Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-04-07
A PARTY WALL PROBLEM.
The Right Of an Owner to Build En-
tirely Within His Own Lot Questioned.

Recently the Commissioners had submitted
to them for decision . question Of considerable
interest concerning the subject Of party walls.
A man was about TO erect . dwelling and
wanted information concerning the use Of a
party wall which was wholly within its own lot
Inspector Entwisie, in passing upon the case,
said, after quoting the law, that the whole
thing resolved itself into question whether
the first builder has the privilege of locating o
wall At the survey line entirely On his own lot
He suggested the reference OF the subject
to the attorney for the District for his views
Assistant Attorney Thomas had the matter in
charge and today reported ~ follows:
The right Of = lot owner in this city when
he builds to erect one-half of the wall between
himself and his peighbor on the adjoining lot
Is an easement running with the land The
right OF the building owner to encroach on the
sd}oinins lot. or in other words 10
avail himself Of the privilege of Q party
wall, 10 derived from Q clause in the con-
veyance between the original proPrietors
and Beall and CAN'T, commissioner TO lay OF
the city, which declared the property should
De subject to such terms and conditions 40
snail De thought reasonable by the President
Tor the time being for regulating the materials
ana manner OF the buildings and improvements
on the lots generally in the said city or in par
tlc1lar streets or parts thereof, for common
convenience, safety and order, provided such
terms and conditions be declared before the
sale Of any OF the said lota' (webb's Digest
56.)
Under the above provision President Wash
ington before the sale of any OF the lots. on
the llth OF October, 1871, promulgated various
buldlpg regulations, among which was 'Regu-
lation No. l. In regard to party walls See D.
IL of the present building regulations
while the wall In question is not strictly q
party wall, Mr.. - might yet be entitled to
treat il as such and insert his beams into it, Il
has been held in Pennsylvania, in q case which
arose in Philadelphia (Milne's appeal, 81 Penn
St, 81, where they have q regulation like
the one IN question. and from whence. as You
may know, our old building regulations came.
that where one builds the foundation for Q
party wall partly on his own land and partly
on his neighbors he cannot prevent the wall
from being party wall by building il wholly
upon his own land. To the same effect Is the
later case of the appeal of the Western Bank
(l02 Penn. St.. I'D.
The adjoining owner by not encroaching on
the lot owned by Nh. when he built the
house simply obstructed Mr.. in the en-
joyment OF an easement appurtenant to his
lot, but has not destroyed that easement. Mr..
may either treat the wall as party wall
on the principle Of the Pennsylvania cases, or
he may ask a court Of equity to compel the re-
moval OF the obstruction.
Il have, therefore, to advise you that the
question presented is one for the courts,
where Mr.. - should seek his remedy, unless
he can come to some agreement
in the future, think, for the
inspector of buildings before granting
a permit to build to satisfy himself that the
building owner intends to erect party wall
when one does not exist. and thus avoid the
loss of ground and the unnecessary expense of
building an additional wall in such cases as
this" The report of the attorney has been APP
proved by the COMMISSIONER