Section 10.2 of the standard Residential Purchase Contract continues to provide a fertile ground for discussion. On a recent purchase, my new buyers were very concerned that the seller planned to provide an RPR and a letter from the City of Edmonton saying the property was non-conforming. Their email to me said they were worried about buying this non-complying property.

They came into the office, and we sat down and looked at the RPR and the compliance letter from the City. That letter said the property is non-conforming rather than non-complying. Non-conforming is not the same as non-complying.

The distinction is important. A non-conforming property is essentially a 'grandfathered' property. The non-conforming aspect can continue to be used with no requirement to make any changes, especially no requirement to make the property 'comply.' On the other hand, non-complying means some aspect of the property is offside the City's bylaw, and the non-complying element has to be fixed. 

I reviewed the distinction between non-conforming and non-complying, and this is what I told them.

Under section 10.2 of the contract, along with the RPR, the seller has to provide " … evidence of municipal compliance or non-conformance…". Since the City letter says the property is non-conforming, the seller has met their 10.2 contractual obligations.

My clients were relieved. They now understood the difference between non-conforming and non-complying. The garage was the non-conforming issue, and they had no plans to do anything with the garage except leave it alone and use it as is.

Be aware of the differences between complying, non-conforming and non-complying. Explain carefully to your clients whether you are the listing or selling realtor.

Protect yourself.

Cheers,

Barry

I'm taking on new clients. Please consider me and

Field Law when you write your next deal.