Light and Air Legal Requirements in New York City
A general overview of requirements for legal light and air applicable to residential use in New York City.
July 02, 2018 at 02:30 PM
5 minute read
James P. Power of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel. As a general matter, every “living room” in a residential unit must have a legal window, i.e. , a window through which required light and air is provided. A living room is, generally, any habitable room other than a small kitchen or dinette, bathroom, foyer or hallway. Legal windows may, of course, open directly on the street or on a setback portion of a building facing the street. Otherwise, per Zoning Resolution Section 23-861, there must be at least 30 feet of open area between a legal window and an opposite wall or a rear or side lot line. That distance is measured “in a horizontal plane at the sill level of, and perpendicular to, such window for the full width of the rough window opening.” Other regulations under the Zoning Resolution track the 30-foot minimum window distance requirement. For example, the required rear yard for residential use is generally 30 feet, and the minimum dimension of an inner court is also generally 30 feet. A legal window can open upon such a rear yard or court with a 30-foot dimension. The Zoning Resolution allows a reduction of the rear yard requirement for certain unusually shallow lots, and a legal window is permitted to open upon such a rear yard if it is as little as 20 feet in depth. However, while a reduction of the minimum inner court dimension is available in other situations, a legal window is not permitted to open upon such a substandard inner court. The 30 feet of open area must be provided on the same zoning lot, i.e. , either on the same lot as the building itself or, where there is a merged zoning lot, over another parcel on the merged zoning lot. Thus, although developers generally focus on zoning lot mergers and the associated zoning lot development agreements (ZLDAs) as means of acquiring excess development rights, they can also provide the additional benefit of establishing legal light and air over the adjoining parcel. The benefits of light and air easements are many—they ensure that views will be protected into the future, they allow for the establishment of legal bedrooms on a facade where they might not otherwise be permitted, and the right to legal windows can often enhance the layout of a unit or a floor. However, the right to legal light and air is not automatic on a merged zoning lot. The ZLDA should explicitly provide for a light and easement over the adjoining parcel, and should require that the owner of the adjoining parcel deliver the easement in a separate form document, as required by Department of Buildings. This minimum distance requirement may be waived by the Board of Standards and Appeals through a variance pursuant to Zoning Resolution Section 72-71, or through certain special permits under the jurisdiction of the City Planning Commission. However, the minimum distance requirement is considered an important requirement for residential occupancy, and BSA and CPC will generally only consider a waiver if the applicant can show that the proposed light and air condition is otherwise sufficient. For example, we have been successful in obtaining waivers of this requirement where less than 30 feet is provided to the lot line, but additional open area is provided by easement over an adjoining parcel on a different zoning lot. MDL Section 277 also allows the DOB to waive the otherwise applicable requirements for conversions of nonresidential buildings, and DOB has on occasion allowed legal windows where there is only a minimal distance between the window and the lot line but the light and air condition is otherwise sufficient, e.g., where the light and air is protected by an easement over the adjacent parcel on a different zoning lot. Under the MDL, legal windows are subject to various other requirements, including standards for the size of the window relative to the size and depth of the room for which light and air is provided. Every window must be at least 12 square feet, and the windows in every room must have a total area of at least one-tenth the floor surface area of the room. No room may extend in depth more than 30 feet from a legal window. And windows must be constructed so that at least one half of their required area may be opened, except that this requirement may be reduced if mechanical ventilation is provided. A building's exterior wall openings, i.e. , its windows, are also subject to fire separation and other requirements under the Building Code and interpretive DOB bulletins and memoranda. James P. Power is a partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel representing clients in real estate development and land-use matters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250