rights for commercial vs. residential zoning

[loftyexpectations]

I live in a loft in northern Brooklyn that is not on the current IMD list. Two floors of this building have been occupied as residential spaces (6 units total) for at least 8-10 years, possibly longer. I do not know, but I am assuming the building is commercially, not residentially zoned. Is there a way for me to find this out? Assuming it is zoned commercial (our gas prices are certainly commercial rates) do we have the same rights as tenants of residentially zoned buildings? As of the last two years, our landlord lives in one of the 6 units in the building. Does this change anything?

[TenantNet]

Where in Northern Brooklyn? Williamsburg? Greenpoint?

[loftyexpectations]

In Greenpoint.

[TenantNet]

Try People's Firehouse in Williamsburg
113 Berry Street
718-388-4696

[cardinalfang]

If a certificate of occupancy ("C of O") exists for the building (which may not be the case if the building was not built or had its use changed after 1937) that document states the legal use of the building. The NYC Department of Buildings website ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/home/home.shtml ) has C of O images online and much other information on building permits, violations, etc.

If the building contains 3 or more dwelling units it is required to be registered as a multiple dwelling. Registration information is available on the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development website ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/pr/violation.shtml ).

A landlord cannot legally collect from a tenant, or recover through a court proceeding, rent or use and occupancy for a residential unit that does not have a residential C of O or that is located in a building that lacks a required multiple dwelling registration. Tenants in these buildings are potentially covered by rent stabilization if, and only if, (1) the building was built before 1974; (2) there are 6 or more dwelling units in the building; and most important, (3) the residential use of the building is legal or capable of being made legal under existing zoning laws (i.e., the building is not in a manufacturing-only district where residential uses are not permitted).

Tenants in illegally converted manufacturing/warehouse buildings should be aware that city departments have the power to issue summary vacate orders and remove tenants without notice from buildings deemed unsafe for occupancy. If you live in illegally converted space, you are doing so at your own risk. The landlord will probably be happy to have you there until the transformation of the neighborhood from a place to work into a place to pay exorbitant rents and prices for luxury loft apartments is complete and your help is no longer needed.

The fact that the landlord lives in one of the residential units might be significant in litigation where the landlord's knowledge of the use of the rented space was significant. A LL that is itself occupying a residential unit would have difficulty claiming that the lease or rental of another unit was to be for commercial or manufacturing use only.

Finally, one right that tenants in converted manufacturing or warehouse buildings have that tenants in other buildings do not have is the right to sue the landlord for damages for harassment (see Real Property Law § 235-d).

[loftyexpectations]

Thank you for your replies they are really helpful.
As far as I've been able to gather from the DOB site, the last Certificate of Occupancy listed on our building is from 1954. Currently our building is listed as a class E3 warehouse in the IBZ. (Even though permits have been issued to install things like multiple boilers, which would lead one to believe there are multiple tenants occupying the building.)

Based on your responses to my questions, 1)my landlord is not required to provide me a lease and 2)without one I am a month to month tenant. 3)This is effectively mute given the fact that he is not legally allowed to collect rent from me for 4)living in a building zoned for commercial use. Due to the fact the building is zoned commercial but is occupied residentially, 5) the DOB could evict us tenants at any point if desired. (In Jan too?)

Given the above facts it seems that the landlord can pretty much do what he wants vis a vis us residential tenants (except collect rent). At the moment he is asking all the residential tenants in the building to leave by the end of the year. (though he has not given us any official kind of official notice- does he have to do that at least, or does the zoning issue void that as well?). Supposedly the landlord wants the building vacated so that some structural repairs can be performed on the property (this is needed), but so far all that has happened is that he has painted the building multiple times and cleaned up debris that has been sitting behind it for three years. To me it seems like he is really selling the building. Do I have no choice but to move?

[jantonellis]

[quote="cardinalfang"]If a certificate of occupancy ("C of O") exists for the building (which may not be the case if the building was not built or had its use changed after 1937) that document states the legal use of the building. The NYC Department of Buildings website ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/home/home.shtml ) has C of O images online and much other information on building permits, violations, etc.

.[/quote]

Hello Everyone. I am new here and my issues are on behalf of my mother-in-law. I quoted the above because it basically just blew my M-I-L's landlords case into thin air. Your link basically drove the final nail into her landlords coffin. You see.....she has been renting the apartment above a store front for the past ten yrs. Just this past month he decides he no longer wants her as a tenant. Could it be she has been filing complaints with 311 about the paint fumes? Oh I'm sorry forgot to mention she lives next to an automotive paint shop whose painting is done below her with inadequate venting and her grandson who lives with her has asthma. So onward I go......he decides to start mediation to effectively remove her and her family from the premises...he wants her out unless she agrees to pay $150 more than the $1100 she pays now. So although she has agreed to move (she's not happy after being grounded for ten yrs)....they are insisting she still pay her rent, they know she is of limited means...if she pays she can't move.....so I did some snooping around THANKS TO THE ABOVE LINK to find that her apartment building is owned by her landlord (duh) but there is no CO for the apartment...which if I am correct the apartment is legal but can only be owner occupied. So if I am right...that means the owner has ten yrs of paid rent of which he didnt claim as rental income. So I have devised a plan...basically bring forth my new found knowledge and have him pay for her 1 month rent and 1 month security for the new place plus 600 for moving expenses. Does anyone have an opinion? I would like for her to reach an agreement before her court date of Sept. 22nd. I do not think that is asking much considering they want her out ,if she does go through with taking him to court....hopefully she would get some of that money back...which I doubt but wishful thinking I guess. Sorry for it being so long...hope someone can advise!