The best premises for a beauty salon are those initially designed during construction as non-residential, with two entrances from different sides of the house. At the same time, entire entrance groups can be adjacent to them, including capital (concrete) stairs from the ground surface. Objects of this kind eliminate a number of problems with authorities, residents and HOA.
Recommended articles on this topic:
How to make a business successful
Increasing Sales: Marketing Moves, Psychology and Real Tools
How to establish anti-crisis management at the enterprise
The procedure for ig database converting residential premises into non-residential is established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, and the decision on this is made by the local government. When purchasing an apartment, coordinate the arrangement of a second entrance to it from the street at the same time as converting its status to non-residential premises.
If after talking to the designer you are convinced that it is impossible to organize a second entrance from the street, this means that you will not be able to transfer this premises to the status of non-residential. After all, the law states that it is unacceptable to enter the salon through those premises through which residents enter their apartments (the main entrance).
In accordance with Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, in order to organize a second entrance, you will need to obtain the consent of other owners of the premises if, when carrying out the work, you affect or reduce the common property in the house. An example of such actions is the appropriation of part of a land plot or making a hole in the wall of the house for a second entrance. Obviously, in practice this happens in almost all cases.
However, in order to change the status of a property, the law does not provide for the mandatory provision to authorities of evidence of the consent of the owners of all premises in the building to the reorganization work.
It turns out that even if you agree with the authorities to transfer the apartment to the status of non-residential premises, but do not agree with its reconstruction with all residents, any of them will have the formal right to demand in court that the walls be returned to their original state.
As for the judicial practice on such issues, it is very contradictory. Sometimes the court does not support the side of the residents of the house who challenge such works. It happens that the claim is satisfied, since the house property was changed or reduced without the consent of the residents, and the second entrance to the premises for the beauty salon is decided to be liquidated. In other cases, judges refer to the fact that the wall with the second entrance is intended for the use of only one room in the house, and refuse the plaintiffs' claims. Often, the claim is refused in situations where the reconstructed premises are built-in and attached (protruding beyond the main outline of the building).
The ambiguity of judicial practice is explained by the presence of contradictions in both the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CC RF) and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation regarding the definition of common property of the house. Thus, based on Art. 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, common property includes only load-bearing external walls; and Art. 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation states that common property includes any external walls. If you study the Rules for the Maintenance of Property in an Apartment Building (approved by RF Government Resolution No. 491 of 13.08.2006), you will see that they consider any external load-bearing walls, as well as those serving more than one room, to be common property.