.

The Supervisor also ordered removal of the unlawful tiling in the parking space that had been converted into a hospitality area; removal of the awning that harmed the appearance and uniformity of the building’s façade; disconnection of the sewer pipe installed without authorization; and removal of the synthetic grass and bamboo fence — all of which were intended to appropriate possession of the common yard. By contrast, general use of the parking space was not prohibited, since the bylaw imposed no restriction on such use and the Supervisor lacks authority to adjudicate nuisances or purely planning aspects. In other words, no “nonconforming use” of the parking space can be banned so long as the area used does not exceed its boundaries.

Conclusion

The decision underscores a core principle of Israeli property law: rights are not determined merely by the facts on the ground, but by the registration and its conformity with law and the bylaw. A storage room, so long as its registration has not been duly changed and no bylaw amendment has been agreed, remains a storage room even if it is actually inhabited.

Converting a storage room into an apartment is not only a question of convenience or de facto use, but of registration, law, and consent. Proprietary rights in an apartment are recorded in the Condominium Register, and any change requires approvals and consents under law. De facto use is not enough to change a property’s legal status or the rights in it.

(Citation: Land Registry Supervisor (Netanya) 64-23 Biran Mordechai v. Natan Ariel)